AB against CD (Sheriff Court Civil) [2025] SCFAL 103 (31 October 2025)

[ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [

DONATE ] Scottish Sheriff Court Decisions You are here:

BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Sheriff Court Decisions >> AB against CD (Sheriff Court Civil) [2025] SCFAL 103 (31 October 2025) URL: https://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotSC/2025/2025scfal103.html Cite as: [2025] SCFAL 103 [ New search ] [ Printable PDF version ] [ Help ] SHERIFFDOM OF TAYSIDE, CENTRAL AND FIFE AT FALKIRK [2025] SC FAL 103 FAL-F321-18

JUDGMENT OF SUMMARY SHERIFF ALISON MICHIE in the cause AB Pursuer against CD Defender Pursuer: Party Defender: Bell, advocate, Waiss, solicitor FALKIRK, 31 October 2025 The summary sheriff, having heard evidence and having resumed consideration of the cause:

FINDS IN FACT Background to relationship and separation 1. The pursuer is AB. The pursuer is employed as a printer.

2. The defender is CD. The defender does not wish her current address disclosed to the pursuer. The defender is a teacher.

3. The pursuer and the defender were in a relationship for around 6 years. They separated on 26 May 2018.

4. There are two children from the relationship, EF, born in 2013 and GH, born in 2014. EF is currently aged 12 years old and GH is aged 10 years old.

5. Prior to separating, the pursuer and defender lived together with the children. Following parties' separation, the children have resided with the defender.

6. The defender married IJ in July 2022. The defender resides with him and the children in a four bedroomed house.

7. The pursuer lives with his parents. His parents have a three bedroomed house.

8. The pursuer is the father of the children and is named as such on their birth certificates and has parental rights and responsibilities in relation to the children.

9. The defender is the mother of the children and has parental rights and responsibilities in relation to the children. History in relation to contact 10. Following parties separating in May 2018, the defender initially returned to live with her father and there was a period when the defender did not facilitate contact between the pursuer and the children.

11. The pursuer raised these proceedings. The defender was opposed to contact. By interlocutor of 18 January 2019, the pursuer was found entitled to interim contact with the children operating on a 2-weekly cycle. In the first week, residential contact took place from Saturday at 11.00am until Sunday at 6.00pm and in the second week contact took place on Sunday between 10.00am and 6.00pm.

12. A child welfare report was instructed, and a report was prepared dated 26 June 2019. Contact between the pursuer and the children was observed to be positive and it was recommended that contact continue and that no supervision was required.

13. Interim contact was further varied by interlocutor on 28 June 2019 whereby the pursuer had residential contact in the first week from Friday at 5.00pm until Saturday at 7.00pm and in the second week from Saturday at 10am until Sunday at 12 noon. On 25 March 2020 the cause was sisted.

14. When the pursuer collected the children for contact, the handover was prolonged and hostile. The defender and the pursuer exhibited hostility towards each other. This took place in the presence of the children.

15. The pursuer last had contact with the children on 4 June 2022. On that day the pursuer had taken the children to the Bathgate Gala Day. Following the contact on 4 June 2022 the child EF alleged that he had been assaulted by the pursuer at the Gala Day.

16. At the Gala Day the pursuer was accompanied by his partner and her mother who were both childcare professionals. The adults who were with the pursuer and the children that day did not witness any assault upon EF. The pursuer was interviewed by the police. No further action was taken by the police.

17. By interlocutor of 15 June 2022 the sist was recalled on the motion of the defender and contact between the pursuer and the children was suspended. No contact has taken place since 4 June 2022.

18. A second child welfare report was instructed, and a report was prepared dated 23 August 2022. The report recommended that contact recommence as supervised contact. At a child welfare hearing on 9 September 2022 this recommendation was not followed and no contact was ordered.

19. In September 2022 the child EF was diagnosed with ADHD and in July 2023 he was assessed and diagnosed with Autistic Spectrum Disorder.

20. On 26 April 2023 the defender lodged a motion for a specific issue order to take the children on holiday to Euro Disney between 4 and 8 May 2023. The pursuer did not attend the court hearing on 2 May 2023, which had been continued for his attendance, and the motion was granted in his absence.

21. On 26 June 2023 the defender lodged a motion for a specific issue order to permit her to take the children out of the United Kingdom for the purposes of a holiday for a maximum period of 6 weeks without the permission of the pursuer. The pursuer opposed this motion but on 12 July 2023 a specific issue order was granted allowing the defender to take the children from the United Kingdom for a maximum period of 4 weeks between 12 July and 31 October 2023.

22. The parties' separation was acrimonious. Since separation, the hostility between the parties has continued and has not diminished despite 7 years elapsing since separation. Each party regards the other in a wholly negative light.

23. Both parties have spoken to the children about the other parent in disparaging and negative terms.

24. By their behaviour, both parties have demonstrated their dislike and hostility towards the other parent in the presence of the children.

25. If contact resumed, the pursuer would likely continue to allege that the children are being abused by the defender and her family and would likely continue to make negative and disparaging remarks about the defender to the children. It is not in the best interests of the children to be exposed to such remarks.

26. The parties are unable to co-operate with each other in matters regarding the children. If contact is resumed the conflict and hostility between the parties will likely continue. It is not in the best interests of the children to be exposed to the hostility between their parents. The views of the children 27. The children provided their views on contact to the child welfare reporter during the preparation of the second child welfare report. Their views were first taken on 23 August 2022 and again on 26 July 2023. Their views were also explored by Professor Lorraine Johnstone and detailed in her report. On every occasion, the children have been clear that they do not wish to have any contact with the pursuer.

28. I met with GH at Falkirk Sheriff Court on 5 August 2025. GH expressed the clear view that she did not wish any contact with her father. This included indirect contact such as phone or facetime calls, letters, cards or gifts.

29. The children no longer wish to have contact with the pursuer. These views are genuinely held and sincere.

30. The children do not want to attend for contact and are unlikely to attend for contact even if ordered. It is likely to cause the children distress if an order for contact is made.

FINDS IN FACT AND LAW 1. EF, born 2013, and GH, born 2014, have had their primary place of residence with the defender since parties separated in May 2018. It is in the best interests of the said EF and GH to reside with the defender. It is in the best interests of the said EF and GH that an order be made regulating residence of the said EF and GH than no order be made.

2. There may be occasions when the defender will wish to take EF, born 2013, and GH, born 2014, abroad on holiday. It is better for the said EF and GH to have certainty that they can travel abroad on holiday. It is better for the said EF and GH that a specific issue order is made in respect of travel abroad than no order is made.

3. To reinstate contact would cause distress to EF, born 2013, and GH, born 2014, and would be detrimental to their welfare. Having regard to the welfare of the said EF and GH, there should be no contact between the pursuer and the said EF and GH.

4. It is better for EF, born 2013, and GH, born 2014 that no order for contact be made than an order for contact be made.

THEREFORE Repels the pursuer's first and second pleas-in-law and the defender's first, second and third pleas-in-law; sustains the defender's fourth and fifth pleas-in-law and grants a residence order in favour of the defender providing that EF born 2013 and GH, born 2014, shall reside with the defender; grants a specific issue order in the following terms: The defender will be entitled to take EF born 2013 and GH, born 2014, out of the United Kingdom for the purpose of a holiday at any time out with school term time. The defender is entitled to apply for a passport on behalf of EF born 2013 and GH, born 2014, without requiring the consent of the pursuer.

NOTE This case called before me for proof and evidence was led over 5 days; 23 September 2024, 14 October 2024, 28 January 2025, 12 March 2025 and 25 March 2025. Thereafter both parties provided written submissions. Procedural history [1] This is an action by the pursuer for a residence order in respect of the children, which failing, contact with the children. This action was originally raised in October 2018. At that time the pursuer sought a shared care arrangement, on an alternate week basis, which failing, residential contact each alternate weekend. Interim contact was initially granted by interlocutor of 28 June 2019. In week 1, the pursuer had residential contact with the children from Friday at 5.00pm until Saturday at 7.00pm and in week 2 from Saturday at 10.00am until Sunday at 12 noon. Matters appear to have been moving towards resolution and on 25 March 2020 the case was sisted. On 13 June 2022 the defender moved to recall the sist and reduce contact to nil and on 15 June 2022 contact was suspended by order of court. [2] The recall of sist and removal of contact followed an allegation made by the child EF that the pursuer had assaulted him during contact on 4 June 2022. [3] In August 2022 the pursuer's solicitor withdrew from acting. On 29 September 2022 the pursuer lodged an amended initial writ, which amended his craves to seek a residence order in respect of the

children, which failing, contact in accordance with the terms of a joint minute which had previously been under discussion by parties. From August 2022 onwards the pursuer represented himself in the proceedings. [4] The pursuer has not had contact with the children since 4 June 2022. In the child welfare report dated 23 August 2022 the child welfare reporter recommended that contact be reinstated on a supervised basis. I note from the interlocutor of 9 September 2022 that the pursuer's motion for interim contact was refused by the sheriff in hoc statu . In the note appended to that interlocutor, the sheriff states: "I came to the conclusion that the pursuer is so negative and apparently bitter towards the defender (he might see it as entirely justified) that contact, even at the contact centre will not work. The pursuer's vitriol about the defender at the hearing was such that I am clear he would not keep it in check at contact." From the subsequent procedure in this case it does not appear that the question of contact was revisited. [5] It is clear from these remarks, that on 9 September 2022 the presiding sheriff gained an impression as to the extent of acrimony exhibited by the pursuer towards the defender. At that stage parties had been separated for more than 4 years. I would observe that when this matter called before me for proof, a further 2 years later, the attitude of

the pursuer appeared unchanged. Evidence Video and audio recordings [6] The pursuer played a number of visual and audio recordings to the court which formed a significant proportion of his evidence in chief. The court was shown around fourteen visual recordings, though some appear to show the same occasion. The footage had been captured on the pursuer's car dashcam and shows him collecting the children for contact from the home of the defender. In each video, the pursuer was within his parked car outside the defender's home with a view of the front of the house, front garden and start of the driveway. [7] The recordings show the defender, her husband, IJ, and her father congregating at the front of the house. On some occasions the children are seen at the front of the house or appear later. In one video, a chair is brought to the driveway and the grandfather sits on that. In another video, what appears to be a hot drink in a mug is brought out and passed to the grandfather. In one video the defender hugs her husband before skipping up the driveway. In the majority of these videos a "bunny" soft toy belonging to the child GH is prominent and is often held aloft (usually by IJ). On one occasion, GH runs to the car with the toy but is called back to return the toy. [8] The recordings indicate that the pursuer is waiting in his car for some time before the children come to the car.

On every occasion the children run to the pursuer's car and certainly appear happy to be going with him. [9] After the children get into the car, the defender, her partner and her father do not return into the house but remain at the front of the house, variously waving, staring and on several occasions holding their phones in a manner which would certainly suggest that they were recording the pursuer. [10] The pursuer does not drive away once the children are in the car but continues to sit in his car outside the property for a prolonged period of time and continues to record. [11] Some of the recordings capture sound and the pursuer also led in evidence four separate audio recordings of occasions when he has collected the children. The pursuer had himself prepared transcripts of these recordings. In the first recording EF reports to the pursuer that the defender had said that the pursuer wanted EF's granny (maternal grandmother) to die. In another audio recording the children tell the pursuer that their mother and maternal grandfather made them tell the police things about the pursuer. The children could not recall what these were. There is a recording of the children telling the pursuer that their mother and grandfather had told them to say they did not want to stay overnight with him and there was a recording where GH indicates that she gets a row if she is seen to cuddle

the pursuer. The pursuer is heard to question the children at length about what they are telling him. [12] In the audio recordings, the pursuer is also heard questioning the children about their mother, IJ and grandfather and on occasion is heard to make disparaging remarks about their mother and her family. Report by Professor Lorraine Johnstone ­ 2 September 2024 [13] Consultant Clinical and Forensic Psychologist, Professor Lorraine Johnstone, prepared a report dated 2 September 2024. This report provides an extremely detailed assessment of the children, the parties, wider family members and the family circumstances which have led to these proceedings. [14] I have carefully considered the detailed findings of this report. Given the qualifications held by Professor Johnstone, I am content to consider this an expert report and to rely on the contents and opinions provided therein. I do not intend to rehearse the content of this report but there are certain findings which I consider significant and which I will highlight. [15] The pursuer showed the recordings of the handovers to Professor Johnstone and Professor Johnstone makes the following observation: "The handovers between AB and the maternal family are a mixture of hostile, threatening and inappropriate negative behaviours from CD, her husband, and her father (e.g. arguing, staring, ignoring, recording, carrying a large

saw, police attendance etc.) alongside some apparent joviality and excitedness (e.g. CD and her family members smiling, her skipping along the driveway). In addition, I could not exclude the presence of GH's bunny at handovers and not accompanying her between houses to be designed to cause distress in GH." She also notes AB's behaviour towards the children at collection: "AB believes that CD and her family are actively alienating his children from him and when he collected the children ... his questioning of them and the comments he made to them about their mother and grandfather were highly inappropriate ... His style was interrogating and pressurised and he actively denigrated the children's mother, grandfather and IJ. This would have been distressing and confusing for the children and very likely would have created a sense of anxiety, confusion, worry and insecurity that would have impacted on their sense of safety and connectedness to their family members." [16] Professor Johnstone recognises that both children indicate that they do not wish to have any contact with their father. Professor Johnstone describes the children's journey to reaching this position as "multi-faceted and the result of several different but interrelated processes". Professor Johnstone sums this up when providing her analysis and opinion as follows: "it is my professional opinion that the children's

expressed views are resultant of several distinct but related processes located in the parenting and family system. I believe that the children have lacked a stable and secure environment from their early infancy. They have experienced loss and grief, caregiver disruption, house moves, new parental relationships, and repeated ruptures to their parental relationships. In addition, they have been exposed to an alienating dynamic and CD, IJ and the maternal grandfather have created a sense of fear and contempt for their father and given them permission ­ of (sic) not overly encouraged them ­ to reject him. They are being told that it is in their interests to replace their father with IJ. In addition, AB's own behaviours will likely have contributed to a degree of estrangement." [17] Professor Johnstone highlights that: "children who are prevented from having a relationship with a parent are at risk of adverse outcomes" and that: "parental alienation is a form of psychological abuse due to its associated impacts". It is Professor Johnstone's opinion that it would be in the best long-term interests of these children to find a way in which they could benefit from positive family relationships and in her report she provides a detailed plan with suggested steps which, if followed, might allow this to be achieved. Child welfare report ­ Paula Giannelli - 26 June 2019 [18] There have

been two child welfare reporters instructed during the course of these proceedings. [19] Child welfare reporter Paula Giannelli, solicitor, prepared the first report when the children were aged 5 and 4. Ms Giannelli spoke to all parties and described the relationship between parties as "extremely poor". In particular, she noted that the defender was focussed on her previous relationship with the pursuer and allegations of his controlling and abusive behaviour. When asked about his role as a father, the defender continued to reference his behaviour and treatment of her during the relationship. The defender provided various reasons why the children should not have overnight contact with the pursuer. At the time of this report in 2019 the pursuer voiced concerns to the reporter that the defender was attempting to alienate the children from him. [20] The reporter observed contact between the pursuer and the children and described the contact as very positive and that there was real and genuine affection between the pursuer, the children and their paternal grandmother (it initially being a condition of contact that she be in attendance). The reporter recommended contact to continue and for overnight contact to be attempted. The reporter did not see the need for contact to be supervised. [21] The reporter, was not impressed that both parties had clearly been speaking to the children

about residential contact and concluded her report by stating: "It would be far better for these children, who are caught in the middle of this, if their parents could be respectful of each other and not try to influence the children against each other." Child welfare report ­ 23 August 2022, Fiona Munn [22] The child welfare reporter, Fiona Munn, solicitor, was instructed to prepare a report following the allegation of assault by EF and at a time when contact was not operating. In her report, Ms Munn considered the allegation made by EF and noted that EF was the only witness to this alleged assault and his description was completely contradicted by the adults present; the pursuer, his girlfriend and her mother. In addition, the reporter considered that EF's account did not accord with an audio recording taken of him on his return from contact. (That recording did not feature in these proceedings and the reasons for it being made remain unclear.) The reporter reached the view that adverse influence had been brought to bear on the children's view of their father and recommended that contact be resumed on a supervised basis. Evidence of the pursuer [23] The pursuer represented himself in these proceedings. He gave evidence on 23 September 2024, 14 October 2024 and 28 January 2025. [24] Parties separated on 26 May 2018. The separation took the pursuer by surprise, occurring on the

