X against Z (Sheriff Court Civil) [2025] SCHAM 2 (28 May 2025)

X against Z (Sheriff Court Civil) [2025] SCHAM 2 (28 May 2025)

The court found that while the pursuer had previously engaged in abusive and disorderly conduct, there was no significant risk of abuse to the child or defender from future contact, and the defender's current fear was not objectively justified by recent events. The welfare of the child would be best served by allowing supervised contact, given the benefits of having both parents involved and the lack of recent misconduct by the pursuer. The defender was granted a residence order to reassure her position, but no interdict was granted as it was not moved for and there was no present justification.

Citation
[2025] SCHAM 2
Parties
Pursuer: X; Defender: Z
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Child Contact and Residence (civil) / Final Judgment After Proof
Outcome
Contact order granted to pursuer for supervised contact; residence order granted to defender; no interdict granted.
Legal Topics
Contact Orders, Residence Orders, Parental Responsibilities, Domestic Abuse, Child Welfare, Supervised Contact
Family Law Child Law Contact Orders Residence Orders Parental Responsibilities Domestic Abuse Child Welfare Supervised Contact

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

X

Pursuer

Z

Defender

Procedural Posture

Child Contact and Residence (civil) / Final Judgment After Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a contact order should be granted to the pursuer for direct contact with the child S
  2. 2 Whether a residence order should be granted to the defender
  3. 3 Whether there is a risk of abuse to the child or defender from the pursuer

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the pursuer had previously engaged in abusive and disorderly conduct, there was no significant risk of abuse to the child or defender from future contact, and the defender's current fear was not objectively justified by recent events. The welfare of the child would be best served by allowing supervised contact, given the benefits of having both parents involved and the lack of recent misconduct by the pursuer. The defender was granted a residence order to reassure her position, but no interdict was granted as it was not moved for and there was no present justification.

Court Disposition

Contact order granted to pursuer for supervised contact; residence order granted to defender; no interdict granted.

Orders

  • 5 hours of supervised contact at a contact centre for the pursuer and S
  • Residence order in favour of the defender