Sheriff reverses child contact order after father punched door of mother’s house while demanding to see son

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] SAC (Civ) 28
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Sheriff Appeal Court
• Judge:
  Sheriff Principal Aisha Anwar

The parties, pursuer PK and defender SK, had been actively at odds over arrangements relating to their child, L, since their separation when L was aged two. SK, the child’s mother, argued that further contact would cause distress for L and cause him unnecessary worry, while the pursuer argued that L had been encouraged to speak negatively about his father by his mother and grandmother.

The case was heard by Sheriff Mungo Bovey KC at Hamilton Sheriff Court. Norris, solicitor, appeared for the pursuer and Carey, solicitor, for the defender.

Punched the glass

L was born in January 2018. Two years later, the parties separated, and L started living with his mother around half a dozen miles away from where the pursuer and his new partner lived. Contact between L and pursuer took place in terms of an interlocutor granted in October 2022 until 21 June 2024, when a new order was made in favour of the pursuer for residential contact with L on a four-week cycle during term time weekends.

In her evidence, the defender said that she had taken L on holiday for 11 nights from 30 July 2024. This was provided for in the sheriff’s order but the pursuer had not realised that she would not be back until the Saturday of what would ordinarily be one of his contact weekends and sent a number of messages to the defender containing abusive language. On Sunday 11 August at 9am, he appeared at the defender’s door, angrily demanded the contact that had been arranged for that day, and attempted to force his way into the defender’s house. This culminated in him punching the glass pane in the door, causing the outside of the pane to smash to the ground.

The incident was seen by L from the top of the stairs, who told his teacher on 21 August 2024 that his dad had “smashed mum’s door in and hurt her arm”. He was initially terrified to return to school after the incident and expressed a desire not to have any more contact with the pursuer. For the defender it was submitted that there had been conflict throughout the contact arrangements. There had now been an escalation that had resulted in a two-year non-harassment order from the criminal court, and it was appropriate now for there to be no contact.

Adopting his previous affidavit, the pursuer said he did not believe that L’s stated views represented his real attitude, and that he had been coached by his mother or grandmother. His language was attributable to his frustration at the way contact had been working, and the pursuer’s father also stated it had been “a nightmare” dealing with the defender.

For the pursuer it was accepted that the event of 11 August created a change of circumstances and it meant that he would have to start from scratch. However, it was going too far to remove contact entirely rather than making an order for supervised contact. The pursuer’s solicitor also invited the court to make an order for contact with L’s paternal grandparents, noting the findings in fact of the previous sheriff had L had a deep bond with the wider K family.

Insuperable barrier

In his decision, Sheriff Bovey began by assessing the witnesses: “Most of the conflict in the evidence lies in interpretation of the situation and matters of opinion in respect of which it will be apparent that I prefer the evidence of the pursuer and his witnesses to that of the defender and her mother. It is a matter of great concern that the parties have been in conflict about this 7-year-old boy since he was two and that detailed arrangements made after proof in the middle of last year collapsed within a couple of months.”

He continued: “The basis on which the defender seeks to reduce contact to nil is the views of the child, particularly his fear of the pursuer after the incident on 11 August 2024. Ms Carey recognised that his reported attitude might be an over-reaction and I consider that it is. The tussle at the front door viewed from the top of the stairs does not justify the response of the defender or the child even with the breaking of the outer glass.”

Considering that the fundamental cause of the current circumstances was the defender’s continued opposition to contact, Sheriff Bovey said: “I am sure that if the defender were to suggest to L that it would be convenient for him to go to his dad’s while she was engaging in some activity involving other people, he would need little persuasion. This would resolve both his fear of losing her affections by going to contact and any concerns about leaving her alone. But absent such conduct on her part, the views of the child and his mother in my view constitute an insuperable barrier to a resumption of contact with the pursuer or other members of the K family.”

He concluded: “I regard the conduct of the defender as principally responsible for this disastrous state of affairs. I conclude that this conduct is properly characterised as abusive. I consider that if it continues, the issue of whether it continues to be in the child’s best interests to reside in the defender’s care may arise. I have therefore stopped contact against the background that I expect the defender to take steps for the restoration of informal contact by persuading L that she wishes it.”

Sheriff Bovey considered that a period of six months would be an appropriate length of time for the defender to achieve this, and that the pursuer could seek a review of residence arrangements if this was not achieved.