The parties were a former cohabiting couple who began living together around 2000 and separated in November 2007. This was an action under s. 28 of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 in which the pursuer sought a capital sum from her former partner. The couple had two children and the pursuer had a son from a previous relationship. Parties’ Submissions The pursuer averred first that the defender gained economic advantage from her when the parties cohabited between March ...
|
Parties and Background This was action for divorce. The pursuer sought decree of divorce and financial provision against her husband. The parties had three adult children and had been married for 32 years. In or around 1990 the parties’ relationship began to break down when the defender’s brother and the pursuer’s sister (who were also married) came to live with the pursuer and defender. The pursuer raised divorce proceedings in 1994 but abandoned the action due to p ...
|
Hedley J made a Parental Order under s.54 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 in respect of a child born in the Ukraine via a surrogacy agreement. Attention was drawn to the six week period necessary for effective consent and the difficulties encountered by parents seeking to regularise their child's position in the UK following a commercial surrogacy agreement.
|
The CA allowed a mother's appeal against the granting to a father of leave to remove a boy of 12 to Canada. The Mother did not appeal against the grant of leave in respect of the boy's older brother aged 16 who had already travelled to Canada and was living there at the time of the appeal. The CA held that the judge had been wrong to consider the two boys as a unit and that different considerations applied to the younger child. The CA attached weight to the fact that the Father's wish to move to ...
|
The CA in considering an appeal against the granting of a return order under the Hague Convention also considered the impact of the decision of the European Court in Neulinger. The appeal was dismissed and the court considered that Neulinger did not require a change in the present approach to Hague convention applications.
|
In a tangentially family related case the CA upheld a judge's decision not to rectify a will under which a son received a property on the death of both his parents. The son and his three sisters had argued that the intent of the parents had been to leave the property to all four of them. The son's former wife (who was pursuing ancillary relief proceedings) argued that the intent had always been to leave the property solely to the son.
|
Parties and Background: The pursuer (and respondent) and defender (and appellant) were husband and wife. They had a daughter, S, born in 2002. The parties were separated and S resided with her mother, the defender. The pursuer sought a contact order in respect of S. A child welfare hearing was scheduled to take place in September 2010. The day before the hearing the sheriff received a psychological assessment of S which outlined major concerns about the defender’s fitness to look after ...
|
The pursuer and minuter, and defender and respondent, were respectively the father and mother of the child RAD (born 23 March 2006). Both parties had parental rights and responsibilities in respect of the child, who had resided with the defender since birth. The parties separated in August 2006. The pursuer’s contact with the child was regulated by a contact order granted on 27 December 2007. On 23 April 2010, the pursuer lodged a minute seeking to recall the contact order, to interdict the defe ...
|
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 ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |