Child Protection And Childrens Hearings Flashcards
Z v United Kingdom 2002 34 EHRR
European court of human rights found a violation of art 3 due to failure of state authorities to remove children from neglectful parents
Authority in this case were aware but did very little to intervene
Olsson v Sweden (no 1) 1988 11 EHRR 359
European court found violation of art 8
Child removed from parent and placed in foster home hundreds of miles away from family home
Made contact impossible
Made ultimate aim of reunion unlikely
KA v Finland (2003) 1 FLR 696
European court held might not always be possible or desirable to include parents in decisions
Where they impose danger or run to child
Crossan v south Lanarkshire council 2006 SLT 441
Court held this provision amounts to general duty to provide services to needy children
Not obliged to provide specific services, falls within LA discretion
In practice this includes advice, assistance, providing childcare
The Christian Institute and others (Appellants) v The Lord Advocate (Respondent) (Scotland) [2016] UKSC 51
Uk Supreme Court held that ‘named person’ does not amount to violation of art 8, as can be justified on welfare of the child
NJ v Lord Advocate [2013] CSOH 27
Challenge brought by two mothers who’s children had been removed upon birth
Child protection order for both children on an x party basis (they weren’t present at court, still recovering in hospital)
Mothers didn’t have opportunity to participate in decision making process
Court held thy violation of birth mothers art 8 right
Unless there was immediate risk to baby it cannot he justified, Court said there was no immediate risk to these babies as they were safe in hospital
O v Rae 1993 SLT 570
Involved family of four children referred to children’s hearing
Child’s father had committed sexual offence against one of the children
Allegation was deleted frkm ground of referral report
Although it had been deleted it was indirectly referred to during one of the report submitted to the children’s hearing
They made compulsory supervision orders
Father appealed against the order
Hearing was entitled to consider the sexual offence because they have the right to cover any matter thats is to do with the children’s welfare p
Principal reporter v K 2010 UKSC 56
Uk Supreme Court held that relevant person definition contrary to article 8
Unmarried father wanted to participate in children’s hearings set up for the child
He didn’t fit the definition so could not participate
He also didn’t have PRR (before may 20??)
Hearing has power to interfere with civil rights, could affect family life with his child
ABC v Principle reporter 2018 CSOH 81
Older sibling child removed from family home wanted to participate in hearing
Did not satisfy relevant person definition nor could she show significant involvement in child’s upbringing
But she did have family life with child in ECHR terms
Court of session held relevant person scheme was incompatible with art 8 ECHR
