Children's Capacity and Children's Rights (Scotland)
Descripción
(Comparative Scottish and English Family Law) Law Mapa Mental sobre Children's Capacity and Children's Rights (Scotland), creado por Ruaraidh Simpson el 25/04/2017.
Children's Capacity and
Children's Rights (Scotland)
Children can have passive
capacity, the capacity to
benefit from certain
factors but no capacity to
act e.g. not to be involved
in transactions
Classification of Children and Young People
Old law: pupil children and minor children;
pupil children were girls under 12 and
boys under 14, minor children were those
no longer pupils but under the age of
majority (that being 21 at the time, now 18)
Current Law: child until you become
an adult at 18 (s.1 Age of Majority
(Scotland) Act 1969) BUT
Capacity of Children - Age of 16
sixteen is a key age in Scotland
Age of Legal Capacity Act 1991 s.1(1)
(a) a person under the age
of 16 years shall, subject
to s.2, have no legal
capacity to enter into any
transaction
(b) a person of or over the
age of 16 years shall have
legal capacity to enter into
any transaction
Exceptions to the Rule
<16 shall have capacity to enter
into a transaction if...
2(1) a kind commonly entered into by
persons of his age and circumstance
and not unreasonable
2(2) person of 12 years has
TESTAMENTARY capacity
2(3) person of 12 years
has capacity to consent
to own adoption (and
partial veto)
2(4) person <16 has
capacity to consent to
their own "surgical,
medical or dental
procedure or treatment
where, in the opinion of a
qualified medical
practitioner attending
him, he is capable of
understanding the nature
and possible
consequences of the
procedure or treatment" -
see also 2(4ZA) and 2(4ZB)
2(4A) person <16 has capacity to
instruct solicitor in CIVIL
proceedings where they have a
general understanding of what it
means to do so; presumption such
understanding at s.12
OTHERWISE 2(5) transaction is VOID
Children's Capacity and the Relationship with PR&R's
PR&R's ONLY SO FAR AS is practicable and in the
interests of the child
CSA 1995 s.15(5) any reference in this part
to a person acting as a child's legal
representative of a child is a reference to
that person, in the interests of the child (b)
acting in, or giving consent to, any
transaction where child is incapable of so
acting or consenting on his own behalf
Specific Issue Orders
CSA 1995 s.11
(1) ... an order may be made
under this subsection in
relation to (a)/(b) PR&R's
respectively
(2) court may make such an order as
it thinks fit; and in particular ... (e)
an order regulating any specific
question which has arisen in
connection with any of the matters
mentioned in ss.(1)(a) to (d) (any
such order being known as a SIO
(f) an interdict prohibiting the taking of any
step of a king specified in the interdict in the
fulfilment and/or exercise of PR&R's
Scots Law Cases
Docherty v McGlynn 1983 SLT 645
mother of a girl died when the child was 4
or 5 years old, man and woman were
married but the woman moved out to live
with her boyfriend while remaining
married to the man. Who was the father?
child was born around 9 months after she
had left the husband. Both men wanted to
look after the child. Boyfriend had lived
with the girl for the first years of her life.
Presumed that the husband of the birth mother will
be the father of a child. Question was who had the
legal capacity to order a blood test to determine the
father of the child. Raised an action of bastardy, to
publicly call the child born out of wedlock.
Court recognised that in
the past they would have
been reluctant to allow a
blood test that may show
a DESIRED result, allowed
the test because there
was a belief that this was
in the best interests of
the child to know who her
father was because she
had already been labelled
a bastard. Shows the role
of the court in a DISPUTE
V v F 1991 SCLR 225/Houston, Applicant 1996 SCLR 943
medical cases concerning consent, both cases
involved children, each of around 15 years old,
questions arose around mental health. Do competent
children have the right to refuse treatment?
Doctors argued that these
children were refusing treatment,
but in both cases the mothers
were willing to give consent
despite their children's wishes
in V v F there was a treatment
of psychoactive drugs to treat
mental health, is forcing
people to take serious
medication with serious side
effects ethical? i.e. should the
state impose an order such as
this lightly?
Patients often frightened of
drugs such as these. If you
are an adult there is no
legislation to provide
compulsory treatment, but
patient was not an adult in
this case and the mother
was willing to give consent
Judge held there would be no issue in favour of the child, no
order issued and discretion was as to the hospital i.e. they
have consent from the parent and therefore should continue
with treatment
In Houston a better
approach was taken, judge
stated that leaving aside
the question of mental
health the child was to be
considered to understand
the situation and that if
this was the opinion of the
doctor then that young
person has capacity