Procedural status: First instance, following proof at Forfar Sheriff Court. Later history checked 3 August 2026; no later decision found.
Direct contact refused where an eight-year-old boy did not want it and his father had been convicted of domestic abuse against his mother, notwithstanding that earlier contact had been positive.
Background
The father sought an order for direct contact with his son, M, who was eight at the time of the proof. The mother opposed it. The parties separated around November 2021 and M resided with his mother.
M had enjoyed direct contact until around November 2024, and that contact had been positive. By the time of the proof he no longer wanted direct contact with his father.
The father had been convicted of domestic abuse offences against the mother and sentenced to 13 months’ imprisonment. A non-harassment order was in place.
What the sheriff decided
Sheriff Martin-Brown took into account M’s strongly held views that he did not want any direct contact with his father, the father’s convictions for domestic abuse and the non-harassment order.
She also took into account that contact had been positive in the past, that the father had appropriate accommodation for M, and the importance of the relationships between M and his father, his half-siblings and his paternal grandparents.
In all the circumstances she did not consider that M should be forced to have direct contact with his father against his clearly expressed views. Taken together with the need to protect M from abuse or the risk of abuse, and the effect such abuse or risk might have on him, the welfare of M required refusal of the order sought.
Parties were agreed that there should be no expenses due to or by either party.
Why this decision matters
The views of a child of eight can be decisive. Where those views are clearly expressed and strongly held, the court will not compel direct contact simply because the relationship has value in principle.
A history of positive contact does not outweigh a child’s current position, particularly where there are convictions for domestic abuse and a non-harassment order in place.
The judgment shows the court weighing the genuine benefits of the wider paternal family relationships against the statutory requirement to protect the child from abuse and from the risk of abuse.
Legal review: Brian Rooney, Managing Partner and Law Society of Scotland Accredited Specialist in Family Law.