day the defender's mother died. The defender took the children and moved in with her father. The pursuer received a letter from the defender's solicitor advising him not to contact the defender and he had no contact with the children until he commenced legal proceedings. The defender made a number of false allegations against him and initially, when he did have contact with the children it was a condition that his mother was also present during contact. [25] When contact resumed in 2019, the pursuer was clear that the children were exhibiting severe signs of parental alienation, with EF in particular exhibiting disruptive behaviour. The children made various comments which indicated that the defender and their grandfather had been making negative comments about him to the children and that the defender had told the children about certain matters arising during the parties' relationship and also relating to the breakdown of the relationship. [26] In relation to the allegation of assault made by EF at the Bathgate Gala Day on 4 June 2022, the pursuer categorically denied that any assault took place. Both the pursuer and his mother gave statements to the police and subsequently the police indicated that the allegation was completely unfounded. The second child welfare report and the report by Professor Johnston indicate that the authors of those reports do not believe the

allegation. The pursuer believes that the child was encouraged by the defender to fabricate the allegation to ensure the children were free to attend the marriage of the defender and IJ which took place on 1 July 2022, rather than be with the pursuer pre-arranged holiday contact on 1 July 2022. [27] The entirety of the pursuer's evidence was underpinned by his assertion that the children have been, and continue to be, subject to abuse by way of parental alienation at the hands of the defender. The pursuer characterised this as emotional abuse by the defender, perpetrated to ensure that the children have a wholly negative perception of him and will no longer want contact with him. The pursuer referred to several sections of Professor Johnstone's report in support of his position that the defender and her family have alienated the children from him. [28] The pursuer played the video and audio recordings of the handovers and it was his position that these recordings were accurate. In the audio recordings, the pursuer is heard to repeatedly question the children about what they are saying and is not to be diverted, despite apparent attempts by the children to change the subject. The pursuer accepted in evidence that some of his questioning was probably not appropriate and that he may have come across as abrupt in his questioning of the children but stated that he required

to question the children as it was clear they were getting abused in their home life. [29] In cross-examination the pursuer was asked about a reference in the second child welfare report where the reporter refers to an audio recording where the pursuer stated to the children: "Its shocking the grooming that goes on with your mum telling you that I was to blame for your gran dying. Lowest of the low. You know your grandad had an affair for 17 years. You know that don't you?" The pursuer explained that it was a stressful situation and he had been watching his son waiting in the front garden for 7 minutes before being allowed to get into the car. He accepted that his comments were not appropriate but he had been forced into questioning the children. When asked further about telling children, then aged 8 and 6, that their grandfather had had an affair, the pursuer responded that the car door was open and what he was saying was designed to be heard by the parties outside the car and would not have been understood by the children. [30] In relation to all video and audio recordings of the children and his questioning of the children, the pursuer was clear that all his actions were as a direct consequence of the clear abuse/parental alienation being perpetrated on the children by the defender. [31] The pursuer presented his evidence in chief on his own behalf without issue. However, I

noted that his presentation changed markedly when cross-examined, immediately becoming hostile and antagonistic when being asked questions and, on occasion, requiring to be repeatedly reminded to answer the question being asked. I acknowledged that the pursuer was appearing without legal representation and, for that reason, allowed him a greater degree of latitude than I might otherwise. [32] The pursuer disagreed with comments by a social worker which stated that his discussions with the children amounted to emotional abuse. The pursuer responded that the Social Work Department was a biased and sexist organisation which was there to agree with women. The pursuer considered the Social Work Department to be negligent as he had informed them of the psychological abuse perpetrated upon the children by the defender and no action had been taken. [33] Due to his concerns around abuse by the defender, the pursuer wishes to be awarded full residence of the children and stated that the defender should work towards having contact with the children. He needs to prove to the children that he is not the "bogey man" and in order to achieve that, the pursuer wishes for the children to be taken into temporary foster care and he would see them daily to be re-introduced to them. Thereafter, as he resides with his parents in a three bedroomed house, there is a bedroom available for the children

there and he has an option to build an extension to his parents' house. His parents are supportive and his mother becomes upset when she contemplates that she will not see her grandchildren again, when she was in the habit of seeing them regularly under the previous contact arrangements. [34] In cross-examination, it was suggested to the pursuer that the idea of placing the children into foster care was unconscionable and unrealistic. While the pursuer accepted that he would not want the children taken into care and it would be hard to remove them from their current home, he considered that to be in their best interests and stated that it would be shocking to want children to stay with their abuser. [35] In respect to how he envisaged contact working in future, the pursuer stated that if the parental alienation stopped then he would have no cause to question the children. At present, he could not be convinced that parental alienation and grooming was not taking place in the face of evidence to the contrary. The pursuer suggested that after contact restarted, a further psychological report would be required to confirm that the behaviours had stopped on the part of the defender and her family. [36] The pursuer refuted the suggestion that he had refused to accept supervised contact with the children and, instead, indicated that he had asked for alternative measures as he did not

feel supervised contact was appropriate where the children had been psychologically "groomed" by the defender. When other measures were refused, he agreed to supervised contact. [37] The pursuer disagreed with the child welfare report where, in reference to the recordings by the pursuer, the child welfare reporter states: "The content of those recordings...was truly shocking. The fact that the pursuer thinks that these recordings should advance his case for contact demonstrates his complete lack of insight into the welfare of the children. After the hostile handover the children are confronted by the pursuer's interrogation with no holds barred on his part." The pursuer stated that this assessment was not correct and he made reference in his answer to corruption in the legal system and that some people are biased towards females. He stated that he acted as he did due to the parental alienation techniques and to highlight the abuse that his children were suffering. Equally the pursuer did not accept a conclusion by the child welfare reporter that: "the writer is in no doubt that the pursuer, by choosing to interrogate the children and make derogatory comments about the Defender and her father, has further estranged them by his own actings and possibly frightened them. The children have been placed in an unhappy and impossible situation. They cannot please both parents." [38] The

