SMcC v. JMcC [2010] ScotSC 186 (10 November 2010)

SMcC v. JMcC [2010] ScotSC 186 (10 November 2010)

It is not in the best interests of the child, EMcC, to be removed from Scotland to live permanently in Birmingham with the Pursuer. The shared care arrangement has worked well, provides stability, and maintains significant family relationships. The Pursuer's motivation is not to thwart contact but is not sufficiently reasonable or necessary to justify the disruption. The proposed contact arrangements post-move are inadequate compared to the current arrangement. The status quo best serves the child's welfare.

Citation
[2010] ScotSC 186
Parties
Pursuer: SMcC; Defender: JMcC
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
10 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Family Law Child Relocation and Residence / Judgment After Evidential Hearing
Outcome
Pursuer's application for specific issue order to relocate refused; Defender's interdict refused as unnecessary; both parties' residence orders refused; no expenses awarded.
Legal Topics
Child Relocation, Residence Orders, Shared Care Arrangements, Best Interests of the Child
Family Law Child Law Child Relocation Residence Orders Shared Care Arrangements Best Interests of the Child

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SMcC

Pursuer

JMcC

Defender

Procedural Posture

Family Law Child Relocation and Residence / Judgment After Evidential Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is in the best interests of the child (EMcC) to permit the Pursuer to relocate with her to Birmingham
  2. 2 Whether a specific issue order should be granted to allow the move
  3. 3 Whether a residence order or interdict is necessary

Ratio Decidendi

It is not in the best interests of the child, EMcC, to be removed from Scotland to live permanently in Birmingham with the Pursuer. The shared care arrangement has worked well, provides stability, and maintains significant family relationships. The Pursuer's motivation is not to thwart contact but is not sufficiently reasonable or necessary to justify the disruption. The proposed contact arrangements post-move are inadequate compared to the current arrangement. The status quo best serves the child's welfare.

Court Disposition

Pursuer's application for specific issue order to relocate refused; Defender's interdict refused as unnecessary; both parties' residence orders refused; no expenses awarded.

Orders

  • Refuses Pursuer's second crave for specific issue order to move child to Birmingham
  • Refuses Defender's second crave for interdict as unnecessary