M AGAINST A [2023] ScotCS CSOH_80 (16 November 2023)

M AGAINST A [2023] ScotCS CSOH_80 (16 November 2023)

The welfare of the children is paramount. The evidence shows the children are settled in Aberdeen with appropriate accommodation, stable care, and community support. The pursuer's reasons for relocation are based on his own desires rather than the children's welfare. There is no real impediment to the pursuer moving closer to the children. Relocation would not be better for the children than maintaining the status quo. The pursuer failed to discharge the onus to show relocation is in the children's best interests.

Citation
[2023] ScotCS CSOH_80
Parties
Pursuer: M; Defender: A
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Family Law Child Relocation / Judgment After Proof
Outcome
Application for relocation refused; pursuer's second conclusion dismissed.
Legal Topics
Child Relocation, Parental Responsibilities, Welfare of the Child, Specific Issue Order
Family Law Child Relocation Parental Responsibilities Welfare of the Child Specific Issue Order

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M

Pursuer

A

Defender

Procedural Posture

Family Law Child Relocation / Judgment After Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should the children be relocated from Aberdeen to Glasgow?
  2. 2 Does relocation serve the welfare and best interests of the children?

Ratio Decidendi

The welfare of the children is paramount. The evidence shows the children are settled in Aberdeen with appropriate accommodation, stable care, and community support. The pursuer's reasons for relocation are based on his own desires rather than the children's welfare. There is no real impediment to the pursuer moving closer to the children. Relocation would not be better for the children than maintaining the status quo. The pursuer failed to discharge the onus to show relocation is in the children's best interests.

Court Disposition

Application for relocation refused; pursuer's second conclusion dismissed.

Orders

  • Refusal to make a specific issue order for relocation of the children.
  • Pursuer's first plea in law repelled.