pursuer was asked about the passage in his pleadings where he makes reference to being free to contact the children when they are of legal age: "at what time (sic) he can explain the narcissistic behaviour by the grand father and mother and give them full proof of information and recordings and then the children will decide for themselves." The pursuer was clear in his intention to do this and indicated that if he contacts them and they believe what their mother has told them, he will have no option but to provide this information to them. [39] The pursuer disputed the statement in Professor Johnstone's report that: "the children are settled in their family home, express an attachment to their mother, stepfather and grandfather, are attending and performing well at school and have access to a range of extra-curricular activities." The pursuer is of the clear view that the children were abducted on the first day of separation and are in a situation where they are continuing to be abused. In relation to the children's views that they did not wish to have contact, the pursuer was adamant that the expression of these views resulted from psychological abuse. Evidence of the defender [40] A vulnerable witness application had previously been granted in respect of the defender and she observed the proof from a remote location and gave her evidence via CCTV link. As the pursuer was

appearing without a solicitor, it had been determined at the pre-proof hearing that the pursuer would prepare a list of questions for the defender and these questions would be asked by the sheriff. [41] The defender is aged 32 years old and works part-time as a primary school teacher. She adopted her affidavit as her evidence in chief. [42] The defender confirmed that EF has a diagnosis of ADHD and Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD). He currently comes home from school at lunchtime and is preparing to transition to High School after the summer holidays. The defender described that EF might start an extra-curricular activity but stop it quickly and his main hobby is gaming. He has a good group of friends and on the previous day had been out all-day playing football which he doesn't usually do but if he is not out with his friends he will be gaming with them. She described GH as having a very active social life, enjoying gymnastics, acrobatics, Brownies and cheerleading. [43] The defender lives with her husband, IJ, and the children in their own detached house in a housing estate. Both children have their own bedrooms. They have lived there for 2 years. The children see their grandfather regularly. He has not been well recently but comes for dinner on Sundays. The family spend time with other family members, including her brother-in-law who has older girls. [44] The defender was

asked about her behaviour at handovers. The defender indicated that she wanted to wave goodbye to the children but the pursuer was in control of how long he waited outside and on occasion he would wait for prolonged periods once the children were in the car. The defender gave evidence that GH's bunny soft toy does not leave the house. She had bought a replica toy to be kept at the pursuer's home but it was left in the pursuer's car boot and had cola spilled on it. [45] The defender was asked about the date of her wedding coinciding with a time when the pursuer was due to have the children for residential contact in the summer holidays. The defender explained that the wedding had been scheduled for 25 July 2022 but had to be brought forward in an emergency due to the ill health of IJ's mother. They were married in the presence of his mother at hospital and the children did not attend. [46] The defender gave evidence about difficulties obtaining the pursuer's consent to take the children on holiday abroad. The pursuer had objected to a request to take the children to Euro Disney and the matter required to call in court. The pursuer did not attend the hearings and a specific issue order was granted by the court. A further specific issue order was required to allow the children to be taken on holiday to Lanzarote in the summer of 2024. On a previous occasion, the pursuer had not

replied to a request to take the children on a summer holiday abroad and, as a result, they did not go on holiday. [47] The defender had always considered that it was in the best interests of the children to have contact with the pursuer and that it was important that the children knew him and had a relationship with him. However, due to the pursuer's behaviour, she no longer considers contact to be in the children's best interests. [48] The defender was asked about the findings of Professor Johnstone's report. In particular, at page 46 where it is stated: "Since both parents and the grandfather are vulnerable to exposing their hostility to the other, the adults must ensure that this immediately ceases." The defender accepted that, at times, the handovers were not what they should have been. She has been doing her best to be the best parent possible and together with her husband, IJ, has taken on board Professor Johnstone's report. She has accessed a Wellbeing Toolkit to get the tools to support the children. Quarriers have become involved in advocating for the children and in supporting EF in school and Aberlour are also involved in helping to support EF. Get Set for Autism, who are based in Alloa, have also been involved. [49] The defender was clear that, in light of the behaviours exhibited by the pursuer, the plan suggested by Professor Johnstone and the need for all

parties essentially to work together was not realistic. [50] In relation to holidays, she had always sought permission to take the children abroad. The defender confirmed that she had informed the children that the pursuer had refused to allow them to be taken on holiday to Euro Disney. She required to do this as EF is neurodivergent and things cannot be thrown at him at the last moment and she had told the children the truth. The children were prepared for the trip, their bags were packed and they had bought matching hoodies and ears. [51] The defender was asked about the content of Professor Johnstone's report and denied any suggestion of parental alienation in respect of the children. She denied the suggestion in the report that she had told the children information about the parties' relationship and separation. She denied that EF's use of the word "scumbag" to describe the pursuer had come from her. [52] The defender confirmed that the child EF is aware of the court proceedings and that she is not going to lie to him and that she will tell him the truth. She also stated that EF continually asks if her husband, IJ, can adopt him and they have to tell him that IJ cannot adopt him. Evidence of IJ [53] IJ gave evidence that he had started a relationship with the defender during 2019 and first met the children in 2020 after lockdown. He stated that both children quickly started

