JU v NU [2025] CSOH 117: Structured Hierarchies for Contact, Handover and Video Communication in Long‑Distance Parenting

1. Introduction

This opinion of Lord Braid in the Outer House of the Court of Session, JU v NU and another [2025] CSOH 117 (F63/24), is a follow‑up (“by order”) judgment delivered on 12 December 2025. It follows an earlier substantive opinion of 6 November 2025 (refusing the pursuer’s application to relocate the children to England) and deals exclusively with the detailed regulation of care and contact arrangements for three young children.

The parties are:

The pursuer – the non‑resident parent, living and working in England.
The defender – the parent with whom the children reside in Scotland, and who has day‑to‑day care during term‑time.
The minuter – Marie H Clark KC, who previously had a role in the proceedings; her position is not central to this particular opinion.

The hearing had three purposes:

To fix the precise care and contact arrangements in light of the refusal to permit relocation.
To address anonymisation of the judgment (now implemented in the published opinion).
To agree how the court’s decision should be communicated to the children (by means of a letter from the judge, delivered and explained via the curator and Dr MacKinlay).

Anonymisation and communication to the children were largely agreed. What remained in dispute, and therefore required judicial determination, were the nuts and bolts of the care regime: summer and Christmas arrangements, video contact, handover locations, return dates after holidays, the precise start date for the new contact pattern, and holiday travel abroad.

Although highly fact‑specific, the opinion is important because it articulates, in concrete terms, how the Scottish courts may structure:

a hierarchy of handover locations for high‑conflict parents;
holiday contact where one parent already has the majority of holiday time;
video contact in a realistic, non‑intrusive way;
the balance between predictability and flexibility in long‑distance parenting; and
the interaction between parental work commitments, geography, and the welfare of the child.

2. Summary of the Judgment

2.1 Overall outcome

Lord Braid makes a detailed contact order regulating the care arrangements between the pursuer and the defender, in circumstances where:

The children remain resident with the defender in Scotland.
The pursuer, now able to adjust his work commitments, will exercise significant contact, especially during holidays.

On disposal:

The pursuer’s specific issue order (relocation) has already been refused in the earlier opinion.
His remaining pleas are repelled except his first plea, sustained only to the extent of awarding contact, not residence.
The defender no longer seeks a residence order; her pleas and conclusions are repelled and dismissed, because residence with her is no longer in dispute.
There is no order as to expenses.

2.2 Key elements of the care regime

The judge builds on areas of agreement and decides the areas of conflict. In distilled form:

(a) Term‑time contact

Alternate weekends: Saturday 11.00am to Monday school drop‑off for the two older children.
For the youngest child (S): Saturday 11.00am to Monday 2.00pm until he starts school in August 2026; thereafter his schedule aligns with his brothers.
Regular video contact: every Wednesday at 6.00pm and, on non‑contact weekends, every Sunday at 6.00pm.

(b) School holidays

The pursuer has the majority of holiday time:
- 10 nights during the Easter holidays.
- The first 2 weeks and last 2 weeks of the summer holidays.
- The entire October holiday.
- Four long weekends: one in February, two in May, and one in September.
The defender has the middle summer block (2–3 weeks) uninterrupted by overnight contact with the pursuer; her proposal to keep that period free of mid‑block overnights is preferred.

(c) Christmas

Physical Christmas contact alternates yearly.
Handover will occur on 27 December each year, not on Boxing Day.
There is mandatory video contact on Christmas Day: a call to commence between 10.00am and 11.00am.

(d) Handover locations

To minimise conflict and the need for ad hoc negotiation, a fixed hierarchy of handover locations is set:

First choice – collection/drop‑off at the children’s place of education.
Failing that – the parent and child car park at a specified Waitrose store.
Failing that, and only by agreement – extra‑curricular activities such as tennis.

(e) Returns after holidays and start date of new regime

If school resumes on a Monday, the pursuer returns the children to school on the Monday (S at 2.00pm until August 2026).
If school resumes on another day, return is at 4.00pm on the day before, usually at the Waitrose car park.
The new fortnightly term‑time contact begins on the weekend of 10–12 January 2026, and then runs fortnightly.

(f) Video contact

Term‑time: every Wednesday at 6.00pm and, on non‑contact weekends, every Sunday at 6.00pm.
Holiday periods: equivalent pattern – the non‑resident parent during a given block has the same Wednesday/Sunday 6.00pm video calls.
The court declines to micro‑manage issues such as cameras being switched off, but stresses that the essence of video contact is visual interaction.

(g) Holiday travel abroad and passports

Both parties are entitled in principle to take the children abroad for holidays.
The court rejects a proposed blanket limit of 14 days on trips abroad.
The defender will hold and renew the children’s passports; they are to be released from the court into her custody.

