TC v LM [2005] ScotSC 18 (07 March 2005)

TC v LM [2005] ScotSC 18 (07 March 2005)

The sheriff had already afforded both children an opportunity to express their views through social work reports prior to proof, and exercised discretion in deciding not to seek further views at proof. There was no procedural irregularity or error of law, and the requirements of section 11(7)(b) had been met.

Citation
[2005] ScotSC 18
Parties
Pursuer/respondent: C; Defender/appellant: McM
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
07 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Minute of Variation (family Law Residence Order) / Appeal From Sheriff's Decision After Proof
Outcome
Appeal refused; sheriff's decision adhered to.
Legal Topics
Residence Orders, Children's Views in Proceedings, Procedural Irregularity, Discretion of the Court
Family Law Child Law Residence Orders Children's Views in Proceedings Procedural Irregularity Discretion of the Court

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C

Pursuer/respondent

McM

Defender/appellant

Procedural Posture

Minute of Variation (family Law Residence Order) / Appeal From Sheriff's Decision After Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sheriff erred by failing to obtain up-to-date views of the elder child as required by section 11(7)(b) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995
  2. 2 Whether a procedural irregularity occurred due to not affording the children an opportunity to express their views prior to the residence order

Ratio Decidendi

The sheriff had already afforded both children an opportunity to express their views through social work reports prior to proof, and exercised discretion in deciding not to seek further views at proof. There was no procedural irregularity or error of law, and the requirements of section 11(7)(b) had been met.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; sheriff's decision adhered to.

Orders

  • No expenses due to or by either party in respect of the appeal procedure.