Mother and father disputed whether the father should be allowed contact with their child S. Court orders had been made for residential and non-residential contact, but there were difficulties and the order for contact was reversed on the basis that S was hostile to it.
Held: The father’s appeal failed. A parent continued to have parental rights and responsibilities, notwithstanding the withdrawal of contact with the child. The court’s jurisdiction in such appeals is very limited. The Sherriff had based his decision on the welfare of S, and nor did the criticisms of counsel amount to an issue of law which might allow the Supreme Court jurisdiction.
The court discussed the difficulties inherent in allowing such disputes to become too wide ranging.
Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lady Hale, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed
 UKSC 21, 2012 GWD 19-387, 2012 SLT 840, 2012 Fam LR 56, 2012 SCLR 428
Bailii, Bailii Summary
England and Wales
Cited – White v White SCS 6-Mar-2001
Appeal from – NJDB v JEG SCS 22-Oct-2010
The parties dispute contact arrangements between the pursuer and their child. The cost of the proceedings, excluding judicial costs, had been estimated at about andpound;1 million, of which by far the larger proportion had been borne by the Scottish . .
Cited – JB DB and JWDWB v The Authority Reporter for Edinburgh SCS 22-Jun-2011
Cited – Bronda v Italy ECHR 9-Jun-1998
In some fields of law legal rules may not be laid down with total precision. Undue delay in child contact proceedings may have irreversible effects upon the child. . .
Cited – ANS and Another v ML SC 11-Jul-2012
The mother opposed adoption proceedings, and argued that the provision in the 2007 Act, allowing a court to dispense with her consent, infringed her rights under Article 8 and was therefore made outwith the powers of the Scottish Parliament.
Updated: 11 April 2021; Ref: scu.459617