PL against SD (Sheriff Appeal Court Civil) [2024] SAC CIV 33 (19 July 2024)
The sheriff applied the correct legal test by prioritising the best interests of the children, balancing the risk factors and the children's wishes, and providing for supervised video contact and indirect contact. The appeal failed to demonstrate any error in the sheriff's reasoning or that the decision was plainly wrong.
- Citation
- [2024] SAC CIV 33
- Parties
- Pursuer and Respondent: PL; Defender and Appellant: SD
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judgment Date
- 19 July 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Family Law Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff's Interlocutor
- Outcome
- Appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutor adhered to.
- Legal Topics
- Child Contact, Best Interests of the Child, Parental Rights, Supervised Contact, Appeal Procedure
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
PL
Pursuer and Respondent
SD
Defender and Appellant
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff's Interlocutor
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sheriff erred in granting direct video contact between a convicted sex offender parent and his children
- 2 Whether the sheriff gave insufficient weight to the convictions, defender's mental health, and risk to children
Ratio Decidendi
The sheriff applied the correct legal test by prioritising the best interests of the children, balancing the risk factors and the children's wishes, and providing for supervised video contact and indirect contact. The appeal failed to demonstrate any error in the sheriff's reasoning or that the decision was plainly wrong.
Court Disposition
Appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutor adhered to.
Orders
- Monthly supervised video contact between pursuer and children
- Quarterly letterbox contact and birthday card
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment