ZS v. TS - Child Contact Dispute

| | [Home ]
[Databases ]
[World Law ]
[Multidatabase Search ]
[Help ]
[Feedback ]
[DONATE ] | |
| # Scottish Court of Session Decisions | | |
| You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>

  ZS against TS (Court of Session) [2026] CSOH 27 (24 March 2026)

URL: https://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2026/2026csoh27.html
Cite as:
[2026] CSOH 27 | | |
[New search ]

[Printable PDF version ]

[Help ]

**** OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION [2026] CSOH 27 F86/25 OPINION OF LADY TAIT In the cause ZS Pursuer against TS Defender Pursuer: Bradbury; Brodies LLP Defender: S Bell; Balfour & Manson LLP **** 24 March 2026 Introduction [1] The disputed issue is contact between the parties' younger child, RS born 5 September 2011, and the pursuer. The pursuer seeks non-residential contact which will progress to residential contact in Hungary. Indirect contact by way of telephone calls, video calls, electronic messages, letters and gifts is also sought. [2] The parties married on 9 August 2008, separated in February 2012 and divorced on 11 June 2012. There are two children of their marriage, RS and his elder brother DS born 15 December 2009 and so now aged 16. The parties and children are Hungarian citizens. The defender and children are also British citizens. The pursuer resides in Hungary. The 2 defender resides with her partner and the parties' two children in Scotland. The defender and children have resided in the UK since January 2013: initially in London, then in Bicester and in Scotland since around 2021. [3] Following the defender's relocation to the UK with the children, the parties entered into a written agreement dated 11 February 2015 which was valid until 31 December 2015. They agreed that the children would travel to Hungary during the winter, spring and summer holidays each year for contact and the pursuer agreed to pay a sum towards travel expenses. The parties entered into subsequent agreements making provision for contact and travel expenses. Between February 2015 and April 2023, contact between the children and the pursuer took place in terms of the agreements. In addition, the children and the pursuer maintained contact through telephone and video calls and messages using the Viber app. [4] Direct contact last took place in Hungary on 13 April 2023. The defender sought to renegotiate the parties' agreement in relation to the periods of contact and payment of travel expenses. Correspondence took place between the parties' solicitors. Negotiations broke down. Indirect contact between the child DS and the pursuer last took place on 8 April 2024 and last took place between the child RS and the pursuer on 25 May 2024. **** The Law [5] The orders sought by the pursuer are in terms of section 11(2)(d) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 ("the 1995 Act") which provides as follows: "(2) The court may make such order under subsection (1) above as it thinks fit; and without prejudice to the generality of that subsection may in particular so make any of the following orders--... 3 (d) an order regulating the arrangements for maintaining personal relations and direct contact between a child under that age and a person with whom the child is not, or will not be, living (any such order being known as a contact order');" [6] The test to be applied by the court where any order under section 11 is sought is set out in section 11(7) which provides: "... in considering whether or not to make an order under subsection (1) above and what order to make, the court-- (a) shall regard the welfare of the child concerned as its paramount consideration and shall not make any such order unless it considers that it would be better for the child that the order be made than that none should be made at all; and (b) taking account of the child's age and maturity, shall so far as practicable-- (i) give him an opportunity to indicate whether he wishes to express his views; (ii) if he does so wish, give him an opportunity to express them; and (iii) have regard to such views as he may express." [7] In *J* v *M* [2016 SC 835](https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/redirect.cgi?path=/scot/cases/ScotCS/2016/%5B2016%5DCSIH52.html) at paragraph 11, it was held that before refusing an application for parental contact, "a careful balancing exercise must be carried out with a view to identifying whether there are weighty factors which make such a serious step necessary and justified in the paramount interests of the child (sometimes referred to asexceptional circumstances'). ... This approach is reflective of the general background of it almost always being conducive to the welfare of a child that parental contact is maintained. In NJDB v JEG (para 14) Lord Reed explained that there must be `a reasonable basis' for a decision to refuse such an application." [8] The defender conceded that, as a matter of general principle, it should be assumed that it is conducive to a child's welfare to maintain personal relations with an absent parent. However, it was