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.

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.




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.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights 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 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: