SJP against KAP and another (Sheriff Appeal Court Civil) [2025] SACCIV 30 (04 September 2025)

SJP against KAP and another (Sheriff Appeal Court Civil) [2025] SACCIV 30 (04 September 2025)

The sheriff's decision to award residence of FP and IP to the respondent and KP to the appellant was a discretionary one, based on a careful balancing of the welfare of each child, the risk of alienation from the respondent, the appellant's conduct at handovers, findings of domestic abuse, and the ability of each parent to promote the children's relationship with the other. The sheriff's reasoning was fully explained, justified, and within the bounds of reasonable discretion. There was no error of law or principle, and the decision was not plainly wrong.

Citation
[2025] SACCIV 30
Parties
Defender and Appellant: SJP; Pursuer and Respondent: KAP; Curator Ad Litem: Jade Carthy
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
04 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff's Interlocutor in Family Law (residence and Contact) Proceedings
Outcome
Appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutor adhered to.
Legal Topics
Child Residence Orders, Contact Orders, Parental Responsibilities, Domestic Abuse, Welfare of the Child, Section 11 Children (scotland) Act 1995, Discretion of the Court, Sibling Separation
Family Law Child Law Child Residence Orders Contact Orders Parental Responsibilities Domestic Abuse Welfare of the Child Section 11 Children (scotland) Act 1995 +2 more

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SJP

Defender and Appellant

KAP

Pursuer and Respondent

Jade Carthy

Curator Ad Litem

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff's Interlocutor in Family Law (residence and Contact) Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sheriff erred in law or discretion in making residence orders separating siblings and awarding residence of FP and IP to the respondent and KP to the appellant
  2. 2 Whether the sheriff correctly applied section 11(7)-(7D) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995
  3. 3 Whether the sheriff gave undue weight to findings of abuse and insufficient weight to the status quo and the views of the children

Ratio Decidendi

The sheriff's decision to award residence of FP and IP to the respondent and KP to the appellant was a discretionary one, based on a careful balancing of the welfare of each child, the risk of alienation from the respondent, the appellant's conduct at handovers, findings of domestic abuse, and the ability of each parent to promote the children's relationship with the other. The sheriff's reasoning was fully explained, justified, and within the bounds of reasonable discretion. There was no error of law or principle, and the decision was not plainly wrong.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutor adhered to.

Orders

  • Residence of FP and IP to respondent (mother), with weekly contact to appellant (father)
  • Residence of KP to appellant (father), with fortnightly contact to respondent (mother)