Scotland 
Residency Order/Contact Order
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 defender from removing the child from outwith the court’s jurisdiction and a residence order in the pursuer’s favour. The minute was opposed.
Submissions for the pursuer at the child welfare hearing emphasised the defender’s failures, including concerns the pursuer had raised with the health visitor and social work department and argued that in light of the paramount consideration of the welfare of the child, a residence order was required. It was submitted that continuity and stability in the child’s life would be best achieved by residing with the pursuer, rather than the defender, whose life had recently undergone considerable upheaval.
Submissions for the defender accepted that both parties had a good relationship with the child but argued the court had to take a long-term view of the child’s best interests and the defender, the child’s primary carer, offered a settled family lifestyle. She had undertaken to address concerns regarding the child's poor attendance records at nursery and speech therapy. In respect of a complaint regarding smacking, this occurred on only one occasion and an investigation had not found there to be any concern in that respect. The other complaints had no foundation. It was submitted that the child’s age was relevant; a young child should be in his mother's care. Contact with the pursuer had been reduced since the defender moved to Greenock, but there was no evidence that the child’s welfare had been affected. The child had a close relationship with his half-brother and the authorities indicated it would be unwise to separate siblings. The child also had a good relationship with the defender's husband and his extended family. The pursuer had not demonstrated that it would be better for the child to reside with him, and a residence order should be made in favour of the defender.
Having regard to the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and the paramount consideration of the welfare of the child, the Sheriff was satisfied that it was best for the child that he reside with his mother and considered the circumstances were such that orders were necessary. The Sheriff accepted that the pursuer would, with his mother’s assistance, be able to care physically for the child, but did not think he was best able to meet his emotional needs. Although there was no presumption in favour of a mother, his young age was a relevant factor. It would be best for the child to be brought up with his siblings, in a family environment, rather than on his own with a heavily supported single parent. The Sheriff hoped both parties and their families would put aside their differences to work together in the interests of the child’s welfare.
The Sheriff recalled the contact order set out in the interlocutor dated 27 December 2007, made a residence order in terms of section 11(2)(c) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 in favour of the defender, and a contact order in terms of section 11(2)(d) regulating the pursuer’s contact with the child. No expenses were found due to or by either party. Court: Sheriff Court (Scotland)
