This is a case about the rights of unmarried fathers to take part in children’s hearings under Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. It raises two distinct issues. The first concerns the kind of order made in the sheriff court which would be effective to give a father the right to take part in the children’s hearing. The second concerns the compatibility of the statutory scheme for participation in the children’s hearing with the rights of the father (and indeed the child) under the Europ ...
|
The pursuer raised divorce proceedings in Aberdeen Sheriff Court in 2003, which were later remitted to the Court of Session in 2009. The pursuer concluded for divorce on the grounds that the marriage had broken down irretrievably because of the defender’s desertion for a continuous period of more than two years. The defender had concluded for a residence order in relation to the child of the marriage. When the case called before the court for proof on 9 November 2010, the pursuer abandon ...
|
The pursuer and defender were cohabitants, who met and formed a relationship in or around June 1998. They became engaged to be married in or around October 1998, although no marriage ever took place between the parties. The parties viewed a property viewed for sale in February 1999, which the defender subsequently purchased in his own name in April 1999. The parties cohabited at the house continuously from Spring of 1999 until March 2008, when they separated. They lived together there as if they ...
|
The High Court granted a non-molestation injunction on a local authorities ex parte application on behalf of (but without notice being given to) an elderly couple against their son who lived with them. The Local Authority were concerned about the behaviour of the son towards the couple. The injunction was granted under the inherent jurisdiction.
|
In a case concerning the issues of jurisdiction as between England and Wales and Canada the court held that a Mother had accepted the jurisdiction of the English court. It was held that it was in the best interests of the children that the English court should at present retain jurisdiction in relation to all aspects of parental responsibility. The English hearing in respect of contact would proceed with the issue of jurisdiction being treated as a 'rolling consideration'.
|
The High Court ordered the disclosure of an expert's report in a situation where the expert had heard details from one of the parties in confidence. Following a hearing with only counsel present at which the relevant information was disclosed it was agreed that the whole report should be disclosed. The case law on the issue was discussed and the court noted that the balance might fall differently in other honour based violence cases.
|
In a Forced Marriage Protection Order case the court held that special advocates were not required in the instant case and indeed that 'the use of special advocates in forced marriage cases will be rare in the extreme'.
|
The Court of Appeal granted a Mother's application for permission to appeal against an order dismissing her application for leave to oppose the adoption of a child. The adoption hearing was stayed accordingly the court indicating that a change in circumstances had been established and that the second limb being the welfare test should be viewed as posing the question "Is it in the best interests of the child that a not hopeless case for opposition be heard?".
|
The appellant MH, the maternal grandmother of children JY and SY, appealed against decisions of the Children’s Hearing made on 20 August 2010, refusing to regard MH as a relevant person as defined in section 93(2) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, and therefore as a person entitled to attend and make representations at Children’s Hearings in respect of her grandchildren. MH also appealed against the decision of the Hearing, continuing a supervision requirement in respect of the ch ...
|
The CA allowed an appeal in relation to a TOLATA 1996 claim on the basis that, inter alia, the significance of the parties having been engaged was not taken into account. The order for sale was stayed and the matter remitted for re-hearing before a different judge.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |