Unmarried father should have been included in child’s hearing in Scotland, say Supreme Court

15 December 2010 by

Principal Reporter (Respondent) v K (Appellant) and others (Scotland) [2010] UKSC 56 – Read judgment / press summary

The Supreme Court has ruled that Scottish law, which previously did not give unmarried fathers the right to  take part in a hearing relating to a child with whom they have established family ties, is incompatible with human rights law.

The statutory provision which defines the categories of people who have a right to take part in the hearings must be read to include anyone who has established family life with the child. The Human Rights Act empowers courts to “read” legislation in such a way as to give effect to the European Convention on Human Rights.

The decision was unanimous and a single judgment was given by Lord Hope and Lady Hale. The following is based on the Supreme Court press summary. Our analysis is to follow:

This is a case about the rights of unmarried fathers to take part in children’s hearings under Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. It raises two distinct issues. The first concerns the kind of order made in the sheriff court which would be effective to give a father the right to take part in the children’s hearing. The second concerns the compatibility of the statutory scheme for participation in the children’s hearing with the rights of the father (and indeed the child) under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The appellant K is an unmarried father. He formed a relationship with JR. They cohabited and had a child, L, born in May 2002, whose birth they registered together. Their relationship subsequently broke down. After the separation, K continued to have contact with L, and was involved with her hospital appointments until at least September 2003.

In about May 2004, K raised proceedings in the sheriff court seeking full parental responsibilities and parental rights and a contact order. An interim order for weekly overnight stays was made. In December 2005, JR alleged that K had abused L. In March 2006, the local authority’s social work services department referred the case to the Principal Reporter on the ground that L was in need of compulsory measures of supervision.

There were children’s hearings in June and July and in August the sheriff deemed the grounds of referral proved and remitted the case to the children’s hearing.

Not a “relevant person”

K, however, was not entitled to attend any of these hearings as he was not a ‘relevant person’ within the meaning of section 93(2)(b) of the 1995 Act. At a child welfare hearing on 27 October 2006, the sheriff made an order granting K “parental rights and responsibilities to the extent that he becomes a relevant person in the children’s referral”. Thereafter K attended the children’s hearings. In August 2007, the hearing imposed a condition of no contact between K and L. In January 2009 K appealed against the continuation of this condition. The Principal Reporter then challenged the sheriff’s order in the Court of Session on the ground that it was incompetent.

On 27 March 2009, the Lord Ordinary suspended the sheriff’s order of 27 October 2006. On 21 January 2010 the First Division refused K’s appeal and his application for a declaration of incompatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Section 11(1) of the 1995 Act provides that the sheriff court may make an order in relation to parental responsibilities and parental rights. Subsection (7) provides that in considering whether to make an order under subsection (1), the court shall regard the welfare of the child as its paramount consideration, shall not make an order unless it would be better for the child to do so, and, where practicable, shall ascertain the child’s views. These considerations are referred to as the ‘overarching principles’. Section 93(2)(b) defines ‘relevant person’ as a person (including a parent) with parental responsibilities or parental rights or who appears to be a person who ordinarily has charge of, or control over, the child.

Unanimous decision to allow K’s appeal

The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal. Lord Hope and Lady Hale give the judgment of the Court. The Court holds that the sheriff’s order of 27 October 2006 was not incompetent and so recalls the First Division’s interlocutor and dismisses the petition.

The Court also declares that section 93(2)(b)(c) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 should be read so as to include the words “or who appears to have established family life with the child with which the decision of a children’s hearing may interfere”. The Court makes a finding that K is a “relevant person” within the meaning of section 93(2)(b)(c) as so read.

Reasons for the judgment

The Court notes that the case raises a fundamental issue about fairness. Neither in July nor in August 2006 did K have the opportunity to refute the allegations in the grounds of referral. This is contrary to one of the fundamental rules of natural justice, the right to be heard. [14]

The order of 27 October 2006 was competently pronounced. The order was one which the sheriff had power to grant under section 11(1) of the 1995 Act. The defect in the order is one of specification, not of substance. While it would have been better if the sheriff had expressly referred to the relevant provisions of the 1995 Act and to the relevant parental responsibilities and rights, and to the fact that participation in the children’s hearing set the limits for the exercise of those responsibilities and rights, the order was not incompetent because he did not do so. [24] – [28]

There was not a sound basis for the First Division’s view that the sheriff failed to apply the overarching principles. Such evidence as there is suggests that the very experienced sheriff had these principles in mind throughout the hearing. In any event, failure to apply the correct principles when making an order, while it may be a ground of appeal, would not normally render the order incompetent. [31]

A parent (or other person) whose family life with the child is at risk in the proceedings must be afforded a proper opportunity to take part in the decision-making process. As currently constituted the children’s hearing system violated the article 8 rights of K (and indeed of L) and risks violating the rights of others in the same situation. The children’s hearing has to have the best and most accurate information that it can in order to make the best decisions about the child. The only justification advanced for excluding a father unless and until he secures a parental responsibilities and parental rights order from the sheriff court is to ensure that only persons who can make a meaningful contribution to the hearing are present. However, it is difficult to see how excluding a father such as K can possibly be proportionate to that aim. All fathers registered since 4 May 2006 are entitled to be present. Further, when the alleged grounds for referring the child consist almost entirely of allegations against the father, it cannot possibly be legitimate to exclude him for the purpose of restricting the numbers. [39] – [48]

The incompatibility with Article 8 can be cured by inserting the words “or who appears to have established family life with the child with which the decision of a children’s hearing may interfere” into section 93(2)(b)(c) of the 1995 Act. [69]

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Read more:

1 comment;

  1. scottish lawyer says:

    As a Scots Law solicitor dealing with Children’s Hearing cases on a daily basis, I am delighted with the decision.

    It has long been a concern that an unmarried father who is without parental responsibilities/rights was not considered “a relevant person” when proceedings commenced in the Children’s Hearing. Not only was there no right to attend a hearing which had the power to remove the child into foster care, there was no right of appeal against any decision, including one to deprive the father of all contact with the child.

    As examples of the difficulties: A drug addict/sexually abusive mother who had not seen the child for years had the right to attend hearings and appeal decisions.

    A father imprisoned for murdering his wife (the mother) and attempting to murder the child would have the right to attend and appeal.

    An unmarried father who had cared well for a child for many years had no right to attend or appeal if he was separated from the mother at the time of the hearing (even if exercising residential contact). This would be so even if the reason for child protection concerns related to the failings of the mother.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: