(Extra Division) The court rejected an argument that sections 84(3) and (4) had a particular core status. It said that subsections (3), (4) and (5) impose separate requirements, all of which have a bearing on whether a permanence order should be made. Lord Bonomy, giving the opinion of the court, stated at para 13:
‘It is . . difficult to envisage circumstances in which a court, faced with an application for a permanence order, would not first of all address the factors that arise under subsection (5)(c), in this case paragraph (c)(ii), and any other matters arising under subsection (5), always bearing in mind the requirement of subsection (4) to regard the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child throughout childhood as the paramount consideration, and only then consider the application of the ‘no order principle’ in subsection (3), again keeping subsection (4) in mind.’
Judges:
Lord Bonomy
Citations:
2013 SC 108, 2012 GWD 14-284, 2012 Fam LR 91, [2012] ScotCS CSIH – 37
Links:
Statutes:
Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
Cited by:
Cited – Re EV (A Child) SC 1-Mar-2017
Appeal from application for permanence order. EV had been in care from her birth. Her parents, each with long standing learning difficulties opposed the order.
Held: The Court allowed the parents’ appeals. The meeting of the threshold test was . .
Cited – Re EV (A Child) SC 1-Mar-2017
Appeal from application for permanence order. EV had been in care from her birth. Her parents, each with long standing learning difficulties opposed the order.
Held: The Court allowed the parents’ appeals. The meeting of the threshold test was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Adoption
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.452662
