PETITIONS OF CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL FOR PERMANENCE ORDERS UNDER SECTION 80 OF THE ADOPTION AND CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) ACT 2007 IN RESPECT OF THE CHILDREN AMDS AND SDS AGAINST LL

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns two applications for permanence orders initiated by the local authority, City of Edinburgh Council, regarding two female children, aged approximately 7½ and 6½ years, referred to as Amy and Sarah for anonymity. The respondent, their mother, has a history of drug abuse and mental health challenges, which have significantly impacted her parenting capacity. Both children have been subject to Compulsory Supervision Orders ("CSO") and have been placed in foster care due to concerns over their welfare. The procedural history includes a proof hearing where the principle of granting permanence orders was not opposed, but issues arose concerning whether the existing CSOs should be revoked upon granting these orders, and how the respondent should receive information and maintain contact with the children given her mental health condition.

The children’s father has died, and the respondent has a son from a previous relationship who was accommodated by the local authority due to parental drug misuse. The respondent’s history includes chaotic relationships, drug use, and mental health hospital admissions. The children were placed on the Child Protection Register and removed from the respondent’s care following concerns about abuse allegations and the respondent’s mental health and substance misuse issues. Various foster placements have been arranged for the children, with some instability and changes over time.

Evidence was led from the local authority social worker responsible for the case, two clinical psychologists who assessed the children and the respondent, and from the respondent herself. The social worker supports permanence orders with the local authority having decision-making responsibility and managing contact, while the respondent seeks continued involvement in decision-making and information sharing through the children’s hearing system.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the existing Compulsory Supervision Orders ("CSO") in respect of the children should be revoked upon the granting of permanence orders.
2. How the respondent’s parental responsibilities and rights, particularly regarding information about the children and contact arrangements, should be regulated following the permanence orders.
3. The appropriate decision-making forum for future contact and welfare decisions: whether these should remain under the children’s hearing system or vest fully in the local authority.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

• The petitioner contended that continuation of the CSOs post-permanence order is without precedent and inconsistent with the law and children’s best interests.
• The permanence order vests parental responsibilities and rights in the local authority, making the children’s hearing’s supervisory role redundant and inappropriate.
• Section 89 of the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007 mandates revocation of CSOs where the court is satisfied it is no longer necessary for the child’s protection or control.
• Both expert witnesses support the local authority as the appropriate decision-maker for contact and welfare matters, with the children’s hearing system unable to provide timely or suitable decisions.
• The local authority proposes an informal but structured approach to providing the respondent with information, rejecting full participation in Looked After Children (LAC) reviews but ensuring some updates and consultation.

Respondent’s Arguments

• The respondent argued that the legislation does not require automatic termination of CSOs upon permanence orders and that each case requires assessment.
• The respondent submitted that retention of the CSOs would allow continued involvement of the children’s hearing, providing oversight, investigation powers, and ensuring her ongoing participation and access to information.
• She expressed mistrust of the local authority’s discretion regarding contact and information sharing, fearing exclusion and bias.
• The respondent sought to retain certain parental responsibilities and rights limited to reasonable information about the children’s health, development, welfare, and participation in LAC reviews.
• She preferred that independent medical professionals, not attached to the local authority, provide assessments of her mental health for contact decisions.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court accepted that the threshold for granting permanence orders was met, given the significant detriment to the children if returned to the respondent’s care. The evidence from the social worker and clinical psychologists was credible and reliable, supporting the need for permanence orders and the local authority to hold parental responsibilities and rights.

Regarding the CSOs, the court rejected the petitioner’s position that revocation is mandatory upon granting a permanence order. Instead, it held that the court must first assess whether continuation of CSOs remains necessary for protection, guidance, treatment, or control. The legislation and the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 allow for the coexistence of permanence orders and CSOs where appropriate.

However, in this case, the court found that continuation of the CSOs would likely require the children to attend hearings, which could disrupt settled placements and cause distress, especially given the respondent’s presence and the children’s young ages. The court was persuaded by the evidence that the local authority is best placed to make decisions about the children’s residence, welfare, and contact, with the flexibility to act promptly and without the procedural delays of the children’s hearing system.

The court acknowledged the respondent’s genuine concerns about exclusion from decision-making and information sharing. It considered the expert recommendation for an independent assessor to provide additional assurance in contact decisions, particularly given the respondent’s complex mental health presentation. The court agreed that the respondent should retain limited parental responsibilities and rights to receive reasonable information about the children’s health, development, and welfare, and to be advised of relevant information from LAC reviews.

It was concluded that contact arrangements should be managed primarily by the local authority, following the joint expert report’s route map, with safeguards for independent assessment if contact is withheld after successful sessions. The court emphasized the importance of the children understanding their mother’s mental health to maintain a relationship and minimize psychological distress.

Holding and Implications

The court’s final decision is to GRANT the permanence orders for both children, vesting parental responsibilities and rights primarily in the local authority.

The court holds that the existing Compulsory Supervision Orders shall be REVOKED as it is satisfied that they are no longer necessary for the children’s protection, guidance, treatment, or control. This revocation avoids the children’s involvement in future children’s hearings, which is deemed contrary to their best interests.

The respondent retains limited parental responsibilities and rights restricted to receiving reasonable information about the children’s health, development, and welfare, and to be informed of relevant matters from LAC reviews. Contact between the respondent and the children will be managed by the local authority according to the structured recommendations of the expert psychologists, including provision for independent assessment if contact is withheld.

The implications of this decision are that the local authority will have primary decision-making authority and flexibility to manage the children’s placements and contact arrangements, promoting stability and minimizing procedural delays. The court’s order sets a framework for contact and information sharing that balances the children’s welfare with the respondent’s limited parental involvement. No new precedent beyond the application of existing statutory provisions and expert recommendations is established by this decision.