KB against EL and LJ (Sheriff Court Civil) [2025] SCPHD 18 (18 March 2025)

KB against EL and LJ (Sheriff Court Civil) [2025] SCPHD 18 (18 March 2025)

Having regard to the welfare of the children as the paramount consideration, the evidence established that the defender provided good enough care and that the pursuer's abusive and controlling behaviour, lack of insight, and inability to prioritise the children's needs made it contrary to their welfare to reside with him or have contact at present. The defender's care, while not without challenges, was preferable to the alternative, and the pursuer's contact would be detrimental to the children's welfare.

Citation
[2025] SCPHD 18
Parties
Pursuer: KB; Defender: EL; Curator Ad Litem / Third Party Minuter: LJ
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Family Law Residence and Contact / Final Judgment After Proof
Outcome
Defender's pleas-in-law upheld in part; pursuer's pleas-in-law repelled; children to reside with defender; no contact with pursuer at present; interdict against pursuer removing children from defender's care; no expenses due to or by either party.
Legal Topics
Child Residence, Child Contact, Domestic Abuse, Parental Responsibilities and Rights, Interdicts, Welfare of the Child
Family Law Child Law Child Residence Child Contact Domestic Abuse Parental Responsibilities and Rights Interdicts Welfare 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KB

Pursuer

EL

Defender

LJ

Curator Ad Litem / Third Party Minuter

Procedural Posture

Family Law Residence and Contact / Final Judgment After Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should the children reside with the pursuer or defender?
  2. 2 Should the pursuer have direct, video, or telephone contact with the children?
  3. 3 Should interdicts be granted regarding removal of the children from the jurisdiction or from the defender's care?

Ratio Decidendi

Having regard to the welfare of the children as the paramount consideration, the evidence established that the defender provided good enough care and that the pursuer's abusive and controlling behaviour, lack of insight, and inability to prioritise the children's needs made it contrary to their welfare to reside with him or have contact at present. The defender's care, while not without challenges, was preferable to the alternative, and the pursuer's contact would be detrimental to the children's welfare.

Court Disposition

Defender's pleas-in-law upheld in part; pursuer's pleas-in-law repelled; children to reside with defender; no contact with pursuer at present; interdict against pursuer removing children from defender's care; no expenses due to or by either party.

Orders

  • Order that the children reside with the defender.
  • No order for direct, video, or telephone contact with the pursuer at present.