Skip to content
Law Society of Scotland
Search
Find a Solicitor
Contact us
About us
Sign in
Search
Find a Solicitor
Contact us
About us
Sign in
  • For members

    • For members

    • CPD & Training

    • Membership and fees

    • Rules and guidance

    • Regulation and compliance

    • Journal

    • Business support

    • Career growth

    • Member benefits

    • Professional support

    • Lawscot Wellbeing

    • Lawscot Sustainability

  • News and events

    • News and events

    • Law Society news

    • Blogs & opinions

    • CPD & Training

    • Events

  • Qualifying and education

    • Qualifying and education

    • Qualifying as a Scottish solicitor

    • Career support and advice

    • Our work with schools

    • Lawscot Foundation

    • Funding your education

    • Social mobility

  • Research and policy

    • Research and policy

    • Research

    • Influencing the law and policy

    • Equality and diversity

    • Our international work

    • Legal Services Review

    • Meet the Policy team

  • For the public

    • For the public

    • What solicitors can do for you

    • Making a complaint

    • Client protection

    • Find a Solicitor

    • Frequently asked questions

    • Your Scottish solicitor

  • About us

    • About us

    • Contact us

    • Who we are

    • Our strategy, reports and plans

    • Help and advice

    • Our standards

    • Work with us

    • Our logo and branding

    • Equality and diversity

  1. Home
  2. News and events
  3. Blogs & opinions
  4. Should council have appealed permanence order refusal?

Should council have appealed permanence order refusal?

20th February 2018 | family-child law

In determining the paramount welfare considerations in cases concerning children who are the subject of permanence and adoption proceedings, to what extent are practical considerations tied in to the necessity test, and the need to take a holistic approach to determining a child’s welfare?

In an appeal by North Lanarkshire Council against the refusal of the sheriff to make a permanence order even where the threshold test had been satisfied, senior counsel submitted there was a gap in the sheriff’s reasoning when, in refusing the application, the sheriff had not considered, amongst other things, where the child would live, who would exercise parental responsibilities and rights, or whether being in long term fostering, rather than part of a stable family unit, was conducive to the child’s welfare.

In rejecting the appeal points, which the Sheriff Appeal Court said amounted to “little more than finding points of criticism”, the court once again took the opportunity to launch a withering attack on social work practice for having “deployed scarce resources on this appeal when such resources would have been better directed to… rebuilding and preservation of family ties”. Contrast, perhaps, the English decision in A Local Authority v G (Parent with Learning Disability) (Rev 1) [2017] EWFC B94 (18 December 2017), where it was emphasised that even where there were criticisms of social work practice, “all the professionals did their best” and social work support cannot become “substituted parenting”.

North Lanarkshire Council v KR [2017] SAC (Civ) 38 (15 December 2017)

 

Add To Favorites
Law Society of Scotland
Atria One, 144 Morrison Street
Edinburgh
EH3 8EX
If you’re looking for a solicitor, visit FindaSolicitor.scot
T: +44(0) 131 226 7411
E: lawscot@lawscot.org.uk
About us
  • Contact us
  • Who we are
  • Strategy reports plans
  • Help and advice
  • Our standards
  • Work with us
Useful links
  • Find a Solicitor
  • Sign in
  • CPD & Training
  • Rules and guidance
  • Website terms and conditions
Law Society of Scotland | © 2025
Made by Gecko Agency Limited