K.M. v. M.G. [2010] ScotSC 73 (15 April 2010)

K.M. v. M.G. [2010] ScotSC 73 (15 April 2010)

It is not in the best interests of the children, FG and NG, to be relocated to Ireland with the pursuer. The proposed move would significantly reduce the children's contact with the defender, who has played a substantial role in their upbringing. The children are settled, happy, and well cared for in Scotland, and the support network and stability currently available outweigh the potential benefits of relocation. The court found that neither a residence order nor a shared residence order was necessary, nor was a contact order required, as the parties have cooperated effectively regarding the children's care.

Citation
[2010] ScotSC 73
Parties
Pursuer: K M; Defender: M G
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
15 April 2010
Procedural Posture
Family Law Child Relocation and Residence / Judgment After Proof (trial)
Outcome
Pursuer's application for relocation refused; all other craves refused or dismissed; no expenses due to or by either party.
Legal Topics
Child Relocation, Residence Orders, Contact Orders, Parental Rights and Responsibilities, Welfare of the Child, Specific Issue Orders
Family Law Child Law Child Relocation Residence Orders Contact Orders Parental Rights and Responsibilities Welfare of the Child Specific Issue Orders

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 24
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K M

Pursuer

M G

Defender

Procedural Posture

Family Law Child Relocation and Residence / Judgment After Proof (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer should be allowed to relocate the children from Scotland to Ireland
  2. 2 Whether a residence order in favour of the pursuer is necessary
  3. 3 Whether a shared residence order should be made

Ratio Decidendi

It is not in the best interests of the children, FG and NG, to be relocated to Ireland with the pursuer. The proposed move would significantly reduce the children's contact with the defender, who has played a substantial role in their upbringing. The children are settled, happy, and well cared for in Scotland, and the support network and stability currently available outweigh the potential benefits of relocation. The court found that neither a residence order nor a shared residence order was necessary, nor was a contact order required, as the parties have cooperated effectively regarding the children's care.

Court Disposition

Pursuer's application for relocation refused; all other craves refused or dismissed; no expenses due to or by either party.

Orders

  • Refuses to grant the pursuer's first crave for a specific issue order allowing relocation of the children to Ireland.
  • Refuses the pursuer's second crave for a residence order as unnecessary.