- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
ANS & Anor v ML
Factual and Procedural Background
The appeal arose from adoption proceedings in the Sheriff Court concerning a child whose mother (“Appellant”) opposed adoption and withheld consent. The prospective adoptive parents (“First Respondents”) sought an order dispensing with that consent under section 31(3)(d) of the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007 (“the 2007 Act”). During the proof the Sheriff referred a devolution issue to the Inner House, questioning whether section 31(3)(d) was within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament given the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). The Inner House held it was competent (ANS and DCS v ML [2011] CSIH 38). The Appellant appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether section 31(3)(d) of the 2007 Act is incompatible with Article 8 of the ECHR because it allegedly allows parental consent to be dispensed with on an imprecise “welfare” test.
- Consequently, whether the provision is outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament under section 29(2)(d) of the Scotland Act 1998.
- Whether, if there is any incompatibility, the court can read down the provision under section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (or section 101 of the Scotland Act 1998) to render it compatible.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- Section 31(3)(d) applies only where a parent can satisfactorily discharge parental responsibilities; therefore, severing the parent-child bond on a broad “welfare” basis violates Article 8.
- The word “requires” lacks sufficient precision; any order made under it would not be “in accordance with the law” for Article 8(2) purposes.
- Section 101(2) Scotland Act demands the narrowest possible reading, but even a narrow construction cannot save the provision.
- Relied on Neulinger v Switzerland to contend that family ties may only be severed in very exceptional circumstances.
Second Respondent (Lord Advocate)’s Arguments
- The statutory test, properly construed, already reflects Article 8 requirements: “requires” imports necessity and proportionality.
- Section 14 of the 2007 Act embeds a detailed welfare checklist that cures any alleged vagueness.
- Domestic and Strasbourg authorities (e.g. In re P; YC v UK) approve an equivalent test in England & Wales; the Scottish provision is narrower.
- Accordingly, section 31(3)(d) is within competence and no interpretative modification is needed.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| ANS and DCS v ML [2011] CSIH 38 | Inner House decision upholding competence of s 31(3)(d) | Decision under appeal; affirmed |
| In re S-B (Children) [2009] UKSC 17 | Caution against broad welfare tests; necessity of exceptional circumstances | Illustrates gravity of dispensing with parental consent |
| R (Hurst) v London Northern District Coroner [2007] UKHL 13 | When section 3 HRA interpretative duty is triggered | Used to show ordinary construction precedes s 3 HRA |
| R (Wardle) v Crown Court at Leeds [2002] 1 AC 754 | Need for incompatibility before invoking s 3 HRA | Supports interpretative approach |
| DS v HM Advocate [2007] UKPC 36 | Relationship between s 3 HRA and s 101 Scotland Act | Clarifies correct interpretative route |
| Principal Reporter v K [2010] UKSC 56 | Examples of limited parental rights | Demonstrates scenarios where s 31(3)(d) operates |
| NJDB v JEG [2012] UKSC 21 | Parental rights despite withdrawn contact | Illustrative of provision’s scope |
| AXA General Insurance Ltd [2011] UKSC 46 | Statutory interpretation in light of societal values | Supports high threshold of “requires” |
| R v Secretary of State, ex p Simms [2000] 2 AC 115 | Presumption of protection of basic rights | Informs construction of “requires” |
| In re P (Children) (Adoption: Parental Consent) [2008] EWCA Civ 535 | Meaning of “requires” in English analogue | Relied on to equate “requires” with necessity |
| Johansen v Norway (1997) 23 EHRR 33 | Adoption without consent only in exceptional circumstances | Cited to illustrate Strasbourg standard |
| R and H v UK (2012) 54 EHRR 2 | Affirms overriding requirement test | Supports compatibility of Scottish test |
| YC v UK [2012] ECHR 433 | Necessary considerations for proportionality | Parallels drawn with s 14 checklist |
| Neulinger v Switzerland (2012) 54 EHRR 31 | Emphasis on family ties and child’s development | Appellant’s principal authority; distinguished |
