S.G.R. v. L.R. [2010] ScotSC 109 (21 June 2010)

S.G.R. v. L.R. [2010] ScotSC 109 (21 June 2010)

The court found that there had been abuse in the relationship between the parties, that such abuse upset and alarmed A, and that there was a need to protect A from the risk of such abuse. The welfare of A was the paramount consideration. The court held it was not in A's interests to grant the pursuer parental rights and responsibilities, nor direct contact, but that limited indirect (letter box) contact was in A's interests given her expressed wish to know the pursuer was safe. The absence of a biological link was a factor but not determinative. The risk of further distress and the need for stability for A outweighed the pursuer's application for broader rights.

Citation
[2010] ScotSC 109
Parties
Pursuer: S. G. R.; Defender: L. R.
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
21 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Family Law Parental Rights and Contact / Final Judgment After Proof
Outcome
Parental rights and responsibilities refused; indirect (letter box) contact granted; all other pleas repelled; expenses reserved.
Legal Topics
Parental Rights and Responsibilities, Child Contact, Domestic Abuse, Welfare of the Child
Family Law Child Law Parental Rights and Responsibilities Child Contact Domestic Abuse 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S. G. R.

Pursuer

L. R.

Defender

Procedural Posture

Family Law Parental Rights and Contact / Final Judgment After Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer should be granted parental rights and responsibilities in relation to A
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer should be granted contact with A, and if so, in what form
  3. 3 Application of the abuse provisions under section 11(7A)-(7C) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there had been abuse in the relationship between the parties, that such abuse upset and alarmed A, and that there was a need to protect A from the risk of such abuse. The welfare of A was the paramount consideration. The court held it was not in A's interests to grant the pursuer parental rights and responsibilities, nor direct contact, but that limited indirect (letter box) contact was in A's interests given her expressed wish to know the pursuer was safe. The absence of a biological link was a factor but not determinative. The risk of further distress and the need for stability for A outweighed the pursuer's application for broader rights.

Court Disposition

Parental rights and responsibilities refused; indirect (letter box) contact granted; all other pleas repelled; expenses reserved.

Orders

  • Refusal of parental rights and responsibilities to the pursuer in relation to A
  • Order for letter box contact between the pursuer and A