Campaigners opposing the Scottish Government’s Named Person plans have announced an appeal after a judge rejected their legal challenge last month.
Judge Lord Pentland dismissed concerns about breaches of human rights and data protection laws following a four-day Judicial Review in Edinburgh’s Court of Session last year.
But now three judges will be asked to reconsider the proposals after The Christian Institute, alongside other groups and concerned parents, formally lodged an appeal earlier this week.
Under the plans, every child from birth will receive a state guardian until the age of 18.
The named person will be able to share information with a wide range of public authorities and intervene without parental consent.
The Scottish Government last week issued detailed guidelines on how the scheme will work when it is implemented across the country from August 2016.
But the guidelines have caused the No To Named Persons (NO2NP) campaign group to raise further concerns.
A NO2NP spokesman said: “We are now more convinced than ever that this legislation is wrong for children, wrong for families and wrong for Scotland.”
“We’re confident that our grounds for appeal are strong and we have wonderful backing from ordinary mums and dads outraged by this imposition into their family lives.”
He said the guidance, which is supposed to clarify matters, only serves to muddy the waters further.
The spokesman commented: “It contains 109 pages of impenetrable, incoherent and incomprehensible politically correct double speak. Our specialist lawyer scrutinised the notes for three hours and was left bemused by how this scheme will work in practice”.
He warned: “Imagine how a hard-working health worker or teacher with massive conflicting demands on their time is going to struggle to cope with such crucially important matters impacting on children and their parents”.
Last week the Scottish Government published its consultation on the guidance to accompany the Named Person scheme.
One section of the guidance on sharing information states that “the Named Person should make it clear that whilst the views of the child and parents are valued and must be taken into account, their consent is not being sought, and the Named Person may, where appropriate, share information without consent”.