to refer to him as "Daddy" and that was something he was very proud of. He became engaged to the defender at Christmas 2021. [54] Throughout the time he has known the children they have both been reluctant to attend for contact with the pursuer and described them as being visibly terrified to go. He stated that when the pursuer would come to collect the children he would often wait outside with the children in the car for between 15 and 40 minutes before driving off. He described that he would wait outside with the grandfather but the defender would often have to return inside due to the effect upon her of being in the vicinity of the pursuer, causing her to shake uncontrollably in fear. [55] I would note that in relation to this passage of evidence that the children were visibly terrified to go for contact and that being in the vicinity of the pursuer caused the defender to shake in fear was categorically not borne out in the video recordings before the court. On every occasion the children ran happily to the pursuer's car and the behaviour of the defender (including her childlike skipping up the driveway) and her prolonged presence at the handovers in no way supported the suggestion that she was in any way in fear of the pursuer. [56] The witness stated that the only time he had face to face contact with the pursuer was on an occasion when he attempted to hand the pursuer a

leaflet about the flu vaccination both children had just received as it contained information about possible side effects. He described that as he approached the car, the pursuer began screaming, swearing and shouting at him to get away from his car and that he was breaking the law. This incident is captured in a recording by the pursuer and in cross-examination IJ was shown the video and audio recording. This shows the pursuer in his car and while no swearing is heard, the pursuer can be heard shouting at someone to get away from his car and that they were breaking the law. The children were in the car at this time. The witness did not accept that the recording captured the whole of the incident and, due to the camera facing into the car, it did not show the pursuer speeding off and bumping across the kerb. The witness was also asked in cross-examination why he had not sent an email about the vaccinations and why he had broken a long-standing precedent of all communication being by email. The witness stated that he had thought the pursuer would be reasonable, take the leaflet and want to know that the children had had their vaccinations. [57] The witness described the children returning from contact reporting that the pursuer had called EF abusive names and sworn him, that they had spent the entire time with their grandmother while the pursuer was working. He also gave

evidence that, on occasion, the children returned home without having changed their clothes and with GH's hair matted. The witness stated that after EF had caused damage to his (IJ's) car, the children reported that the pursuer had praised EF for his behaviour. [58] The witness spoke about the unpredictable nature of the pursuer's emails, which could change, without warning, from friendly to abusive. The pursuer never asked for information about the children and during the time IJ has known the children, the pursuer has never sent any birthday cards or gifts or Christmas gifts to the children. [59] Difficulties were encountered when he and the defender had wished to take the children abroad for holidays. He stated that they had planned a trip to Euro Disney, but the pursuer had refused to consent to the holiday and then twice failed to attend at court. This resulted in uncertainty as to whether the trip could proceed, which caused upset and distress to the children. The witness was asked in cross-examination by the pursuer whether he considered it appropriate to tell the children that the pursuer had refused to consent. The pursuer asked why an alternative explanation was not provided to the children, suggesting that the children could have instead been told that "the plane had broken down". The witness indicated that EF's diagnosis means that he needs to know everything well

in advance and that a child of his age was old enough to understand and that he and the defender do not lie to the children. [60] He spoke about the children's interests and described GH as a very sociable child who attends numerous clubs and has friends who live nearby and she is out playing all the time. EF is less keen on clubs, although he has attended cycling and judo clubs previously but enjoys playing online with friends. He also has a group of close friends who live on the same estate. He described both children as doing well at school. GH loves school and while EF can take it or leave it, a recent parents evening indicated that he is doing what he needs to do at school. [61] The witness was asked about the handovers shown in the video footage and asked why he chose to wait outside at handovers. He waited outside to wave goodbye to the children and stated that the length of time he was there was controlled by the amount of time spent by the pursuer waiting once the children were in the car. He stated that on average the pursuer would wait for 15 minutes but it could be for as long as 40 minutes. The witness was asked about the toy bunny and stated that the bunny rarely left home but GH wanted the bunny to come out and wave her off. He was asked in cross-examination about videoing the handovers on his mobile phone and denied this, stating that he was holding his phone at

a particular angle as he was waiting on a text message. [62] The witness confirmed that neither child wishes any contact whatsoever with the pursuer. He described the impact of removing the children from the care of the defender and himself as potentially catastrophic. He stated that children with ASD struggle to build relationships, but EF has managed that and has spent 7 years at school building relationships with his peers. If EF was made to see the pursuer against his wishes he would resent everyone. GH has also stated that she does not want to go for contact. Previously, GH was in tears going to contact and returning. She has clubs on every night. He described the time taken by himself and the defender to develop the knowledge and skills to help EF with all the things he struggles with. He stated that it would be catastrophic for the children on an emotional level. [63] The witness was asked about the suggestion of the children being taken into foster care and stated that such a suggestion was ridiculous and that no one who loves a child would want them to go into foster care. [64] The witness was asked whether it was realistic to suggest that the pursuer, the defender and he could work together. The witness stated this was totally unrealistic and cited the pursuer's behaviour when he attempted to give him the vaccination leaflet. He stated that the prospect of sitting in

a room with the pursuer and a mediator was ridiculous and just not possible. He stated while they would be willing, the likely effect it would have on the defender and the accusations made by the pursuer meant it was not a scenario which was likely to play out well. The views of the children [65] The children's views were taken on 23 August 2022 during preparation of the second child welfare report. Both children indicated that they did not wish to see their father. EF stated that this was due to physical assaults on him by his father (including at the Gala Day) and GH stated that it was due to the assaults by her father on her brother and that he had slapped her on one occasion. The child welfare reporter again obtained the children's views on 26 July 2023. Their views remained unchanged, and they were both clear they did not wish to have contact with their father. It is also clear from Professor Johnstone's report which is dated 2 September 2024 that the children's views remain unchanged. [66] Following the conclusion of the evidence I considered that it would be helpful to meet the children myself. In particular, I wished to explore with them whether they would be amenable to some sort of indirect contact from their father such as letters or cards and/or gifts at birthdays and Christmas. I was advised that EF did not wish to meet with me, but that GH wished to meet with me.

