Forfar sheriff makes orders for separated couple’s children to attend primary school where mother worked full-time

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] SC FOR 77
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Sheriff Court
• Judge:
  Sheriff Mark Thorley

Pursuer Mark Bruce, a self-employed businessman involved in construction and housing, sought for his children with the defender Nicola Collins to remain at the school in Angus that they currently attended. The defender argued that, unless the children moved to the Dunfermline school, she would be restricted to alternate weekend contact with them while the pursuer would have more flexibility due to the nature of his work.

The case was heard by Sheriff Mark Thorley at Forfar Sheriff Court. The pursuer was represented by Mackintosh, solicitor and the defender by Robb, solicitor.

No choice but to work

The parties’ relationship ended in January 2025. At that time, they resided at a property in Kingennie, Angus, owned by the pursuer, along with their children LCB, aged seven, and JKB, aged five. The defender commenced work at Masterton Primary School in Dunfermline in August 2018, and in 2025 was due to begin a full-time contract there. It was noted that due to the difficulty in obtaining teaching positions, the defender would find it extremely difficult to move out of Fife, and she presently continued to reside with the pursuer in the Kingennie property.

In her evidence, the defender indicated that she wanted to go and live with her parents in Dunfermline. They had recently purchased a five-bedroom new build property which the children had stayed in previously, and their schooling arrangements would be easier to manage if they attended the school at which the defender was employed. In contrast, the pursuer’s working arrangements were more flexible, he had greater financial means, and would be able to move to Fife and work from there.

For the pursuer it was submitted that this was, in terms of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, effectively a relocation case. The defender had to show there was a positive benefit to the children in the order under section 11(2) being granted, and she had failed to do so. The children were well-settled in their current lives, and it was the defender who had chosen to live elsewhere. It was the least disruptive option for the children to remain in their current environment.

The defender submitted that she was the one who had historically played a greater role as a parent, but because of the parties’ separation she had no choice but to take on full-time work. The pursuer could work flexibly in a way that she could not, and she had offered him three out of five weekends as a contact proposal. In contract, the pursuer had not made a contact offer until the day of the proof and placed the interests of his businesses first.

Significantly more flexibility

In his decision, Sheriff Thorley said of the factual circumstances: “As has been narrated, the defender, if she wants to work, can only do so in Dunfermline. She has no alternative. The parties’ relationship has broken down. She cannot continue to live in the former family home. Her intention is to live with her parents (and the children) in Dunfermline. The pursuer is a successful businessman. It appears he has the financial ability to be able to buy/rent elsewhere, which would potentially allow the parties to share care of the children.”

He continued: “This is not a straightforward case. Both parties acknowledge that the other parent is an equally good carer for the children. The children do have a settled life in Angus. I have to take into account the best interests of the children as being the paramount consideration here. I have taken into account the welfare of the children as the paramount consideration and am of the view that an order should be made for the children to ‘relocate’ to Dunfermline and to Masterton Primary School.”

Explaining his reasoning for making an order, Sheriff Thorley said: “The defender can no longer live with the pursuer. She has no alternative accommodation but that in Dunfermline and indeed her job is in Dunfermline, she cannot get a job elsewhere. The working hours of the defender are timetabled. The pursuer has significantly more flexibility. He is in a position to be able to either travel or himself find suitable alternative accommodation (something which the defender simply is not).”

He concluded: “If the children remained in Angus at school there, they would inevitably lose a significant part of their relationship with their mother. That is not in their interests. The welfare of the children dictates that they maintain as much as possible of a shared care arrangement with both parents. The status quo in this case is changing no matter what. The defender’s reasons to move are entirely valid. This is not an attempt simply to affect the relationship with the other parent.”

The sheriff therefore made the order sought by the defender, and fixed a further hearing to discuss care arrangements following relocation.