S R v. S M M [2010] ScotSC 158 (14 September 2010)

S R v. S M M [2010] ScotSC 158 (14 September 2010)

The court found that the pursuer, not being registered as the child's father and not married to the defender, had no automatic parental rights or responsibilities. The evidence showed no attachment between the pursuer and the child, a history of irresponsible and dangerous behaviour by the pursuer, and that the child thrived in her current routine with the defender. The court was not satisfied that making a contact order would be conducive to the welfare of the child or better than making no order. Accordingly, the application for contact was refused.

Citation
[2010] ScotSC 158
Parties
Pursuer: S R; Defender: S M M
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
14 September 2010
Procedural Posture
Family Law Contact Order / Final Judgment After Proof
Outcome
Application for contact order refused.
Legal Topics
Parental Rights, Parental Responsibilities, Contact Orders, Welfare of the Child
Family Law Child Law Parental Rights Parental Responsibilities Contact Orders 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S R

Pursuer

S M M

Defender

Procedural Posture

Family Law Contact Order / Final Judgment After Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer, as an unmarried and unregistered father, should be granted a contact order with his child under section 11 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995
  2. 2 Whether making a contact order would be conducive to the welfare of the child

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the pursuer, not being registered as the child's father and not married to the defender, had no automatic parental rights or responsibilities. The evidence showed no attachment between the pursuer and the child, a history of irresponsible and dangerous behaviour by the pursuer, and that the child thrived in her current routine with the defender. The court was not satisfied that making a contact order would be conducive to the welfare of the child or better than making no order. Accordingly, the application for contact was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for contact order refused.

Orders

  • Refuses the plea-in-law for the pursuer.
  • Sustains the plea-in-law for the defender.