SP v. BM [2012] ScotSC 78 (17 July 2012)

SP v. BM [2012] ScotSC 78 (17 July 2012)

Relocation to Northern Ireland would not be in the best interests of the children as it would result in a significant reduction in their relationship with their father and extended family, disrupt their schooling and peer relationships, and is not justified by any benefit to the children. The welfare of the children is paramount and the defender failed to show that relocation would be better for the children than maintaining the status quo. The eldest child’s clear and reasoned opposition to relocation was given weight. Orders were made granting the pursuer parental rights and responsibilities and a contact order in terms agreed by the parties.

Citation
[2012] ScotSC 78
Parties
Pursuer: SP; Defender: BM
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
17 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Family Law Specific Issue Order and Contact Order / Judgment After Proof
Outcome
Defender’s application for specific issue order to relocate refused; orders granted in favour of pursuer for parental rights and responsibilities and contact; other craves dismissed; expenses reserved.
Legal Topics
Relocation of Children, Parental Rights and Responsibilities, Contact Orders, Welfare of the Child, Specific Issue Orders
Family Law Child Law Relocation of Children Parental Rights and Responsibilities Contact Orders Welfare of the Child Specific Issue Orders

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SP

Pursuer

BM

Defender

Procedural Posture

Family Law Specific Issue Order and Contact Order / Judgment After Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is in the best interests of the children for the defender to be granted a specific issue order permitting relocation to Northern Ireland
  2. 2 Whether a contact order and parental rights and responsibilities order should be made in favour of the pursuer

Ratio Decidendi

Relocation to Northern Ireland would not be in the best interests of the children as it would result in a significant reduction in their relationship with their father and extended family, disrupt their schooling and peer relationships, and is not justified by any benefit to the children. The welfare of the children is paramount and the defender failed to show that relocation would be better for the children than maintaining the status quo. The eldest child’s clear and reasoned opposition to relocation was given weight. Orders were made granting the pursuer parental rights and responsibilities and a contact order in terms agreed by the parties.

Court Disposition

Defender’s application for specific issue order to relocate refused; orders granted in favour of pursuer for parental rights and responsibilities and contact; other craves dismissed; expenses reserved.

Orders

  • Order imposing parental responsibilities and rights on pursuer in respect of C and T under sections 1 and 2 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995
  • Order granting pursuer direct contact with all three children each Monday and Wednesday from 3.30 pm to 6.30 pm, each alternate weekend from Friday 3.30 pm to Sunday 6.30 pm, and for specified holiday periods