Review of Part 1 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and creation of a family justice modernisation strategy

Children are all different and mature at differing rates. Children are ale to form an opinion on most subjects that affect them from an early age.

Either a Children's rights officer or a Child support worker as they will hopefully have a child focused approach and training which is missing from most reporters as they are normally solictors.

The complicated language and issues of a court decision need to be communicated in a child friendly way rather than using language that is beyond a child to understand. there also needs to be the opportunity for a child to ask questions in respect of a decision. This would be best achieved with someone whose professional work experience and training have been child focused.

Are Child welfare reporters who are mainly solicitors the best people to be talking to and taking very personal information from a child. I would suggest a child support worker who is able to build up a relationship over a few visits with a child and able to take some time talking over and through issues concerning the court procedure , whose professional training and experience has been in a child friendly environment would be better placed to be working with and taking statements from children.

Currently Childrens rights officers in certain areas are much better placed to be doing this work. A solicitor who has had no training or work experience with vulnerable children should not be a child welfare reporter.

If action is taking place to ensure that the child's best interests are the focus then that surely has to be good practice. A child will have an opinion on matters affecting them and under Human rights legislation concerning Children and Young People then they have a right for their voice to be heard.

It is incredible that a child can be sent to a centre, where there is no security, no requirement for all staff to be professionally qualified to work with children or people with addictions or violence issues, where staff training is only 4 hours.
Reports are written for court by individuals who aren't present at the contact or who with little or no professional experience of children and are then able to comment on how a child appears to them.
The non resident parent is paying for a service to be delivered and therefore they have rights which are pursued on their behalf by the staff/volunteers. All staff/volunteers have already adhered to the belief that it is in the best interests of each child that they should see both parents as this appears in application forms.
This at the very least clouds judgment and at worse makes a very bad situation for a child even worse and leaves non resident parents at a very great disadvantage with a system where there is no method of complaint out with the board of trustees, whose remit is to ensure the continuation of the charity.
There is great pressure on parents taking a child to a centre made worse by badly located building and badly maintained buildings. All of which add to a child's concerns. Redacted text

This should be up to the person with care of the child. A child is not an object to be passed around but a human being with feelings and should be protected from those who would seek to do them harm but should also be given the opportunity to know relatives if they wish and it is in their best interests to do so.

See above.

I think again if this is in a child best interests and is something positive in their life then it is a good idea.

I don't feel I can comment on this as I do not know enough about it.

The Sheriff Court is where most family cases involving contact are heard so this makes sense as it is current practice.

I feel I don't know enough about this to comment.

This would seem foolish as many people engage in extra martial affairs and so presumption is not helpful

In order that the court can be sure that parentage disputes are genuine and are not wasting court time.

I think this is difficult with so many variables. Does there need to be a length of time which a step parent has been a step parent? Again what is in the child's best interests has to be a focus.

It implies that someone who has had a child has a right over that child.

No its semantics. Changing what you call contact wouldn't make it something else.

Not all fathers, as well as not all mothers, are people who should be in a relationship with any child including their own.

Parental rights can be abused and used to place pressure on those who are victims of domestic abuse and coercive control.

If a mother does not wish to disclose the father or if the child was conceived as a result of rape then this seems like a very bad idea. Also thinking of same sex couples this seems to complicate matters .

Such a presumption seems naïve at best and extremely dangerous at worst. Parents like other adults can have many negative issues in their lives , addiction, propensity to commit violence etc and so to presume that every relationship is positive may be detrimental to a child's welfare and ability to flourish.

As above every relationship cannot be presumed to be positive.

This complicates some very dangerous situations faced by those affected by domestic violence and coercive control. To set such a precedent could mean chaos in childrens lives. Do schools really want parents with issues with each other playing them out in a school environment with a child and their peers witnessing such?

How would this be achieved? Also sharing information to what end? The resident parent must be the one making the decisions about a child's health. If this were the case then who do doctors take their instructions from when considering a course of care for a child.

This works from the presumption that child rejects a parent because of parental pressure rather than because a child does not want to see them or is frightened with good reason of them. This is a very dangerous presumption to make and a Government trying to unduly influence a child in this way is manipulative and dangerous and inappropriate.

A person who chooses to commit a serious offence has made a choice. If a child has not been taking into consideration when making that choice then the child is not one of the persons priorities.
A person who commits violence cannot be considered to be a positive role model for a child.
A person who has committed sex offences would also fall into not being a positive role model.

I cant make an informed comment on this because of lack of awareness of issues.

It is unfair that a person who is a victim is further subjected to abuse by a person who has committed that abuse. It also puts the victim at a distinct emotional disadvantage during proceedings.

Any victim should have the protection of a court.

These sections are very important when considering the safety of a child. If there is domestic violence a child may be a victim just by witnessing it. A child should be protected from such abuse. All law can be misused but on the flip side very young children can describe actions of parents involved in abuse. A child must be the focus

If a court has not given contact then in current circumstances that would be rare and would likely be as result of serious circumstances given the presumption of contact in Scotland. If this is the case then a court should decide if circumstances have changed enough to bring the case back to court. At all times the safety and welfare of a child should be at the forefront of any decisions.

This should be fundamental when contact is being considered. If there is a risk to a parent then there is a risk to a child. Redacted text


My understanding is that there are very few risk assessors in the country when it comes to domestic violence but is something that needs professional training to be carried out if a court or victims were to have any confidence in the process.

At this time there is very little interaction and child contact cases do not take into consideration a persons convictions but rather their PPR's seem to override all safety concerns.
This is something that is fundamentally needed to ensure victims both adult and children's safety.

The longer court proceedings take the longer the uncertainty for the child and parents. This cannot be healthy however it is essential that all information is gathered before a decision is .

Childrens Hearings are perhaps a better setting for a child contact case to take place. Such allows a child to be heard and its focus is the child's welfare.

A welfare check list can be a tool which assists the procedure but the welfare of the child has to be paramount.

But recognising that Alternative Dispute Resolution is not always appropriate .

I think if information needs to be shared if a child is at risk of abduction.

Legal advice cannot be replaced with guidelines. If parents have serious concerns over a child's safety then only legal advice can be sufficient and parents should not be disadvantaged by not following guidelines.

It would be dependant on why but if a child has been known with a particular name for over 5 years that is not recorded on their birth certificate then this should be allowed.

To protect a child it would seem sensible to find out the reason behind any name change.

Cant comment on this.

This would seem to make sense although I don't know enough about this to make an informed comment.

This would seem sensible

It would seem sensible to have all participants involved in the processes have the relevant information prior to the Hearing.

A child should not be crossed examined by a person who has allegedly committed an offence against that or if the child is obviously scared of that person.

Surely where a child is domiciled has to be in the best interests of a child and their welfare? So it doesn't always follow that a child needs to remain in a country where they have to access to both parents unless they wish to.