Petitions Of Glasgow City Council For Permanence Orders Re Alpn And Bpn Against Rn And Bf
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lady Wise |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] CSOH 25 |
| Date | 14 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | AD8/18 |
| Court | Court of Session |
| Published date | 14 March 2019 |
OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION
[2019] CSOH 25
AD8/18
AD9/18
OPINION OF LADY WISE
In the petitions of
GLASGOW CITY COUNCIL
Petitioner
for
Permanence Orders in respect of two children AN and BF
against
RN
Respondent
and
BF
Minuter
Petitioner: Inglis; Glasgow City Council (Edinburgh Court Services)
Respondent: Guinnane; Balfour + Manson LLP (for Rutherford Sheridan Ltd)
Minuter: Aitken; MBS Solicitors
14 March 2019
Introduction
[1] This is a single opinion in respect of two applications for Permanence Orders both at
the instance of Glasgow City Council. I intend to give the children involved names that do
2
not correspond to names on their birth certificates but that give them an identity as
individuals for the purpose of this opinion. They are both boys. The elder boy is 11 years old
and I will name him Andrew. The younger boy is 9 and a half years old and I will refer to
him as Barry. They are both children of the respondent to whom I will refer as RN or the
respondent. RN has had four children in total, her first child (GN) was never in her care and
has long since been adopted. Andrew and Barry are the middle children and have different
fathers, neither of whom has been involved in these proceedings. Barry’s father, to whom I
will refer as Mr BF or Barry’s father, was involved in his son’s life for a period, in
circumstances that were the subject of disputed evidence. The respondent’s youngest child,
another boy, I will call Christopher, again to protect his identity. That child, albeit
accommodated for a period, has been in his mother’s sole care since about December 2014
when he was 7 months old.
[2] The two boys who are the subject of these applications have been accommodated by
the local authority continuously now for more than five and a half years, with both having
been subject to differing levels of child protection measures before that. During the course of
these proceedings and prior to proof I allowed Barry to enter the process as a Minuter and be
represented by counsel. This was a relatively unusual course, but I was persuaded that, as
agents and counsel were satisfied that he had the capacity to instruct them and advised that
he was firmly of the view that he wished to have his voice heard in the proceedings through
them, it was appropriate. Ultimately I heard proof over a period of some 14 days including
submissions. Affidavits were lodged from all of the witnesses led in the petitioner’s case and
the respondent also swore an affidavit, gave evidence and led witnesses. Barry’s foster carers
were called to give evidence in his case. The history of Andrew and Barry’s lives is detailed
in voluminous social work records which were available as productions. The particularly
3
contentious period scrutinised during the proof was 2012-2013, although recent events were
also explored as being relevant to consider the impact on either or both boys of being
returned to the respondent’s care at this stage.
[3] It may be helpful to outline briefly the scheme of this opinion. First I set out some of
the relevant undisputed facts in chronological order and list what I regard as the main factual
issues in dispute. Then I summarise the evidence led in the petitioner’s case but only insofar
as relevant to the issues in dispute. That is followed by a summary of the evidence in the
respondent’s and Minuter’s cases. After that there is a summary of the applicable law. Then
I undertake an analysis of the evidence on the issues in contention dealing first with
credibility and reliability of the various witnesses and then with my consideration and
conclusions on each of the significantly disputed matters.
Undisputed facts
[4] The parties lodged a detailed joint minute of admissions (number 40 of process)
running to some 217 paragraphs. The present summary of undisputed facts is largely taken
from that. While much of it relates only to Andrew or only to Barry, the complete
chronological account of the respondent’s care of her children and interaction with the local
authority is relevant to both petitions.
[5] The respondent is now 39 years old. She was brought up by her parents to whom I
will refer as the children’s maternal grandfather and grandmother respectively. RN and her
older brother were accommodated by Glasgow City Council for a period of about a year
when she was 11 and 12 years old. Her parents subsequently moved to England and RN
later became homeless at the age of 16 in 1995. When she was 25 years old she was admitted
to a psychiatric facility in the North of England on a voluntary basis. She was 7 months
To continue reading
Request your trial