Procedural status: First instance, Dundee Sheriff Court. Later history checked 3 August 2026; no later decision found.
A former cohabitant’s crave for contact was refused following findings of serious assaults on the mother, the sheriff confirming that there is no presumption against contact merely because of abuse, but refusing it on the facts.
Background
The parties formerly cohabited. There is one child of the relationship, F, born on 27 June 2015. The defender is named as F’s father on his birth certificate and holds parental responsibilities and rights in relation to him.
The sheriff found in fact that in March 2018 the defender assaulted the pursuer by shooting her with an air gun, and that in May 2018 he assaulted her by repeated conduct.
What the sheriff decided
Sheriff Murray recorded that there is no presumption that contact should be refused as a result of a parent’s abuse of the other parent, referring to R v R. That abuse had nevertheless affected the pursuer’s ability to exercise her parental responsibilities in relation to F, and there was a risk that abuse might continue.
As to F’s views, the sheriff found that they had been influenced by the pursuer and that it was impracticable to obtain updated views, but that F had clearly and repeatedly stated he did not want to see his father.
It followed that the defender’s crave for contact fell to be refused. As agreed between the parties, no expenses were found due to or by either party.
Why this decision matters
Abuse of one parent by the other does not create a presumption against contact. The court must still carry out the welfare assessment, and this judgment is a useful illustration of it being done expressly.
What mattered was the practical effect: the abuse had impaired the resident parent’s ability to exercise her responsibilities, and there was a continuing risk.
A finding that a child’s views have been influenced does not require the court to disregard them. Here the sheriff acknowledged the influence and still gave weight to views that had been clearly and repeatedly expressed.
Legal review: Brian Rooney, Managing Partner and Law Society of Scotland Accredited Specialist in Family Law.