How the court approaches serious allegations against a parent when deciding contact, and why a finding that an allegation is not proved is not a finding that it was invented.
Background
The pursuer, a father working a five days on, four days off shift rota, sought residential contact structured around that rota, additional holiday contact, and specific issue orders permitting overseas travel with the child. The defender sought to keep contact supervised. The reason was an allegation of sexual conduct which the child had made to several people between July and October 2025.
The legal framework
Section 11 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 governs. Section 11(2)(d) provides for contact orders and section 11(2)(e) for specific issue orders. Section 11(7) makes the welfare of the child the paramount consideration and requires the court to be satisfied that making an order is better than making none. Sections 11(7A) to (7E) require the court to have regard to abuse and to its effect on the child.
Allegations of criminal conduct raised in civil proceedings are decided on the balance of probabilities rather than the criminal standard, but the evidence must carry sufficient quality and weight.
The decision
Lady Tait held that the allegations were not proved on the balance of probabilities. A police investigation had concluded without charges, a joint investigative interview in November 2025 produced no clear disclosure, and the child’s accounts mixed extreme descriptions with a playful tone in a way that admitted of innocent explanations.
The court did not find that the defender had fabricated the allegations. The finding was that they were not established, which is a different matter. Orders were granted allowing progression towards unsupervised contact.
What it means in practice
Two points follow. First, an allegation that does not result in a criminal charge is not thereby disposed of in the family court. The standard of proof is lower and the question is different, because the court is deciding what is best for the child rather than whether an offence occurred.
Second, a parent who raises a concern in good faith which is not ultimately proved is not to be treated as having invented it. Both propositions matter to how these cases are prepared and how parents should be advised at the outset. Our page on child contact in Scotland explains how contact applications proceed.