Appeal In Terms Of Section 154 Of The Children's Hearings (scotland) Act 2011 By Cm Against A Decision Of The Children's Hearings At Kirkintilloch On 22 March 2017 In Respect Of Ab And Bb
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Sheriff Aisha Y Anwar |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] SC GLA 58 |
| Court | Sheriff Court |
| Docket Number | B959/17 |
| Date | 13 September 2017 |
| Published date | 19 September 2017 |
SHERIFFDOM OF GLASGOW AND STRATHKELVIN AT GLASGOW
[2017] SC GLA 58
B959/17
NOTE BY SHERIFF A Y ANWAR
Appeal in terms of section 154 of the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011
by
CM
Appellant
Against a decision of the Children’s Hearings at Kirkintilloch on 22 March 2017 in respect of
AB & BB
Glasgow, 13 September 2017
INTRODUCTION
[1] The appellant is the mother of AB, aged 14 and BB, aged 13 (“the children”). The
appellant appealed against decisions of a children’s hearing dated 22 March 2017, in respect
of each child, under section 154 of the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 (“the Act”).
The appeals were heard together. The appeals are treated as one appeal for the purposes of
this note.
[2] At the hearing on the appeal, the appellant was represented by Mr Allison.
Mr Mobbs represented the Principal Reporter. Mr B, the father, appeared and was
unrepresented. Ms Black, the safeguarder, was also in attendance.
[3] On 13 July 2017, I refused the appeal and confirmed the decisions of the children’s
hearings dated 22 March 2017.
2
[4] Mr B moved the court to have the appellant deemed a frivolous and vexatious
litigant in terms of section 159 of the Act. As there had been no prior intimation of the
motion, a hearing was assigned for 9 August 2017 to consider the motion.
[5] At the hearing on 9 August 2017, on behalf of the Reporter, Mr Mobbs conjoined in
Mr B’s motion. The safeguarder was not present. Mr Sturdy appeared on behalf of the
appellant.
BACKGROUND
[6] Grounds of Referral were established at Glasgow Sheriff Court on 7 January 2013 in
respect of the children and their elder brother, CB (who is now 17). Put shortly, the
established supporting facts narrate (a) that the appellant suffers from “extremely high
stress levels” which have impacted upon her ability to provide stability and security for the
children; (b) that since the relationship between the appellant and Mr B ended in 2005, the
appellant has, on occasions used the children against Mr B which has been “emotionally
distressing” for the children by, for example, (i) refusing to allow Mr B contact with the
children and (ii) leaving the children with Mr B without notice for extended periods on a
number of occasions; and (c) that the appellant’s chastisement of the children has, on
occasions, been inappropriate. The statement of facts narrate that the acrimonious
relationship between the appellant and Mr B continues to impact the children.
[7] On 27 March 2013 a Compulsory Supervision Order (“CSO”) was made as a result of
which, the children were placed in Mr B’s care. No measure of contact was made, in order
to allow contact to operate flexibly. On 20 May 2013, the CSO was varied to include a
measure of contact between the appellant and the children (including CB) for a period of
To continue reading
Request your trial