Airdrie sheriff makes residence order for mother who fled arranged husband after domestic abuse

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] SC AIR 3
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Sheriff Court
• Judge:
  Sheriff Maria Kicinski

Pursuer CT, who had an arranged marriage with defender DT in Pakistan in 2015, sought a residence order in terms of section 112(c) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. The defender did not oppose the order but sought an order for contact, which the pursuer opposed.

The case was heard by Sheriff Maria Kicinski at Airdrie Sheriff Court. Bedford, solicitor, appeared for the pursuer and Rankin, solicitor, for the defender.

Kicked in the buttocks

The parties separated on 7 May 2024 when the pursuer left the family home with their three children, born in 2019, 2020, and 2022 respectively. In early 2025, the defender pled guilty at Glasgow Sheriff Court to two charges of assault against the eldest child, ET. These took place when ET was aged four and involved one instance of the defender kicking him on the buttocks and another where the defender threw milkshake over him.

In her evidence, the pursuer described the defender as an abusive husband and parent throughout their marriage, and as a largely disinterested parent who would get annoyed by the children engaging in standard child-like behaviour. She said that he would mock FT, the middle child, in particular, who had cerebral palsy, and she had fled the family home when the defender was on holiday.

The defender denied any domestic abuse of the pursuer and any abuse of the children save for the events to which he pled guilty. His position was that the pursuer had made the whole thing up in order to get a “domestic abuse visa”. A Child Welfare Reporter, Fiona Mclean, met with ET at his school in June 2025. When she asked him his views about seeing his dad, his voice immediately rose several octaves and he said no.

In response to the welfare report, the defender said that the pursuer had “brainwashed” ET to say those things to the reporter, possibly by repeatedly showing him the video she had taken of the assault. He also led evidence from his brother, MM, whose evidence was that the defender had been a good uncle to his own children.

Otherwise normal scene

In her decision, Sheriff Kicinski said of the pursuer’s evidence: “She did not paint a vivid picture of the abusive conduct that she alleges took place. However, English is not her first language and she was giving evidence by Webex. Further, she has supported her account with evidence that was sufficient to found a criminal prosecution in respect of two incidents of assault upon the eldest child, ET.”

Describing a video of the kick to ET’s buttocks, she added: “What struck me about the video is how otherwise normal the scene appeared to be. The family were sitting around the living room doing nothing exceptional. ET did something to frustrate his father, who stood up and gave him a full kick in the buttocks. If there had been something exceptional about the scene then it might have been easier to accept that this was a one-off incident. But the mundane nature of the events shown in the video, apart from the kick, tends to suggest the kick itself was not particularly exceptional within the family.”

Considering the applicable law, the sheriff said: “Section 11(7B) [of the 1995 Act] requires me to have regard to the need to protect the children from abuse or any risk of abuse, the effect such abuse might have on the children, and the ability of the person who has carried out that abuse to meet the needs to the child. The defender has shown no insight into his behaviour toward the children. Instead he has sought to minimise the two incidents to which he pled guilty, and has otherwise placed blame on the pursuer for using the evidence she obtained for her own ends.”

However, she continued: “In light of the general proposition that it is better for children to have contact with an absent parent, I probed with the purser’s agent whether the pursuer had any opposition to indirect contact. This would allow an avenue for contact to remain open. The pursuer’s agent submitted that she had no instructions to oppose letterbox contact and proposed that if the court were to grant letterbox contact then a bespoke email address could be set up for that purpose.”

Sheriff Kicinski therefore sustained the pursuer’s first plea-in-law and made a residence order in her favour, but allowed the defender email contact with the children three times a year and on each of their birthdays.