Senna-Cheribbo (AP) v Wood & Anor [1998] ScotCS 70 (19 November 1998)

Senna-Cheribbo (AP) v Wood & Anor [1998] ScotCS 70 (19 November 1998)

The Sheriff did not err in law or misdirect himself; he considered both present and future circumstances, gave appropriate weight to the evidence, and there is no exceptional circumstance justifying appellate interference with his discretion.

Citation
[1998] ScotCS 70
Parties
Pursuer and Appellant: Carmen Catherine Gilda Senna-Cheribbo; First Defender and Respondent: Stephen James Wood; Second Defender and Respondent: Mrs Margaret Masterton
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
19 November 1998
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family Law Residence Order) / Appeal From Sheriff Court Decision After Proof
Outcome
Appeal refused
Legal Topics
Residence Orders, Child Welfare, Parental Rights, Appeals Procedure
Family Law Child Law Residence Orders Child Welfare Parental Rights Appeals Procedure

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carmen Catherine Gilda Senna-Cheribbo

Pursuer and Appellant

Stephen James Wood

First Defender and Respondent

Mrs Margaret Masterton

Second Defender and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family Law Residence Order) / Appeal From Sheriff Court Decision After Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Sheriff erred in law by taking a short-term view of the child's welfare
  2. 2 Whether the Sheriff failed to properly assess evidence regarding the grandmother's health and the mother's parenting ability
  3. 3 Whether the appellate court should interfere with the Sheriff’s findings of fact and discretion

Ratio Decidendi

The Sheriff did not err in law or misdirect himself; he considered both present and future circumstances, gave appropriate weight to the evidence, and there is no exceptional circumstance justifying appellate interference with his discretion.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused

Orders

  • Residence Order in favour of the second respondent (grandmother) stands
  • Appellant to continue to have supervised residential contact at weekends