KW AGAINST DG [2016] ScotSC 2 (12 January 2016)

KW AGAINST DG [2016] ScotSC 2 (12 January 2016)

The court held that, although there had been some changes in circumstances since the previous order (notably the pursuer's health), these were not sufficient to justify varying the order refusing relocation, having regard to the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration. The evidence did not establish that relocation would be in the child's best interests, and the effect on the pursuer's health could not be given disproportionate weight. The child's relationships with both parents and extended family in Scotland, and the stability of current arrangements, were decisive.

Citation
[2016] ScotSC 2
Parties
Pursuer and Minuter: K W; Defender and Respondent: D G
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
12 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Minute to Vary (family Law Child Relocation) / Judgment After Proof (evidential Hearing)
Outcome
Minute to vary refused; previous order refusing relocation stands.
Legal Topics
Child Relocation, Specific Issue Order, Variation of Court Order, Parental Responsibilities and Rights, Welfare of the Child, Contact Arrangements
Family Law Child Law Child Relocation Specific Issue Order Variation of Court Order Parental Responsibilities and Rights Welfare of the Child Contact Arrangements

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K W

Pursuer and Minuter

D G

Defender and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Minute to Vary (family Law Child Relocation) / Judgment After Proof (evidential Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there has been a material change in circumstances since the previous order refusing relocation
  2. 2 Whether it is in the best interests of the child (B) to permit relocation with the mother to Hampshire
  3. 3 Whether the welfare of the child requires a variation of the previous order

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, although there had been some changes in circumstances since the previous order (notably the pursuer's health), these were not sufficient to justify varying the order refusing relocation, having regard to the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration. The evidence did not establish that relocation would be in the child's best interests, and the effect on the pursuer's health could not be given disproportionate weight. The child's relationships with both parents and extended family in Scotland, and the stability of current arrangements, were decisive.

Court Disposition

Minute to vary refused; previous order refusing relocation stands.

Orders

  • Repels the pursuer’s plea-in-law in the Minute to Vary No. 24 of process and refuses said minute.
  • Appoints the cause to a hearing to address the question of contact between the pursuer and B and to dispose of all questions of expenses.