L v. L (AP) [2013] ScotSC 46 (19 July 2013)

L v. L (AP) [2013] ScotSC 46 (19 July 2013)

It is in the best interests of the children H and JL to reside with the pursuer in Edinburgh and not to relocate to Torquay with the defender. The defender's proposed move was not reasonable, she could have obtained suitable employment in Edinburgh, and the children are settled and thriving in their current environment. The established contact with both parents and extended family in Edinburgh is important for their welfare. The defender's actions in removing the children to Torquay were not justified, and the need for stability and continuity for the children outweighs the defender's reasons for relocation.

Citation
[2013] ScotSC 46
Parties
Pursuer: L; Defender: L (AP)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
19 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Family Law Residence and Relocation / Final Judgment After Proof
Outcome
Residence order granted in favour of the pursuer; defender's relocation request refused; contact arrangements set for defender.
Legal Topics
Residence Order, Relocation of Children, Parental Responsibilities and Rights, Contact Arrangements, Best Interests of the Child
Family Law Child Law Residence Order Relocation of Children Parental Responsibilities and Rights Contact Arrangements Best Interests 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L

Pursuer

L (AP)

Defender

Procedural Posture

Family Law Residence and Relocation / Final Judgment After Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is in the best interests of the children H and JL to reside with the pursuer or the defender
  2. 2 Whether the children should be permitted to relocate to Torquay with the defender

Ratio Decidendi

It is in the best interests of the children H and JL to reside with the pursuer in Edinburgh and not to relocate to Torquay with the defender. The defender's proposed move was not reasonable, she could have obtained suitable employment in Edinburgh, and the children are settled and thriving in their current environment. The established contact with both parents and extended family in Edinburgh is important for their welfare. The defender's actions in removing the children to Torquay were not justified, and the need for stability and continuity for the children outweighs the defender's reasons for relocation.

Court Disposition

Residence order granted in favour of the pursuer; defender's relocation request refused; contact arrangements set for defender.

Orders

  • Grants a residence order that the children H and JL shall reside with the pursuer.
  • Dismisses the pursuer's crave for interdict as being no longer sought.