I met with GH on 5 August 2025 in the presence of a sheriff clerk. [67] GH was keen to share her views and she had also written down what she wanted to tell me. GH was clear that she did not want any form of contact with her father, whether direct or indirect contact. In the letter she gave me she also indicated that she was worried about seeing her father again, she did not want to keep talking about it, she wanted it all to stop and she wanted to stay with her mum, her "dad" (IJ) and her brother. Applicable law [68] In terms of section 11(7) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 ("the 1995 Act"), in considering whether or not to make any orders under section 11, the court: "(a) shall regard the welfare of the child concerned as its paramount consideration and shall not make any such order unless it considers that it would be better for the child that the order be made than none should be made at all, and (b) taking account of the child's age and maturity, shall as far as practicable- (i) give him an opportunity to indicate whether he wishes to express his views; (ii) if he does so wish give him an opportunity to express them; and (iii) have regard to such views as he may express" [69] In carrying out the duties imposed by section 11(7)(a) the court is required to have regard to the particular matters mentioned contained in section 11(7B) namely; "(7B)(a) the need to protect the

child from- (i) any abuse; or (ii) the risk of any abuse which affects, or might, affect the child; (b) the effect such abuse, or the risk of such abuse, might have on the child; (c) the ability of a person- (i) who has carried out abuse which affects or might affect the child; or (ii) who might carry out such abuse, to care for, or otherwise meet the needs of the child; and (d) the effect any abuse or the risk of any abuse, might have on the carrying out of responsibilities in connection with the welfare of the child by a person who has ...those responsibilities (7C) `abuse' includes- (a) violence, harassment, threatening conduct and any other conduct giving rise or likely to give rise, to physical or mental injury, fear, alarm or distress; (b) abuse of a person other than the child; and (c) domestic abuse `conduct' includes ­ (a) speech; and (b) presence in a specified place or area" [70] In terms of section 11(7D): "Where ­ (a) the court is considering making an order under subsection (1) above; and (b) in pursuance of the order two or more relevant persons would have to co- operate with one another as respects matters affecting the child, the court shall consider whether it would be appropriate to make the order." [71] I was referred to and considered LRK v AG 2020 SCLR 325, White v White SC 201 , NEDB v JEG 2012 SC (UKSC) 293 , J v M 2016 SC 835 and M v K 2015 SLT

469 . Conclusion [72] Section 11(7) of the 1995 Act makes it clear that when deciding whether to make orders in respect of parental rights and responsibilities, the court must regard the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration and the court shall not make any such order unless it considers that it would be better for the child that the order be made than none should be made. [73] In addition, when considering whether to make an order, it is important to recognise that it is generally considered to be in the best interests of children to maintain a relationship and contact with the parent with whom they are not living ( White v White 2001 SC 201 at paragraph 1 ). However, in terms of section 11(7D) where the court is considering making an order and that order would require two or more relevant persons to co-operate with each other as respects matters affecting the child, the court shall consider whether it would be appropriate to make the order. [74] The court has seen the videos of the collection of the children for contact. Given the ages of the children and the location, which is a busy road, it would clearly be necessary for an adult to supervise that the children were safely delivered into the pursuer's car. It would be reasonably anticipated that collection of the children would be a matter of very short duration and any farewells or arrangements could take

place inside the house before the children were brought out to the pursuer. Indeed, given the nature of the relations between the parties, it would be assumed that both parties would wish any contact to be as brief as possible. [75] By contrast, the videos essentially show a prolonged "stand off" between the four most significant adults in these children's lives. It is a wholly unnecessary and unpleasant situation and cannot fail to have had a negative impact on the children. It is concerning that none of the four adults appear able to recognise this and modify their behaviour in the interests of the children. [76] On one occasion, when IJ approaches the pursuer's car to hand a leaflet to him about the children's vaccinations, the pursuer appears to become immediately irate, shouting at him to get away from his car and accusing him of breaking the law. The children have just got into the pursuer's car and will have witnessed the pursuer behaving in this manner. [77] The behaviour of the parties at the handovers serves to underline the level of hostility between them and illustrates their inability to co-operate with each other, to the extent that even the collection of the children for contact is unable to proceed without incident. [78] In her report, Professor Johnstone suggests a plan which, if followed, might result in more positive family relationships and which would

ultimately serve the best interests of the children. I considered, one of the suggested steps to be particularly significant. It is explained by Professor Johnstone as follows: "The parties (and grandparents) should commit to collaborating with each other to work in the children's best interests, to provide a narrative about each other that is positive, supportive, and optimises their relationship. I was concerned that both sides are so aligned that they may be unable or unwilling to fully hold the children in mind." [79] Prior to the proof commencing, I raised the suggested plan with parties and asked whether they would consider adopting the suggestions. The pursuer indicated that he would be happy to do so but the defender declined and, accordingly, the matter proceeded to proof. Having now heard evidence from all parties at proof, I consider that the concern expressed by Professor Johnstone to be well founded. [80] Professor Johnstone is an independent professional and can properly be categorised as an expert and I have, accordingly, placed weight on her report. Her report lays bare the respective conduct of both the pursuer and the defender and indicates that their behaviour has the potential to have a significant adverse impact upon their children. It might have been hoped that a report, in such stark terms, would have led both parties to pause and reflect upon the need

for change and the need to conduct themselves differently going forward. Regrettably, I reached the view that (notwithstanding the pursuer's professed agreement to follow the suggested plan) there is simply no prospect of any of the adults involved in this case being capable of putting the best interests of the children ahead of their deeply held animosity towards each other. [81] For contact to successfully resume between the pursuer and the children, the defender and her family would require to be supportive of contact and to speak in positive terms about the pursuer to the children. It is clear that the defender and her family are not supportive of contact, will not promote contact and will not speak in positive terms about the pursuer. Against that background, it is not surprising that the children will not regard contact with the pursuer in a positive light. [82] Both children are adamant that they do not wish any contact with their father. I am satisfied that the defender and her wider family have portrayed the pursuer in a negative light to the children and that this cannot fail to have had a significant influence over the views that the children have formed. I cannot be satisfied that the children have formed their views wholly of their own free will and, accordingly, I attach less weight to their views. [83] That being said, both children are strongly opposed to any

form of contact with the pursuer and, however they have reached their view, that is now their unequivocal position and I believe their views to be genuinely held. It is now more than 3 years since EF and GH had contact with the pursuer. At that time they were aged 8 and 7 respectively, they are now aged 12 and 10. I consider that attempting to compel children of this age to have contact with the pursuer against their wishes would almost certainly fail on a practical level and, more importantly, would be likely to be extremely detrimental to the welfare of these children. In particular, the child EF has a diagnosis of ADHD and ASD and appears even less likely to accept a resumption of contact. Supervised contact was recommended by the second child welfare reporter in 2022. Had the pursuer been amenable to complying with supervised contact and had contact resumed at that time, the outcome of this case may have been different. [84] If the pursuer was now to have contact with the children I cannot be satisfied that he would be capable of concealing from the children the level of animosity he clearly harbours towards their mother and her wider family. The pursuer has demonstrated this animosity throughout these proceedings and, indeed, expressed an intention to tell the children certain facts about their mother and grandfather once they are over the age of 16 and no longer subject

to court proceedings. I consider that he could not resist the opportunity to do so should he have any contact with the children. [85] This stated intention to share information with the children about their mother and grandfather (apparently regarding alleged infidelity on the part of the latter) and the refusal to consent to holidays abroad suggests that the pursuer does not always act in a manner which promotes the children's best interests. Of even greater concern is his wish that, in order to facilitate contact and residence with him, the children are removed from their settled home and the care of their mother and placed temporarily in foster care. I considered this to demonstrate a remarkable lack of insight into the welfare and best interests of the children. [86] In all the circumstances, I consider that there is no prospect of contact operating successfully. Accordingly, I am satisfied that it is better for EF and GH that contact is brought to an end now, together with the court proceedings. [87] It is a significant step to sever the relationship between a parent and child, but the operation of contact would require the pursuer and the defender to co-operate to some degree. Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that parties are simply unable to co- operate. If contact was to be ordered, this would further expose the children to the hostility and conflict

between their parents. I consider that to be damaging to the children and it is in the best interests of the children that they are not further exposed to this. [88] In the concluding paragraph of her report, Professor Johnstone recommends that if parties fail to address and alter their behaviour then the court should consider whether alternative mechanisms are required to safeguard the children. It is suggested that this might include a referral to social work or the Scottish Children's Reporters Administration and the completion of a full parenting capacity assessment. [89] The children have resided with the defender since parties separated. Other than the allegations that the defender has alienated the children from the pursuer, no other concerns have been raised about the welfare of the children while in the care of their mother. In her report, Professor Johnstone notes that the children are settled in their family home, display an attachment to their mother and stepfather, are attending and performing well at school and have access to a range of extra-curricular activities. I am not persuaded that any further intervention by professionals will have any impact on the behaviour of parties and, consequently, be of any benefit to the children. The main issue of concern for these children is the impact upon them arising from the hostility existing between their parents.

These proceedings have been ongoing in some form or another for a significant part of the children's lives. I consider that their welfare is best served by bringing matters to a conclusion. [90] Accordingly, I make no order for contact between the children and the pursuer. I consider that it is beneficial to regulate the children's residence going forward and I make a residence order in favour of the defender. In the past it has proved difficult for the defender to obtain the consent of the pursuer for holidays abroad. Holidays are generally considered a treat and something for children to look forward to and I consider that the defender should be able to arrange holidays and should be able to take the children out of the United Kingdom for holidays (during school holiday periods) without requiring the consent of the pursuer. A specific issue order is made in this regard which also specifies that the defender is able to apply for a passport on behalf of the children. [91] Although the children express a particular view on contact at present, those views may alter as they mature. It is for that reason that I wished to explore indirect contact by way of cards or gifts for birthdays and Christmas which would serve to maintain some form of communication. The removal of the pursuer's parental rights and responsibilities in their entirety would sever all links between the children

and their father. I do not consider that the children's best interests require such an order to be made and, accordingly, no order is made. [92] Parties have the benefit of reports from independent professionals. These reports reflect that the inability of both parents to deal responsibly with the breakdown of their relationship more than 7 years ago has had an extremely negative impact on the two children of the relationship. I consider that both the pursuer and defender bear equal responsibility for this and it is to be hoped that parties reflect on this. [93] The behaviour of both the pursuer and the defender has ultimately led to the fracturing of the relationship not only between the children and their father but also their wider family on the paternal side. That family includes a paternal grandmother who appears to be extremely distressed that she is no longer involved in the lives of her grandchildren. [94] Undoubtedly, the decision not to reinstate contact will be a huge disappointment to the pursuer and the pursuer was clearly passionate in his wish to resume contact with his children. The children are both young, but should they wish to better understand matters in time, this judgment reflects that the pursuer was clear that he loved his children, was determined to re-establish contact with them and was prepared to pursue the matter through lengthy court proceedings. Expenses [95] I have not made any order in relation to expenses and will set a date for a hearing should that be required. BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotSC/2025/2025scfal103.html