submitted to be inappropriate to make a contact order where a child is genuinely resistant to contact (Wilkinson and Norrie The Law Relating to Parent and Child in Scotland (3rd ed) paragraph 9.46; Blance v Blance 1978 SLT 74; Cosh v Cosh 1979 SLT (N) 72; Brannigan v Brannigan 1979 SLT (N) 73). Even if a child's views have been influenced, they 4 should still be respected, provided that they are genuinely held (Russell v Russell 1991 SCLR 429). The evidence Pursuer's evidence [9] The pursuer swore an affidavit on 7 January 2026. He is a theatrical lighting engineer. [10] When the children visited Hungary for contact, they enjoyed various activities: visiting the zoo, swimming pool, amusement parks, "dinopark", cinema, escape rooms and going for ice cream. They did puzzle-solving and played computer games. The pursuer's friends and their children joined them sometimes. The pursuer's parents also joined them for day trips to beauty spots and sightseeing. They had quality time as a family. The pursuer and the children had a very good relationship. The children enjoyed their visits and said they did not want to go home. If they did not want to do a particular activity, a different activity was planned. There was a lovely community of people in Hungary who cared about the children. [11] The pursuer kept in touch with the children via the Viber app which allows for calls and text messages. The children were open with the pursuer, sharing news of their lives and friends. The child RS struggled with Hungarian which made written communication trickier. They always found a way to communicate. The children also kept in touch with the pursuer's father via Viber. [12] The children spent their time between the pursuer's apartment and their paternal grandparents' apartment. The pursuer's apartment is comfortable and has everything the children need. It has one bedroom and one large bed. The pursuer and children shared the 5 bed. When staying at the pursuer's parents' home, the pursuer shared a bed with the children while his father slept in another bed in the same room. They are a very close family. Sometimes the children slept over at the home of their paternal grandparents if the pursuer had to work. In that event, the pursuer's mother slept with the boys until the pursuer returned home. The pursuer did his best to take annual leave or to swap shifts during the children's visits. His parents assisted with childcare. The children got on well with the pursuer's girlfriend during the time they were in a relationship up to 2019. [13] Contact went well until April 2023. The parties had a good relationship. They made all arrangements for the children between themselves. The defender gave the pursuer regular updates about the children's progress, including school reports. On 13 April 2023, the pursuer returned the children to the defender's parents. Before saying goodbye to the children, the pursuer recalled signing a document about their dual citizenship. Shortly afterwards the pursuer received an email from the defender's solicitor seeking increased child maintenance. He has not seen the children since. He did not receive a response when he messaged the children. He was told not to contact the defender directly. The communication between solicitors was not effective. In November 2023, the pursuer requested that the children come to Hungary for Christmas. The defender requested that the pursuer pay approximately ?1,700 towards their travel costs. The pursuer requested an invoice for the costs which he did not receive. The children did not travel to Hungary. [14] The pursuer has attempted to contact the children by telephone without success. Messages have not been read and have not been responded to. The defender has not provided any update on the children. The pursuer sent a Christmas card to the children in December 2025 and received no response. 6 [15] In April 2024, the pursuer received a Messenger message (number 6/28 of process) from a Nathan Simons stating, "Hello, today I am talking about your children [DS and RS] and the fact that [the defender] is holding them hostage and not allowing them to visit. It is not fair and I believe that every child should see their father. Thank you. Nathan Simons". The pursuer subsequently received a missed telephone call from an unknown number. The pursuer has no knowledge of anyone called Nathan Simons. Separately on 14 March 2025, the pursuer received an email message (number 6/18 of process) through his business website bearing to be from the child DS stating "Hi daddy I miss you so much xx". It was from an email address "[D]LikesKids". [16] The pursuer is concerned that the defender has influenced the children. He considers it strange that they would suddenly change their behaviour towards him. During a video call in spring 2024, the pursuer heard the defender shout at the children to end the call. He does not understand the views which the children have expressed to the child welfare reporter. There is no aggression within the pursuer's family. The children were collecting memories with both parents and were loved