Society blog

Talk of the town

8 Feb 12

Some thoughts against the background of the mergers dominating the legal news

2011 reflections

21 Dec 11

The economic outlook remains poor, but other developments await in the coming year

Offer them hope

2 Dec 11

Message needed for the young in troubled times

View from Wick

18 Oct 11

Austin Lafferty's faculty visit to Caithness

ABS lift-off

14 Oct 11

Society wants to share draft handbook with those interested in setting up in Scotland

2020 vision

23 Sep 11

Society's objectives set out for today's SGM

Conference call to action

8 Sep 11

"One Profession" event highlights opportunities in the years ahead

Discrimination: bad for business

1 Jun 11

Society will lead in tackling negative perceptions of the profession by ethnic minority solicitors

Dealing with the new Parliament

12 May 11

Society wants to continue constructive relationship in dealing with legal issues

The AGM and the constitution

17 Mar 11

The constitution could do with updating even as regards participation in the meeting

Editors Blog

Smoking out an overreaction

7 Nov 08
Is it right - and legal - to ban smokers from adopting or fostering young children?

One news item that caught the eye today was the report that three councils in Scotland - Stirling, Falkirk and Clackmannan - are planning to ban smokers from adopting or fostering any child under five years old.

The reason given, unsurprisingly, is health grounds and the potential harmful effects of passive smoking: the same justification as supports the ban on smoking in enclosed public places, a highly successful measure, to this observer at least.

Nevertheless there are reasons to question both the wisdom and the legality of any blanket ban. Are we really saying that it is better in all circumstances that a child remain in care than be placed in what is otherwise judged to be a loving home, just because the household includes a smoker or smokers? Is no weight to be given to how heavily or other wise these persons smoke, or where they do it?

As for legality, the unequivocal test is that the welfare of the child is paramount, and that this has to be judged on all the circumstances of the case. And if a decision is taken to judicial review, it is usually a clear ground of challenge that the decision taker has "fettered its discretion", i.e. applied a policy without considering whether to do so is justified in the particular case. on the face of it, the proposed policy would fail on each count.

A further application to all children with certain health problems, such as asthma or heart disease, might seem more reasonable but still potentially open to challenge.

Councils may be worried about potential liability to children in future years, but should they be if a placement decision is taken in good faith and applying the proper tests? If we are concerned with children's welfare, please can we look at it in the round and give each factor its due weight, but no more?

Have your say





FILLER_lawscotjobs (link opens in new window)