| Kearns v France (2010) 50 EHRR 33 | Primacy of child’s interests | Cited in Strasbourg extracts |
| K and T v Finland (2001) 36 EHRR 18 | Better environment not enough to justify adoption | Part of Strasbourg overview |
| TS and DS v UK [2010] ECHR 2256 | Limits of improving environment rationale | Referenced in proportionality discussion |
| Pontes v Portugal [2012] ECHR 1573 | Paramountcy of child’s interests | Cited to reinforce welfare focus |
| Winterwerp v Netherlands (1979) 2 EHRR 387 | National courts’ role in construing domestic law | Supports foreseeability analysis |
| Iglesias Gil v Spain (2005) 40 EHRR 3 | Judicial interpretation & foreseeability | Same context as above |
| Slivenko v Latvia (2004) 39 EHRR 24 | Domestic courts’ assessment not arbitrary | Bolsters certainty argument |
| Kuijper v Netherlands (2005) 41 EHRR SE 266 | Acceptability of general statutory language | Applied to reject vagueness challenge |
| Elsholz v Germany [2000] ECHR 371 | Parent cannot insist on measures harming child | Part of Strasbourg matrix |
| Maršálek v Czech Republic (2006) ECHR 8153/04 | Child’s development paramount | Included in Strasbourg survey |
| Kutzner v Germany [2002] ECHR 160 | Proportionality in family interventions | Referenced in Neulinger passage |
| Sahin v Germany (2003) 36 EHRR 43 | Balancing parent and child interests | Quoted in Neulinger analysis |
| Maumousseau and Washington v France [2007] ECHR 880 | Fair balance and margin of appreciation | Part of Strasbourg backdrop |
| Haase v Germany [2004] ECHR 142 | Importance of maintaining contact | Cited within Neulinger extract |
| Gnahoré v France [2000] ECHR 420 | Family ties to be preserved where possible | Mentioned in Neulinger discussion |
| Uyanik v Turkey [2012] ECHR 1574 | Child’s interests decisive; balance of interests | Illustrates modern Strasbourg position |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
1. Statutory construction before compatibility analysis. Judge Reed emphasised that the court must first construe legislation according to ordinary principles, applying long-standing presumptions against violating international obligations. Only if incompatibility remains does section 3 HRA arise.
2. Context and purpose of s 31(3)(d). The 2007 Act replaced complicated pre-2007 consent-dispensing grounds with a simpler structure inspired by the Adoption and Children Act 2002. Parliamentary materials showed a deliberate intent to mirror Article 8 requirements.
3. Limited scope of the subsection. Unlike the English provision, s 31(3)(d) operates only where the parent is known, competent, and does not fall within the specific incapacity scenarios of subsections (4) or (5), making its reach narrower.
4. Meaning of “welfare…requires”. Read with section 14, the child’s welfare is the paramount consideration. The word “requires” imports a stringent necessity test: adoption must be the only proportionate measure capable of protecting the child’s lifelong welfare. The court must be satisfied that nothing less than adoption will suffice.
5. Consistency with Strasbourg jurisprudence. The domestic interpretation aligns with In re P, Johansen v Norway, YC v UK and related cases, all of which endorse a necessity and proportionality standard when dispensing with consent.
6. Legal certainty. Although couched in general terms, the provision is foreseeable when read in its statutory and human-rights context. The European Court accepts that family-law statutes employ broad language subject to judicial assessment (Kuijper v Netherlands).
7. Procedural observations. The Court criticised the late raising of the devolution issue, noting it prolonged proceedings to the detriment of the child and contradicted Practice Notes mandating expedition in adoption cases.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: APPEAL DISMISSED. Section 31(3)(d) of the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007 is compatible with Article 8 ECHR and therefore within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.
Implications: The decision confirms that Scottish courts can dispense with parental consent to adoption where the child’s welfare requires it, applying a strict necessity test. No new precedent was created, but the judgment consolidates alignment between Scottish legislation and Strasbourg standards and underscores the need for robust case-management to avoid delay in family proceedings.
Alert