This Note sets out the reasoning for the Sheriff’s refusal to grant interim orders sought at a hearing on 17 June 2010. The action was raised a few weeks after the parties’ separation, which began while the pursuer (who suffered from bipolar disorder) was in hospital. The defender told him he was no longer welcome in the matrimonial home and changed the locks. At the hearing, the pursuer (the non-entitled spouse) sought two interim orders in terms of section 3(4) of the Matrimonial Homes (Family ...
|
This was an appeal by the natural parents of a child, LSK (aged 27 months), against a Sheriff’s decision to grant a petition (a) making a permanence order in respect of the child in terms of sections 80 and 81 of the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007 Act; (b) extinguishing the natural parents’ parental rights and responsibilities subject to a restricted right to obtain information about the child in terms of section 82; (c) granting authority for the child to be adopted in terms of secti ...
|
The pursuer and respondent, LW, and the defender and minuter, JW, were respectively the mother and father of children KB (born 28th April 2001) and RB (born 15th January 2005). Both parties had parental rights and responsibilities in respect of the children. The parties were divorced by decree on 15th July 2009, with a residence order in respect of both children in favour of the respondent. The minuter, who had been refused contact with the children by the respondent since January 2009, sought t ...
|
The petitioners were Aberdeen City Council. The respondents, IO and LO, were the birth parents of HMCO who was born on 8th August 2005. The petitioner sought a freeing order in respect of HMCO to allow him to be adopted. The respondents refused to consent to the order and moved for refusal of the application. The respondents had one younger child and were expecting another. HMCO was placed on the Child Protection Register in April 2007 following his attendance at hospital for unexplained injuri ...
|
The pursuer and first defender were husband and wife, having married in Scotland in August 1988; there were no children born of the marriage. The second defenders were incorporated in connection with a trust established by the first defender, set up to benefit children born of the first defender’s personal relationships with two other women during the marriage. In this action for financial provision brought under the provisions of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985, the pursuer sought a c ...
|
In this petition, Inverclyde Council sought permanence orders under section 80 of the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007 in respect of three children; the first respondent and second respondent were respectively the mother and father of the children. In terms of the petition, the Council argued that it would be seriously detrimental to the welfare of the children for them to live with the respondents, because the respondents were drug addicts with mental health difficulties, who had dem ...
|
The petitioner was Aberdeenshire Council. The respondents, TW and JW, were the birth parents of CW who was born on 5th December 2008. CW was the respondents’ third child and her two older siblings had already been placed for adoption by the local authority. CW was placed on the ‘At Risk’ Register from birth as a result of her parents’ failure to care for their other children. The petitioner sought the termination of an existing supervision requirement in re ...
|
The court gave reasons for the decision to grant a residence order to a mother who had become pregnant with Mr W's sperm as a result of an informal surrogacy agreement between herself and Mr and Mrs W. The mother had changed her mind during the pregnancy. The judge was satisfied that there was a clear attachment between the Mother and child and that the Mother would foster contact between Mr W and the child.
|
The CA allowed the appeal of a Wife against the judgment of Charles J awarding her £5m in respect of her ancillary relief claims. The CA held that the Judge had erred in his treatment of the Husband's business assets and increased the award to £8m. In considering matters the CA formally overruled the judgment in GW v RW (Financial Provision: Departure from Equality) [2003] EWHC 611, [2003] 2 FLR 108.
|
The CA dismissed an appeal in a 'big money' ancillary relief matter as to whether the Family Proceedings Rules or the Civil Procedure Rules applied to the joinder of a Third Party company. The CA upheld the judgment that the FPR applied and further that England and Wales was the convenient forum.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |