Dundee sheriff refuses man who assaulted ex-partner with air gun contact with 10-year-old child

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] SC DUN 26
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Sheriff Court
• Judge:
  Sheriff Gregor Murray

Pursuer G sought a residence order in respect of the child F, which was unopposed by the defender H. However, he sought for contact between them to resume following the end of their previous contact in 2022, arguing that the pursuer had terminated contact unreasonably.

The case was heard by Sheriff Gregor Murray at Dundee Sheriff Court, with Morris, solicitor, appearing for the pursuer and Myles, solicitor, for the defender.

Regularly disclosed issues

F was born in June 2015 and was aged seven when the parties separated. In March 2018, the defender assaulted the pursuer by shooting her with an air gun. He then assaulted the pursuer again in May 2018 by repeatedly punching her to the lower stomach and face while she was pregnant, and she later miscarried. Since the separation F resided with the pursuer and her three other children, while the defender formed a relationship with a new partner, J, and moved to reside with her and her two children.

In July 2021, the defender and J met F and the pursuer’s neighbour by chance at a car boot sale. Subsequently the parties arranged for contact to take place. Contact ceased after 26 June 2022, following the defender’s late return of F after he arranged for him to have a pre-birthday tea without advising the pursuer in advance. The pursuer sought a residence order in respect of F after an incident in August 2024 in which the defender stopped his car at the end of the cul-de-sac where she and F lived and called over to F from his vehicle.

It was submitted for the pursuer that the defender had taken no formal steps to seek contact for over three years after the parties’ separation and any award risked further abuse by the pursuer. The decision to terminate contact had been taken because F regularly disclosed issues during contact, with the defender often failing to attend or changing the time at which it was due to be exercised. It would be detrimental to F’s interests to force him to attend contact now, in the context of behavioural issues he had displayed at home and at school.

For the defender it was submitted that the pursuer had stopped contact for spurious reasons, and her belief that it was not operating successfully was unfounded. Broadly similar circumstances were considered in White v White (2001), in which the court at first instance took the decision to award contact and that decision was later upheld by the Inner House.

No sustained commitment

In his decision, Sheriff Murray said of the reasons for terminating contact: “Both parties contributed to the dispute on 26 June 2022. The pursuer’s expectation that F would be returned at 5.00pm was unfounded as no return time was agreed in advance. Equally, the defender did not advise the pursuer that he had arranged a pre-birthday tea for F and, when the pursuer queried that in the text messages, his responses were unhelpful and appeared designed to create a dispute. Otherwise, I am satisfied that neither party’s evidence on the issue can be relied upon.”

He continued: “The defender has not shown any sustained commitment to F. He has never acted proactively to promote F’s welfare. Tellingly, all his contact with F took place at or after chance meetings at the car boot sale in 2021, at school in 2023 and near F’s home in 2024. The defender only provided support and guidance to F for one year, some 3 years after parties separated. After contact broke down, another 3 years passed before he sought contact. Had he promptly sought contact in 2018 or 2022, any difficulties could have been addressed and possibly overcome. However, he did not. At this stage of proceedings, the court cannot test the water by trialling interim contact.”

Considering the request against the background of abuse, Sheriff Murray said: “In this case, the defender was repeatedly violent to the pursuer in 2018. His comments in at least one of the 2022 text messages and in the 2025 video recording and his conduct which led the pursuer to obtain a permanent interdict against him were all abusive of her. Equally importantly, so were his repeated visits to the area around the pursuer’s home, which led her to reasonably fear he would try to make contact with F or remove him. The distress which F exhibited when he saw the defender in August 2024 was a direct consequence of that abuse.”

He concluded: “Contact only ever took place following chance meetings and was not sought for significant periods. There is a clear link between F’s disruptive behaviour and contact, as that which he displayed in 2022 and 2025 occurred when contact was being exercised and after he became aware that the defender was seeking its reintroduction. He also displayed extreme distress when he last met the defender. As he has yet to receive expert assistance to enable the reasons for it to be understood and addressed, it is probable that an order for contact would have the same effect.”

The defender’s crave for contact was therefore refused.