by both. [17] The pursuer's parents are elderly. The pursuer would like the child RS to visit Hungary to see his family there. He is happy to pay for the child's travel to Hungary. He wants to know that RS is healthy and doing well at school. It is not in the child's interests to have no relationship with the pursuer and his extended family. ** Other evidence for the pursuer [18] Evidence was led from the pursuer's mother GSV, father GS and three friends (AM, TM and IS). Each witness swore an affidavit which formed part of their evidence in chief. With the exception of the pursuer's mother, the witnesses were cross-examined. The 7 pursuer's mother was available for cross-examination but was unable to respond to questions. She has suffered ill health in the recent past. The defender submitted that little if any weight should be given to the affidavit of the pursuer's mother. While there was no opportunity to cross-examine the witness, her evidence is consistent with the evidence of the pursuer and his other witnesses. I am content to consider it as part of the pursuer's case. [19] The pursuer's father spoke to the pursuer being active in the children's care; to their visits to Hungary during holidays when the pursuer engaged in various activities with them and took them to interesting places; to the children staying with him and his wife when the pursuer had to work; to the many activities they as grandparents engaged in with the children; to the children's enjoyment of their time in Hungary and their regret when it ended; to the children sharing a bed with the pursuer and occasionally with their grandmother; to regular calls and messages with the children; to the pursuer's keen interest in the children; and to the close and loving relationship the children shared with the pursuer and their grandparents. The pursuer's mother's affidavit largely mirrored that of her husband. [20] The evidence of the pursuer's friends was that when the children visited Hungary they undertook and enjoyed a range of fun activities with the pursuer; they as friends joined the children in activities; the children were happy, close to and fully engaged with the pursuer, his family and friends; the children and the pursuer had a loving relationship; the accommodation of the pursuer and his parents is suitable and welcoming; and that the pursuer is petrified of flying. [21] Several photographs of the children have been lodged (6/20 and 6/21). They show the children, mostly when younger, with the pursuer, his parents and friends. They record smiling children engaged in various activities at various places. 8 ** Defender's evidence [22] The defender swore an affidavit on 5 January 2026. She is a bus driver. [23] The defender is opposed to contact as it is not in the child RS's best interests. RS often expressed that he did not want to exercise contact with the pursuer in Hungary and that he did not enjoy his time there. Before he travelled to Hungary in summer 2022, he was adamant that he did not want to go. He only agreed when encouraged by the defender. He was disappointed by the pursuer's actions. The pursuer would rarely collect him for contact. He did not arrange for the children to reside with him at his apartment. Rather, he arranged for them to stay with his parents in their small apartment. The pursuer would visit the children but rarely spent quality time with them. He delegated responsibility for their care to his parents. RS complained that he was bored as he did not partake in activities with the pursuer nor with his paternal grandparents. He felt let down by the pursuer as the pursuer would promise that they would do things together. He returned upset from contact due to a lack of attention being paid to him. [24] It was challenging for the defender to fund regular trips to Hungary. The pursuer's contribution of 30,000 HUF was insufficient to cover the costs. The defender was put under financial stress. The pursuer took no steps to visit the children in the UK. By 2022, the financial burden on the defender was too much. The likely cost of taking the children to Hungary in summer 2023 was ?1,500. The 2015 agreement was due to end on 31 December 2022. The defender instructed a solicitor to advise the pursuer that she could no longer afford to abide by the terms of the agreement. She sought to renegotiate its terms. She proposed to take the children to Hungary twice per year and that the pursuer would pay one half of the travel costs. She proposed that the pursuer visit the children in Scotland 9 twice per year. No agreement was reached and the terms of the 2015 agreement lapsed on 31 December 2022. RS has not exercised contact with the pursuer in Hungary since April 2023. [25] From 2013 until 2023, the pursuer made limited efforts to communicate with RS. He telephoned every 2 or 3 weeks when he was with his parents. The conversations were not meaningful. From the summer of 2023, the pursuer and his parents harassed the children by telephone; they badgered the children about when they were coming to Hungary; and they made the children feel guilty. This upset RS. The pursuer did not ask about RS's life. On one occasion the pursuer yelled at the child DS that he was going to Hungary. [26] The defender has always encouraged the children to speak with the pursuer by telephone and to have a relationship with him. She has never sought to restrict or discourage contact. RS no longer wants to visit the pursuer in Hungary nor to have any indirect contact. The matter has caused him upset. The defender did not force contact when she saw his upset. She sought to protect him and to protect his wishes. RS is a teenager and has his own mind. He is old enough to decide for himself whether to have contact. The defender respects his wishes. Since the deterioration of contact in 2023, the pursuer has not been in touch with RS to celebrate his birthday or name day. Name days are important in Hungary and are celebrated with gifts and cards. Since April 2023, the pursuer has not sent any gifts or cards for the child's birthday or name day. The pursuer has not sought any updates on the child's wellbeing, health or schooling except for 5 September 2025 when the pursuer asked for an update through solicitors. That day was RS's birthday but the pursuer did not send birthday wishes. The pursuer has had ample opportunity to visit the child in the UK or to communicate with him regularly. He has chosen not to do so. 10 [27] During cross-examination, a number of scenarios were put to the defender if there were no financial constraints. She is not opposed to indirect contact and the exchange of telephone numbers and email addresses. If the child wants to go for contact, she is willing to encourage him. However, she cannot force him. ** Other evidence for the defender [28] The defender led evidence from her mother IN and from her partner ZG. Each witness swore an affidavit which formed part of their evidence in chief and they were cross- examined. [29] The defender's mother spoke to the early visits when the children would look forward to seeing the pursuer. They would be disappointed when he did not collect them himself; and when they were told that they had to stay with their grandparents. This upset them as they wanted to spend time with the pursuer. Over the years, there were times when the child RS complained that he did not want to exercise contact. He thought that his brother was his grandparents' favourite. RS had to sleep with his grandfather who smelled of smoke. The pursuer spent little time with them. He never took the children out on his own but always with his parents. [30] The trips to Hungary had to come to an end due to the financial burden on the defender. The pursuer contributed very little to the trips. It was expensive for the defender. She always encouraged a relationship between the children and both the pursuer and their grandparents. The pursuer promised that he would come to Scotland and the child RS was excited about this. The pursuer did not visit which caused the child to be disappointed. The pursuer made promises but never fulfilled them. 11 [31] The defender's mother visits the children in Scotland. She last visited them in February 2025. [32] The defender's partner has lived with the defender and children in Bicester and Scotland. The child RS never showed any excitement or anticipation about going to Hungary for contact. He was always excited to return to Scotland and to his friends. RS spoke of being let down by the pursuer. The cost of trips to Hungary put the defender and her partner under financial stress. They could not afford family holidays as a result. They have limited income and are in receipt of Universal Credit. The defender encouraged the children to have telephone calls with the pursuer. RS stopped communicating with the pursuer because he did not want to have contact and the defender had stopped compelling him. The defender had been driving and facilitating contact. The defender has not shared information about the court action; she answers RS's questions in a child-friendly and appropriate manner. Child's views [33] By interlocutor dated 9 October 2025, Amy Donachie, Advocate was appointed as child welfare reporter to obtain the children's views (the child DS then being under 16 years old). Her report is dated 6 November 2025 and is number 11 of process. I reflect the views of both children. [34] Asked about his recollection of contact, the child RS said that the pursuer lied to him and his brother when they visited him in Hungary; the pursuer would tell them that he would take them places but not show up; they were often left with their paternal grandparents; the pursuer would often say that he would take time off work to spend with them but he never did; he never took them anywhere. The child explained that there was a 12 "mad contract" which ended in 2023. The contract was supposed to be renewed but the pursuer did not want to agree to the terms. The contract has not been renewed and for that reason the child has not returned to Hungary for contact. The child does not want to re- establish a relationship with the pursuer nor to have contact with him. His opposition to contact