S against B (Sheriff Court Civil) [2026] SCALL 44 (04 February 2026)

S against B (Sheriff Court Civil) [2026] SCALL 44 (04 February 2026)

The court held that it was not in M's best interests to grant the pursuer's application for relocation to Canada, nor to make a residence or contact order. The proposed relocation would jeopardise M's close and central relationship with the defender and her family, impose unreasonable travel and financial burdens, and reduce both direct and indirect contact. The pursuer's proposals were found impractical and uncertain in terms of logistics and affordability. The welfare of the child required refusal of all orders sought.

Citation
[2026] SCALL 44
Parties
Pursuer: S; Defender: B
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
04 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Specific Issue, Residence, and Contact Orders Under Children (scotland) Act 1995 / Judgment After Proof (trial)
Outcome
All craves refused; no orders made for relocation, residence, or contact; expenses reserved.
Legal Topics
Child Relocation, Residence Orders, Contact Orders, Welfare of the Child, Best Interests Principle
Family Law Child Law Child Relocation Residence Orders Contact Orders Welfare of the Child Best Interests Principle

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S

Pursuer

B

Defender

Procedural Posture

Specific Issue, Residence, and Contact Orders Under Children (scotland) Act 1995 / Judgment After Proof (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is in the best interests of the child (M) to grant a specific issue order permitting relocation to Canada
  2. 2 Whether a residence order should be made in favour of the pursuer
  3. 3 Whether a contact order should be made in favour of the defender

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that it was not in M's best interests to grant the pursuer's application for relocation to Canada, nor to make a residence or contact order. The proposed relocation would jeopardise M's close and central relationship with the defender and her family, impose unreasonable travel and financial burdens, and reduce both direct and indirect contact. The pursuer's proposals were found impractical and uncertain in terms of logistics and affordability. The welfare of the child required refusal of all orders sought.

Court Disposition

All craves refused; no orders made for relocation, residence, or contact; expenses reserved.

Orders

  • Refuses the pursuer's crave for a specific issue order permitting relocation to Canada.
  • Refuses the pursuer's crave for a residence order.