JH v. DS [2002] ScotCS 163 (4 July 2002)

JH v. DS [2002] ScotCS 163 (4 July 2002)

The appeal was refused because the defender's grounds of appeal did not comply with procedural requirements, did not give fair notice of any relevant grounds, and failed to identify any specific error in the decisions of the Sheriff Principal or Sheriffs. The contentions regarding parental alienation syndrome, the child's views, and conspiracy were either not substantiated or not relevant to the decisions under review.

Citation
[2002] ScotCS 163
Parties
Pursuer and Respondent: J H or S; Defender and Appellant: D S
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
04 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Divorce and Custody Appeal / Appeal to Inner House, Court of Session
Outcome
Appeal refused
Legal Topics
Divorce, Child Custody, Appeals, Grounds of Appeal, Financial Provision
Family Law Civil Procedure Divorce Child Custody Appeals Grounds of Appeal Financial Provision

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

Parties

J H or S

Pursuer and Respondent

D S

Defender and Appellant

Procedural Posture

Divorce and Custody Appeal / Appeal to Inner House, Court of Session

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the grounds of appeal lodged by the defender disclosed any relevant basis for challenging the decisions of the Sheriff Principal and Sheriffs regarding custody, divorce, and financial provision.
  2. 2 Whether the court erred in considering the wishes of the child and in its treatment of parental alienation syndrome.
  3. 3 Whether the court failed to secure the child's views in accordance with human rights obligations.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was refused because the defender's grounds of appeal did not comply with procedural requirements, did not give fair notice of any relevant grounds, and failed to identify any specific error in the decisions of the Sheriff Principal or Sheriffs. The contentions regarding parental alienation syndrome, the child's views, and conspiracy were either not substantiated or not relevant to the decisions under review.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused

Orders

  • Appeal refused in terms of Rule of Court 40.14(5)