PK v SK [2025] SC HAM 61 (Hamilton Sheriff Court)

Child contact suspended to nil; entrenched parental opposition; child’s expressed fear; judicial warning that continued obstruction may justify review of residence

Background

This Hamilton Sheriff Court decision, issued by Sheriff Mungo Bovey KC, concerned a long-running and highly conflicted dispute about contact arrangements for a seven-year-old child. The parties separated in 2020. Following proof in June 2024, the court had ordered substantial residential contact in favour of the father, including overnight contact on a structured fortnightly cycle.

Those arrangements operated only briefly. In August 2024 an incident occurred at the mother’s home when the father attended seeking contact. The father became angry, shouted at the mother, and struck the front door, breaking the outer glass. The child witnessed the incident from the top of the stairs and was distressed.

The father later pled guilty to a contravention of section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010, aggravated by domestic abuse. A non-harassment order was imposed. Thereafter, the mother did not present the child for contact and sought variation of the existing order to reduce contact to nil.

Legal framework

The Sheriff analysed the case through the lens of section 11 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. He emphasised that the court may make such order as it thinks fit, but must treat the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration, avoid making any order unless it is better for the child than no order at all, and take account of the child’s views so far as reasonably practicable.

The court must also have regard to the need to protect the child from abuse, including conduct causing fear, alarm or distress, and to the ability of a person who has carried out abusive behaviour to care for the child and meet the child’s needs.

Key legal issues

• whether contact between the child and the father should continue, and if so in what form;
• the weight to be attached to the child’s expressed fear of the father;
• the impact of entrenched parental opposition to contact on the child’s welfare;
• whether the mother’s conduct amounted to abusive behaviour under section 11; and
• the implications of sustained obstruction of contact for future residence arrangements.

Evidence and reasoning

The mother and maternal grandmother gave evidence that the child was frightened of his father and had become anxious following the August 2024 incident. A child welfare reporter recorded the child saying that he did not want to see his father again because he was “too frightened”. The Sheriff also met the child and found him articulate and able to express his views clearly.

The father accepted that his behaviour during the incident was unacceptable and that he had pled guilty to the criminal charge. He maintained that prior to the incident the child had enjoyed contact and had strong relationships with his paternal family, including siblings and grandparents. Evidence was also led about the mother’s long-standing hostility to contact and difficulties around handovers.

The Sheriff accepted that the incident had been upsetting for the child, but considered the intensity and persistence of the child’s fear to be disproportionate when viewed against his otherwise robust presentation at school and in activities. He concluded that the mother was “relentlessly opposed” to contact and that her attitude had significantly influenced the child’s views. He inferred that any suggestion the child might enjoy contact would be met with a withdrawal of affection.

At the same time, the Sheriff recognised the toxic relationship between the adults, the absence of any workable intermediary for handovers, and the lack of any realistic mechanism to impose supported or supervised contact without risking further distress to the child.

Decision

The Sheriff varied the existing order and reduced contact between the father and child to nil. He did so reluctantly and on the basis that the combined views of the child, the mother and the maternal grandmother constituted an “insuperable barrier” to the resumption of contact at that time.

Crucially, the Sheriff made clear that this outcome was not an endorsement of the mother’s position. He described the result as “grossly detrimental” to the child’s welfare, leaving the child with no contact with his father, siblings, grandparents or wider paternal family. He characterised the mother’s conduct as being principally responsible for this situation and as properly capable of being viewed as abusive for the purposes of section 11.

The Sheriff expressly warned that he expected the mother to take active steps over the following six months to begin restoring informal contact. If she failed to do so, he indicated that it would be open to the father to seek a review of the child’s residence arrangements.

Rooney Family Law commentary

This decision is a rare and candid example of a Scottish court recognising that entrenched hostility to contact by a resident parent can itself amount to abusive behaviour. While the court was prepared, in the short term, to suspend contact entirely, it did so against the clear backdrop that a child’s long-term welfare ordinarily requires the preservation of relationships with both parents and their wider families.

The case underlines that a child’s expressed wishes, while important, are not determinative where they appear to be shaped or reinforced by parental attitudes. Courts will scrutinise how those views are formed, particularly in high-conflict cases.

For parents, the message is stark. Even where the other parent has behaved badly, persistent obstruction of contact and failure to support a safe relationship may ultimately place residence itself at risk. Courts expect resident parents to act proactively in promoting a child’s long-term welfare, not simply to shield the child from short-term discomfort.

At Rooney Family Law we regularly advise clients in high-conflict contact and residence disputes, including cases involving allegations of domestic abuse and parental alienation. We provide clear, balanced advice on the risks, options and likely court approach at each stage.

Key takeaway

PK v SK [2025] SC HAM 61 confirms that Scottish courts may suspend contact entirely where conflict has become unmanageable and the child presents as fearful. However, a resident parent who persistently obstructs contact, and who does not actively support restoration of a safe relationship, risks a future challenge to residence itself.

Citation: PK v SK [2025] SC HAM 61 (Hamilton Sheriff Court, Sheriff Mungo Bovey KC, 12 August 2025)