JN v SN [2025] CSOH 72 (Outer House, Court of Session)

Shared-care arrangement modified to 3:3:4:4 cycle due to children’s welfare and mother’s PTSD symptoms

Background

This case before Lord Braid concerned post-divorce care arrangements for two young children and the welfare considerations arising from earlier domestic abuse and the mother’s mental-health evidence. The parties married in 2016, separated in October 2022 and had three children aged 10, 5 and 4. They had already been through extensive sheriff-court proceedings and an Inner House appeal before the present action in the Court of Session.

The only matter for proof was the term-time care pattern for the two younger sons. A week-about (7:7) shared-care order had been in place, but both parties accepted it was no longer working. The wife sought a pattern giving her more time; the husband proposed an alternating cycle preserving equality.

Key legal issues

The court had to decide:

• what care schedule best promoted the children’s welfare under section 11 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995;
• the impact of the husband’s past abusive conduct and the wife’s diagnosed complex PTSD on her ability to parent; and
• whether expert psychological evidence justified altering an established shared-care model.

Evidence

The court heard from both parents, psychologists, and a court-appointed child-welfare reporter. The husband had previous convictions under section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 for domestically aggravated threatening behaviour but had complied with subsequent non-harassment orders. The wife suffered from complex PTSD, with symptoms triggered by separation from the children and contact with the husband.

Dr Louise Potter, the child-welfare reporter, advised that week-long separations from either parent were too long for such young children and recommended a shorter-cycle model. Both parents were found capable and loving, but prolonged absences from either parent caused anxiety for the boys.

Decision

Lord Braid granted decree of divorce and replaced the week-about arrangement with a 3:3:4:4 shared-care schedule. Each parent would therefore have broadly equal time, alternating weekends, and predictable mid-week handovers. The arrangement allowed both to have meaningful weekend time while reducing the children’s absences from each parent.

His Lordship held that the new pattern best met the statutory welfare test by limiting stress and disruption. He rejected arguments that domestic abuse required restricting the father’s contact, noting that the convictions were historic and there was no risk to the children. However, the mother’s PTSD made minimising parental conflict essential, so the plan deliberately reduced direct handovers.

He further stressed that “abuse” in section 11(7C) includes conduct towards the other parent and that its impact on a victim’s ability to care for children must be considered even if the children were not directly harmed.

Key takeaway

This decision clarifies that the welfare of the child remains paramount even in complex domestic-abuse contexts. Past conduct is relevant only insofar as it affects ongoing parenting capacity. The court may favour structured shared-care cycles—such as the 3:3:4:4 model—when equal involvement by both parents remains in the children’s best interests but the pattern must also protect a parent’s mental health and reduce conflict.

Citation: JN v SN [2025] CSOH 72 (Outer House, Lord Braid, 8 August 2025)