is not related to having to travel to Hungary. He does not want to see the pursuer regardless of whether that would be in Hungary or Scotland. RS described the pursuer as manipulative. He could not explain why he thought this. [35] RS reiterated to the reporter that he does not want to see the pursuer at all. He appeared to be upset and did not maintain eye contact. He agreed that he found it difficult speaking about the pursuer. He said that he could not tell the reporter why he did not want contact but that the defender knows. He does not want to see the pursuer ever. [36] RS explained that during telephone or video calls, the pursuer would ask repeatedly when the children would return to Hungary to visit him and why they were not visiting. Those questions made him feel uncomfortable. His paternal grandparents would ask him the same questions. That also made him feel uncomfortable. He spoke of two specific occasions when he overheard his parents speaking on the telephone when the pursuer had been threatening or accusatory. He did not want any form of communication with the pursuer. He did not want to give a reason. [37] The child DS told the reporter that the defender does not want him to have contact with the pursuer. She speaks to her solicitor and tells the child what they have discussed. The child was aware that the parties had entered into a contract regulating contact. He understood that had expired two years earlier. The defender had asked the children to keep the expiry of the contract secret from the pursuer. They were worried that the pursuer may keep them hostage. They had travelled to Hungary on one occasion after its expiry. It cost 13 the defender a lot of money to travel with them to and from Hungary for contact. The defender returned to Scotland after delivering the children to and before collecting them from Hungary. [38] The child DS's account of contact with the pursuer was that the pursuer worked all the time; it was a waste of time; the pursuer did not spend time with them; when not working the pursuer was asleep; the children were left with their paternal grandparents which was not fun as they were old and did old people activities like gardening; the pursuer made promises but did not fulfil them; and the pursuer lied to him. If the pursuer took the children to a waterpark, it was because the pursuer was working there as a DJ. The children were left to do their own thing. The pursuer prioritised work over spending time with the children. When in Hungary, the children would also see their maternal grandparents with whom they did lots of things. DS enjoyed spending time with his maternal grandparents. [39] DS rejected the possibility of contact taking place in Scotland. He declared himself apprehensive about meeting the pursuer as the pursuer had shouted at him and his brother. The pursuer had been aggressive to his own mother and to his girlfriend. DS also rejected indirect contact as the pursuer would become frustrated or angry during calls. He thought the pursuer would try to argue with him and persuade him to return to Hungary. When they still had contact, the pursuer repeatedly asked them when they would return to Hungary and why they were not visiting. He told them that he missed them. The calls made DS feel uncomfortable. His paternal grandparents were often with the pursuer. They would ask the same questions. It made DS uncomfortable as he knew they were not returning to Hungary but he did not want to tell the pursuer lest he became angry. In summer 2023, the pursuer was angry during a call, asking them why they were able to go on 14 holiday to Spain but could not visit him in Hungary. DS explained that it was cheaper for the defender to take them on holiday to places other than Hungary. DS would rather go to places where he can do the things he wants to do. On holiday, they do lots of activities which is preferable to going to Hungary. The defender does not want to take them back to Hungary. [40] DS had deleted the Viber app. The pursuer would use Viber to send him messages. The messages said that the pursuer missed them; that his paternal grandmother was unwell and for that reason he should go to Hungary. Asked about the use of letters and emails to communicate, DS said the pursuer would be able to pressurise him into returning to visit him in Hungary. The pursuer had used calls to try to communicate with the defender. DS did not want to receive gifts and cards from the pursuer and did not believe that the pursuer would spend money on him if not getting something in return. No form of contact with the pursuer would make him happy. He would feel uncomfortable regardless of the mode of contact. [41] DS is aware of the defender's views in relation to contact and is aware of the financial burden placed on the defender by travel to and from Hungary for contact. However, the focus of his responses was the pursuer's lack of engagement with him and his belief that the pursuer prioritised work over spending time with the children. DS was consistent in his views and gave coherent reasons to justify his views. His views appeared to be borne out of his lived experiences of contact. The reporter considered his views to be genuinely held. [42] The child RS was unwilling to provide any understanding of why he does not want any contact. He could not explain why he believes the pursuer is manipulative. However, he was able to recall and describe incidents that had happened in the past that made him 15 feel uncomfortable. RS consistently rejected any suggestion of contact with the pursuer. On balance, the reporter could not conclude whether his views were genuinely held. Discussion [43] I must determine what is in the child RS's best interests. I am mindful that his welfare is the paramount consideration; that I must not make an order unless it would be better for him that the order be made than not; and that, taking account of his age and maturity, I must have regard to his views, if any. [44] There is not significant factual dispute on relevant matters. It is agreed in terms of the joint minute (paragraph 12) that between January 2013 and April 2023 the defender travelled with the children to Hungary every Christmas, Easter and summer holiday to enable the children to spend time with the pursuer. In the summer they spent three to four weeks with the pursuer. The pursuer also exercised regular indirect contact with them. I conclude that as a younger child RS enjoyed contact; and that he had a loving relationship with the pursuer and his grandparents. That is consistent with the evidence of the pursuer and each of his witnesses. It is consistent with the photographs lodged by the pursuer. The parties communicated and co-operated well after the defender's relocation to the UK. That is to their credit as the relocation would have presented practical difficulties. [45] There was dispute around the frequency of contact in Hungary before the defender relocated to London in January 2013; around whether the defender told the pursuer of the intended relocation; around child maintenance; and around payment of travel expenses. In terms of the joint minute (paragraphs 11 and 12), it is agreed that there are no arrears of child maintenance and every payment was made under the agreement on travel expenses. It assists little to determine contact arrangements prior to 2013 given their vintage and given 16 the settled pattern of contact which ensued. In relation to the pursuer's evidence about contact from the third party Nathan Simons and an apparent message from the child DS in 2025, it is not possible to conclude who sent the messages. I am satisfied that the child DS did not send the message. It is inconceivable that he would have the email address used and the defender spoke to the child denying any such contact. [46] The evidence demonstrates that from at least 2022 the child's attitude to contact started to change and that coincided with the defender seeking to review the practical arrangements for contact. RS is now aged 14 and taking account of his age and maturity, I must have regard to his views. As urged by the pursuer's counsel, I must be vigilant against any external influence which may compromise the genuineness of his views. The focus then becomes RS's views and whether they are subject to influence or genuinely held. [47] The pursuer submits that 13 April 2023 (when direct contact last took place in Hungary) represents a marked change in the child's apparent attitude to contact. Until then every indication was that he enjoyed contact. It is agreed that there was no conflict during this handover (joint minute paragraph 14). The pursuer links the change to the defender seeking to vary the contact arrangements. In contrast, the defender submits that the child's enjoyment of contact had been lessening prior to that date. The defender did not seek to stop contact but to renegotiate the number of visits each year to Hungary, how those were funded and, in addition, invited the pursuer to exercise contact in Scotland. [48] The child welfare reporter described her meeting with the child RS as challenging; that he appeared reluctant to speak with her; he looked uncomfortable; avoided eye contact; and appeared to be upset during the meeting. The reporter could not ascertain a reason for his upset. The child was said to be unwilling to give explanations or any understanding of why he does not want contact. He could not explain why he believes the 17 pursuer to be manipulative. However, he was able to recall and describe incidents which happened in the past which made him feel uncomfortable. He consistently rejected any suggestion of contact. On balance, the reporter could not conclude whether the child's views on contact were genuinely held by him. [49] As set out above, the child reported that the pursuer lied to him and his brother when they visited him in Hungary; the pursuer would tell them that he would take them places but not show up; they were often left with their paternal grandparents; the pursuer would often say that he would take time off work to spend with them but he never did; he never took them anywhere. The evidence of the defender's mother was that the child felt let down when the pursuer did not fulfil his promise to visit him in Scotland and that he commented adversely on sleeping with his grandfather. The defender spoke to the child not wanting to go to Hungary for contact in summer 2022; to him being bored due to a lack of activities; and to him feeling let down by the pursuer. [50] From the reported views of both children and the evidence of the defender and of her partner, it is clear that the children knew about the contract between the parties, of their disagreement over funding trips to Hungary and the financial impact upon the defender. The child DS was aware that the regular trips to Hungary appeared to limit other family holidays which he perceived to be more enjoyable. The defender may be criticised for her failure to protect the children from any dispute about legal and financial matters. However, I reject any suggestion that her purpose from April 2023 was to stop the children's contact with the pursuer. That is contrary to the terms of the correspondence between the parties' solicitors. The defender instructed her solicitor to renegotiate the contact such that contact in Hungary took place twice per year with an invitation to the pursuer to exercise contact in Scotland in addition. She sought to renegotiate the pursuer's contribution to travel costs. 18 Unfortunately and perhaps through translation difficulties, the correspondence was not constructive and broke down. [51] Following the children's views being reported to the court, there is evidence that the pursuer was reflective about the children's criticisms and keen to reassure them that he would take on board their concerns. He expressed a willingness to visit the children in Scotland. In the event his position at proof was that any contact must take place in Hungary. He explained his position principally in relation to his elderly and frail parents with whom he wants the children to have a relationship and for whom he has caring responsibilities. In addition, he is fearful of flying and does not have a passport. His position in relation to his parents is understandable. The potential for contact in Scotland was fully explored in evidence and in submissions. It was framed as an opportunity to unlock the current impasse. However, the court is invited to respect the pursuer's position and order contact in Hungary. [52] The defender's evidence is that she would encourage and support contact provided the child wanted contact. She has encouraged contact in the past. She would obey any court order. She agreed to Christmas cards and gifts being sent. The submission on her behalf was that there was no impediment to the pursuer contacting the child. I accept the defender's evidence. I do not consider that she has sought to influence either child against the pursuer nor against contact. [53] In all the circumstances, I conclude that the child RS's views are genuinely held and are not subject to influence. He has given reasons for his opposition to contact. His reasons chime with those of his brother. When younger RS enjoyed contact with the pursuer, his parents and friends. However, in recent years the pursuer has failed to note the negative impact of his inattention to the child and of activities and sleeping arrangements which are 19 no longer age appropriate. The pursuer's counsel properly submitted that the court should be alert to cultural and socio-economic differences between family life in Scotland and in Hungary. I make no criticism of the available accommodation in Hungary but it has become unsuitable for teenage children. I understand that the pursuer must work but also must acknowledge the child's disappointment and upset about the pursuer's non-availability during lengthy periods of contact. The child's expressed views are that the pursuer repeatedly let him down. [54] Standing the child's views, I am satisfied that it would not be in his best interests to make an order for either direct or indirect contact. To do otherwise would be to ignore his views. However, I am mindful of the importance of the child's Hungarian heritage being maintained through visits to Hungary and through both his paternal and maternal families. I am mindful of the positive relationship between the child and the pursuer until recent years albeit that has broken down. The defender's parents continue to live in Hungary. Given the defender's stated willingness to encourage contact, there is the potential for informal contact were the children to visit Hungary. It is open to the pursuer to make contact with the child by letter or email provided that he does so sensitively, without pressurising the child and in a way which respects the child's views. **** Decision [55] I sustain the defender's plea-in-law; repel the pursuer's plea-in-law and refuse to make a contact order in favour of the pursuer. Irrespective of outcome, I am invited to find and do find that no expenses are due to or by either party. ****

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: https://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2026/2026csoh27.html