Scottish Human Rights Law Group

The Sheriff upheld an appeal against a decision of the Children’s Hearing to exclude the unmarried father of a child who was made subject by the Hearing to a supervision order which provided for no contact between the father and the child.   The Sheriff observed that the father in this case was a “relevant person” who had a right to be heard by a Children’s Hearing not (simply) because of the mere biological fact that person was the child’s father but because a earlier court order had expressly allowed him contact with his child on an interim basis. It was this contact order which provided the legal link between the father and his son relevant for the purposes of engaging article 8.   On that basis his inability to participate in the Children’s Hearing’s decisions about his son – whether because he was denied access to the proceedings, or did not know they exist, or could not prepare for lack of papers, or was not allowed to attend – also constituted a breach of his fair trial rights under article 6.    And the fact that the children’s hearing proceeded to make a decision about his family life in his absence, resulted in a breach of his Article 8 rights.

Full report available here.