(Second Division, Inner House) The primary source of the local authority’s concerns in relation to the child arose from what the Lord Ordinary described as ‘perceived concerns about the behaviour of [the father]’. The first concern, of particular importance to the local authority, related to ‘criminal charges of alleged sexual conduct . . brought in England in 2010’. The Lord Ordinary did not explain what those charges were. Whatever they may have been, they were dropped within a short period of being made, because the complainant had given inconsistent and contradictory accounts. The police did not pass the case to the Crown Prosecution Service. It appears that the complainant was a vulnerable female person who suffered from learning difficulties. According to the father’s affidavit, she was a friend of his who had wanted to have a sexual relationship with him. He had not been interested. She then made allegations to the police that he had raped her. This court has been informed that they were both aged about 19 at the time. The Lord Ordinary narrates that he heard evidence from a police officer that the father had given a statement in which he accepted that he had had consensual sex with the complainant. The father also gave evidence before the Lord Ordinary. He accepted that he had said what was recorded in the statement, but denied that it was true.
Having narrated this evidence, and expressed reservations about the evidence given by the father in relation to this matter, the Lord Ordinary stated: ‘In these circumstances it appears to me to be established on the balance of probabilities that the concerns harboured by the petitioners in relation to the [father’s]’s sexual proclivities were justified. In arriving at that conclusion I should make it clear that I am making no finding in relation to whether or not the sexual allegations made in 2010 were true or not. The relevancy or otherwise of these allegations is not a matter for me, nor have I heard any evidence in relation to the relevancy of these matters. My finding is confined to concluding that, notwithstanding the lack of any criminal conviction, there was material available to the petitioners at the time of the child EV’s birth relative to the [father]’s behaviour towards vulnerable females which they could not ignore and were required to have consideration of when formulating a policy or plan towards the ongoing care of the child EV.’
Judges:
Lady Dorrian, Lord Justice Clerk
Citations:
[2016] ScotCS CSIH – 60, 2016 Fam LR 134, 2017 SCLR 304, 2016 GWD 25-463
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
Cited by:
Appeal from – 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.
Children
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.568782