This was an appeal against a Sheriff’s decision under section 3 of the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981. The appellant was a non-entitled spouse under the Act and the respondent was the tenant of the property which the parties occupied together until May 2010. The initial action was raised after the appellant, who suffered from a bi-polar disorder, returned home from hospital to find the respondent had changed the locks. At a hearing on 17 June 2010, the Sheriff refused ...
|
In this action, the petitioner sought authority for adoption of a child, K, born on 9 April 2009. A permanency order was sought under section 80 of the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007. Shortly after her birth, a parenting assessment conducted on K’s parents, R and M, was carried out by the petitioners. This concluded that they were not safe parents and further observations revealed serious concerns about the difficulties in their relationship. In June 2009, K was placed in foster ...
|
This was an appeal by both parents of a child, A, against a Sheriff’s decision under section 51 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. The Sheriff had refused the parents’ appeals against the decision of a Children’s Hearing (on 19 October 2009) to vary the terms of a supervision requirement in respect of A to require that A live with foster parents.It was accepted by the mother appellant that in terms of section 69(1) of the Act, the Hearing could consider reports obtained under the Act as well a ...
|
This was an appeal against a Sheriff’s decision under section 51 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. The appeal centred on whether the Sheriff was entitled to find that a Schedule 1 offence had been committed against a child, J. The appellant challenged the findings-in-fact that J ‘suffered deliberate repeated blows to his head’ which were ‘non-accidental’ and was ‘shaken deliberately by an adult with sufficient force to cause subdural bleed ...
|
The defender in this action sought an interdict against the pursuer from removing the child of their marriage, [E], out with the jurisdiction of North Strathclyde. Conversely, the pursuer sought a specific issue order allowing her to remove the child to live with her in the Birmingham area. Both parties additionally sought a residence order. Having heard evidence and submissions, the Sheriff did not consider the pursuer’s decision to move to Birmingham with [E] was reasonable. The court ...
|
In this action for contact, the pursuer and defender were respectively the father and mother of child [N], born 6 October 2007. The pursuer was not married to the defender, nor was the pursuer present or named at registration of the birth of the child as the child's father. The pursuer therefore did not have parental rights and responsibilities as a matter of statutory provision under sections 1 and 2 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. The pursuer sought to have his contact with the child ...
|
The pursuer and defenders were respectively the father and mother of [S], born on 1 April 2000. In this action, the pursuer had sought residential contact with [S], while the defender had submitted that there should be no contact of any kind. This appeal had come from Stirling Sheriff Court, where a proof had been heard on the issue of contact, which lasted for 52 days. The Lord President noted that the Sheriff’s judgment had ran in all to 173 pages, of which some 35 were findings of fac ...
|
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 ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |