By Euan Dow on 24/07/2008 10:19
Debate:- In this action the question at debate was when did the pursuer and defender stop cohabiting? The parties separated at some point in 2006. They had a child who was born in 1997. The pursuer contended that they separated in June, the defender, April. The date of separation was important to the pursuer's action because if the parties were co-habiting after 4 May 2006 the pursuer's claim on the defender would be restricted by virtue of the operation of Section 28 of the Family Law (Scotland ...
|
By Catherine Hart on 16/07/2008 18:54
The Pursuer and the Defender have a child, GM. When they separated, The Defender obtained full parental responsibilities and rights in relation to GM. The Defender decided that she would move to Spain to live permanently, taking GM with her. The Pursuer raised proceedings for inter alia interdict. The Defender craved a specific issue order under Section 11 (2) (e) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1985 allowing her to move GM from the UK to live permanently in Spain. She was ordained to l ...
|
By Euan Dow on 15/07/2008 17:35
Matrimonial:- On 23 June 1990 the parties married. At that time, the pursuer was aged 49 and had been married before. She was a school biology and chemistry teacher by profession until she retired in 2000. The defender was 46 and had never married and had been living in Aberdeen as a pharmacist, operating two shops. He was comfortably well off as a bachelor. In this action the pursuer sought capital sum of amounting to one half of the matrimonial property notwithstanding the capital which the de ...
|
By Martin Crawford on 03/07/2008 14:54
Preliminary proof in respect of when the date of cohabitation ceased between parties. S10 (7) Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985. Whether there had been a period of regular reconciliation. Defender stated that the pursuer's repeated assertions that the marriage had broken down were inconsistent with assertion of continued married life. Relevant date disputed.
|
By Claire Adams on 18/06/2008 07:10
The question in this case is whether it is consistent with Convention rights as defined in s.1(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 for a couple to be excluded from consideration as adoptive parents of a child on the ground only that they are not married. The woman is the natural mother of the child. The man is not the father but he and the woman have been living together for some years and treat the child as a member of the family. The legal obstacle to their adoption application is art. 14 of t ...
|
By Euan Dow on 12/03/2008 11:22
Petition for An Order under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985:- The petitioner, a French woman, was married to the first respondent and together they had four children, aged 9, 11, 14 and 17. Here the petitioner sought an order for the return of the three younger children from their father, the first respondent, who lived in Dundee together. Following an acrimonious divorce on 12 February 2002 an order was pronounced by the French Family Court providing that both parents were to exercise ...
|
By Rachel Henry on 24/01/2008 14:45
Appeal - This was an appeal by the parents of two children against a decision of the learned sheriff who held that the grounds of referral had on the evidence led before him been established. The child was the son of the appellants. The learned sheriff found as a matter of fact that the child was under the supervision of the Children's Hearing. Grounds for referral were established at Glasgow Sheriff Court. The child was on the child protection register under the category of emotional abuse.&nbs ...
|
By Euan Dow on 04/04/2007 23:00
Petition for An Order under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985
The petitioner was a Polish national. He was divorced from the children's mother (the respondent). A polish court ordered that the children should reside with the respondent and have contact with the petitioner. In August 2006 the respondent brought the children to Scotland. Since then they have lived in Scotland with their mother and other members of their extended family, who have also recently moved to Scotland. The respondent claimed that the petitioner did not have "rights of custody" in re ...
|
By Euan Dow on 06/02/2007 00:00
Proof - Matrimonial
Here the pursuer sought decree of divorce from the defender in respect that the marriage has broken irretrievably by reason of the defender's behaviour and the defender sought a capital sum of £350,000. The main disputerelated to the defender's claim for a capital sum. There was, however, agreement between the parties that the date of separation for the purposes of ascertaining the nature and extent of matrimonial property was 5 November 2001. There were two issues:- (1) whether the increase in ...
|
By Euan Dow on 15/12/2006 00:00
Motion for Residence Order
Here the pursuer concluded for an order ordaining the defender to return his two and a half year old chilcd "M" to Scotland, for a residence order providing that M should reside with him, for an order for delivery of M into his care and control, and for interdict prohibiting the defender from removing M from his care and control or from Scotland. In June 2005 the defender took M to see her family in Pakistan. She was due to return home on 18 August 2005. Having twice changed her travel arrangeme ...
|
| 1 2 3 |