2.3 Communication with the children

Lord Braid has drafted a letter addressed to one of the children (L), to be delivered and explained by Dr MacKinlay via the curator. Parties accepted this as the most appropriate means of ensuring that the children receive a coherent, age‑appropriate explanation of the decision.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Procedural posture and context

This opinion does not revisit the substantive question of where the children should live. That issue was decided in November 2025 when the court refused the pursuer’s application for a specific issue order permitting relocation to England. Accordingly:

Residence with the defender in Scotland is settled and undisputed.
The outstanding question is the configuration of contact, both during term and holiday time.

The hearing is a classic by order hearing: a procedural event where, after a principal decision has been taken, the court and parties work through the detailed implementation. Given the level of parental animosity, the parties were unable to agree a number of practical matters; the court was therefore obliged to impose a comprehensive structure.

3.2 Legal framework (implied, not explicitly cited)

Although the opinion does not cite statutory provisions or case law, it clearly proceeds on familiar Scottish child law principles, particularly under section 11 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995:

The welfare of the child is the court’s paramount consideration.
The child’s views should be taken into account so far as practicable and appropriate (here mediated through the curator and Dr MacKinlay).
The “no order” principle: the court should not make an order unless it is better for the child that the order be made than that no order be made.

In a low‑conflict case, the “no order” principle might argue for a relatively light‑touch approach. In a high‑conflict, geographically‑separated family such as this, the court concludes that detailed, prescriptive orders are in fact welfare‑enhancing because they reduce scope for disagreement and uncertainty.

3.3 Precedents and authorities

The opinion as provided contains no explicit citation of earlier cases or authorities. This is unsurprising: the legal tests were determined in the earlier, substantive opinion of 6 November 2025. The present opinion is an exercise in applying settled principles to logistical disputes.

Nevertheless, the judgment aligns with and illustrates existing doctrinal trends:

Recognition that holiday time has a distinct, qualitative importance (“making memories”) and may justify a different division than term‑time care.
Growing normalisation of video contact as part of a child’s relationship with a geographically distant parent.
Courts’ reluctance to micro‑manage family life but willingness to be prescriptive where parental conflict necessitates it.
Pragmatic accommodation of a parent’s work pattern (here, tied to the English football calendar) insofar as compatible with the children’s welfare.

In that sense, while not announcing a novel doctrine, the judgment is likely to be a persuasive authority for:

the idea of a hierarchy of handover locations; and
the structuring of regular, predictable video contact that does not unduly intrude on the resident parent’s weekend time.

3.4 Legal reasoning issue by issue

3.4.1 Handover locations: hierarchy to minimise conflict ([4])

The parties agreed that there should be a hierarchy of locations for dropping off and picking up the children but could not agree its content. Lord Braid identifies two core aims:

To avoid direct contact between the parents as far as reasonably possible, given the evident animosity.
To minimise the need for ad hoc arrangements, which would require them to negotiate and potentially clash.

From these goals, the judge devises a three‑tier hierarchy:

Education (school or nursery) as primary site: predictable, neutral, and convenient for children’s routines.
Named Waitrose car park as default back‑up: a public, neutral, easily locatable place if school/nursery is not practical.
Extra‑curricular activities (tennis etc.) only if specifically agreed by both parties.

This structure has doctrinal significance: it demonstrates that in high‑conflict cases the court may construct a default rule‑set that operates without ongoing parental cooperation. If no alternative is agreed, both parties “always know” that the same default applies. This enhances:

predictability for the children;
certainty for parents; and
reduction in flashpoints for dispute.

3.4.2 Summer contact and the character of holiday time ([5])

The pursuer sought an overnight during the defender’s central summer block, to avoid a possible three‑week gap without seeing the children. The defender resisted on the basis that this would unduly cut into her already limited summer time.

Lord Braid accepts the defender’s position, and his reasoning is noteworthy:

Holiday contact is different in kind from term‑time contact. Citing Dr MacKinlay, he notes it is an opportunity to “make memories”.
Inserting an overnight for the pursuer would break the cohesion of the defender’s holiday time and undermine that “memory‑making” quality.
The pursuer already enjoys the majority of holiday contact. The defender’s central summer block is described as “already‑restricted”; it deserves protection from mid‑block incursions.
Such an arrangement would necessitate additional liaison about holiday plans, increasing the scope for:
- the pursuer seeking details of the defender’s arrangements;
- the defender feeling constrained in booking holidays; and
- conflict and uncertainty – all contrary to the children’s interests.
The potential three‑week gap is mitigated by video contact.

The principle emerging is that:

Where one parent’s holiday block is relatively limited, and the other already has the majority of holiday time, the court may prefer long, uninterrupted blocks of holiday contact for the less‑favoured parent, rather than permitting mid‑block overnights that fragment the holiday and increase conflict.

3.4.3 Structuring video contact without intruding on weekends ([6]–[7])

The pursuer requested two weekly video calls: Wednesday 6.00pm and alternate Saturdays 10.00am (on non‑contact weekends). The defender accepted two calls in principle but objected to Saturday mornings as disruptive of activities and travel.

The court balances:

The pursuer’s legitimate interest in frequent, regular contact.
The defender’s interest in uninterrupted time with the children during “her” weekends.
The need to avoid making weekends revolve around a device or scheduled call.

Lord Braid:

Rejects the Saturday 10.00am slot as “inconvenient” and intrusion into weekend activities.
Instead orders:
- Every Wednesday 6.00pm (term time and holidays).
- Every non‑contact Sunday 6.00pm (term time and holidays).
Recognises that flexibility will be needed (e.g. if the pursuer has “an evening football fixture” on a Wednesday), and expresses an expectation that parties will adjust sensibly.

On technical problems (the camera being switched off), the judge declines to micro‑manage but observes that:

“it is inherent in the very nature of video contact that the participants are able to see each other.”

This underscores a minimal quality standard for video contact (it should be visual as well as audio) without inviting future satellite litigation about every glitch.

3.4.4 Christmas: travel, prime days, and Boxing Day handover ([8]–[10])

Christmas is a recurring flashpoint in separated families, even more so here because the parents live in different countries and the pursuer’s work is tied to the English football calendar.

Three main issues arise:

Whether one parent in alternate years should have all of Christmas Eve, Christmas Day and Boxing Day.
The date of handover (Boxing Day vs 27 December).
Whether to prescribe video contact on Christmas Day.

For 2025 the parties agreed detailed arrangements, but for 2026–2027 they diverged. The defender objected to any pattern where one parent would always enjoy all three “prime” days in alternate years. The pursuer proposed handovers on 27 December to avoid Boxing Day travel and football fixtures.

Lord Braid acknowledges:

The defender’s concern that one parent will have all the “prime” days in alternate years.
But notes that she will also benefit from that in alternate years.

The decisive reasoning is child‑centred:

From the children’s perspective, spending much of Boxing Day in a car is undesirable, whether travelling from the far south of England or from York.
A Boxing Day return at 4.00pm leaves the receiving parent only a limited window with the children that day.
The arrangement currently relies heavily on the pursuer’s parents driving on Boxing Day; the court cautions that their willingness and ability cannot be assumed indefinitely.
The judge recognises the pursuer’s work commitments and the length of the journey the children must undertake.

Balancing these factors, the court adopts the pursuer’s proposed structure:

Handover each year on 27 December, with the specific pattern alternating between the parents.
With an explicit caveat that if the parties later live closer together, this aspect of the order might be reconsidered.

On video contact on Christmas Day, the judge again seeks a middle ground:

Recognises that Christmas morning can be chaotic; over‑prescription may be counter‑productive.
But also recognises that leaving it wholly flexible is risky in this high‑conflict case.
Accordingly orders that the call start between 10.00am and 11.00am, while expressly encouraging festive flexibility – earlier or later if that suits the children (e.g. if they want to show gifts).

3.4.5 Easter holidays and consistency ([11])

The parties agreed that the pursuer would have 10 nights at Easter but disagreed whether that 10‑night block should alternate between the first and second half of the holiday, or always be the same period.

The pursuer wanted an alternating pattern (first 10 nights one year, last 10 the next). The defender proposed a fixed pattern (last 10 nights every year). The judge notes that:

Neither party offered a significantly child‑centred rationale for their preference.
Easter can fall at various points within the school holiday; it does not consistently align with one half or the other.

In that context, he values consistency and predictability. Returning children directly to school after holidays is often preferable, and fixing the pursuer’s Easter contact as the last 10 nights achieves that. Over time, Easter Sunday will fall sometimes within the pursuer’s block and sometimes within the defender’s, so both parents can experience Easter with the children.

Notably, the court does not factor in the pursuer’s work calendar here; any issues were not raised in submissions. This reflects a recurring theme: only properly argued factors are weighed in the welfare balance.

3.4.6 Returns from holiday contact: school versus previous day ([12]–[14])

The dispute here is partly practical (suitcases, work schedules) and partly about minimising unnecessary parental contact.

The pursuer wanted to return the children at 4.00pm on the day before the resumption of education in all cases; the defender preferred returns to school on the first day back. The curator supported the pursuer’s approach on practical grounds (avoiding luggage being dropped at school), but the judge finds that rationale less compelling because luggage is usually collected from school in any event.

A more nuanced rule is adopted:

If school resumes on a Monday: return is directly to school on that Monday.
- Until August 2026, S is returned at 2.00pm on that Monday; thereafter, he aligns with the older children.
If school does not resume on a Monday: return is at 4.00pm the day before (typically Monday) to the Waitrose car park.

This has a broader impact on contact patterns:

At the end of Christmas contact (from 2027 onwards, when the pursuer has the children from 27 December to the end of the holidays), Easter, and October holidays, if the first day back is a Monday, the children go to school directly from the pursuer.
Other returns default to 4.00pm the day before, at the Waitrose car park.

For the end of the summer holidays, the judge anticipates that school usually resumes on a non‑Monday (as was the case in 2025). Even if this is not so in a particular year, he makes an exception: the children should be returned to the defender at 4.00pm the day before school starts, because the first day of a new school year – and especially S’s first ever day of school in 2026 – justifies time with the resident parent immediately beforehand.

3.4.7 Avoiding consecutive weekends and the January 2026 start date ([15]–[16])

The parties disagreed on whether the new fortnightly contact regime should start on 10 January 2026 or 17 January 2026. The pursuer preferred the latter on convenience grounds (aligning with international football breaks); the defender preferred 10 January, highlighting that the pursuer’s proposed start had the incidental effect of giving him up to five weekends around Easter.

Lord Braid first articulates a more general principle:

“when the pursuer returns the children to education, as a matter of generality, he should not have the children on the following weekend; otherwise, he would have the children on at least two, sometimes three and occasionally more, consecutive weekends.”

This reflects a concern for balance and routine:

Excessive clustering of weekends with one parent may unbalance the children’s rhythms and the other parent’s relationship with them.
Smooth alternation of contact vs non‑contact weekends is preferred where possible.

Given that, uniquely for the 2025–26 Christmas, the children are to be returned to the defender on Friday 2 January (not to school on Monday), she will have them on 3–4 January. It follows logically that:

The first contact weekend in 2026 should be 10–12 January 2026.
Thereafter, weekends alternate on a fortnightly basis.

The timing of the November international break is dismissed as ultimately irrelevant once the General principle about no consecutive weekends is applied systematically.

3.4.8 Holiday travel abroad and passport control ([17])

Both parties agreed in principle that each should be able to take the children abroad on holiday. The pursuer, however, sought to restrict such trips to no more than 14 days.

Lord Braid rejects that proposal as unnecessary:

In practice, neither parent will usually have the children for more than two weeks at a stretch.
The primary exception is the defender’s central summer holiday block, where she may have more than two weeks. But the judge accepts her counsel’s argument that it is reasonable for her to have flexibility to take the children somewhere like Australia, which sensibly requires longer than two weeks.

On passports:

The defender will hold and renew the children’s passports.
The passports are currently held by the court and will be released to her custody.

This arrangement reflects the reality that the children reside with the defender and reduces the risk of passports being a source of ongoing control or leverage.

3.4.9 Pleas‑in‑law and disposal ([18])

The opinion concludes by disposing of the parties’ formal pleas and conclusions:

The pursuer’s third to tenth pleas‑in‑law are repelled.
His first plea is sustained only to the extent of awarding contact (not residence).
The defender’s first, and third to eighth pleas‑in‑law, are repelled.
The pursuer’s third to ninth conclusions and all of the defender’s conclusions are dismissed.
The order made corresponds broadly to the pursuer’s first conclusion – the regulation of care and contact arrangements.
No expenses are awarded to or by either party.

The explicit note that the defender no longer seeks a residence order is important:

Following the refusal of relocation, residence with her is not in issue.
No declaratory residence order is required; the status quo is accepted as the legal and practical baseline.

3.5 Emerging principles and likely precedential value

While this is a fact‑specific family case, several more general principles emerge that may guide future decisions:

Hierarchy of handover locations in high‑conflict cases
The court may devise a tiered list of default handover points to minimise confrontation and negotiation. Education settings are preferred as primary locations, with a neutral public car park as back‑up.
Recognition of holiday time as qualitatively different
Holiday contact is not simply additional “time” but a distinct category oriented towards shared experiences and “making memories”. This justifies:
- protecting coherent blocks of holiday time from mid‑block interruptions; and
- accepting longer continuous contact for one parent where term‑time care is weighted in favour of the other.
Structured, non‑intrusive video contact
Regular mid‑week video contact and an additional contact on non‑contact weekends can maintain a strong relationship with a distant parent. However, such contact:
- should be at times that minimise disruption to the resident parent’s activities (e.g. Sunday evenings, not Saturday mornings); and
- should allow for when unavoidable conflicts arise.
Avoiding consecutive weekends to preserve balance
As a general rule, the court considers that a non‑resident parent who has just returned the children to school at the end of a holiday should not also have the immediately following weekend. This helps maintain a regular alternation and ensures the other parent is not excluded for long sequences.
Child‑centred approach to Christmas and long journeys
The court places real weight on avoiding children spending key festive days largely in transit. Handover on 27 December rather than Boxing Day is justified by:
- the length of the journey;
- the likely desire of children to play at home with Christmas presents;
- the work constraints of the non‑resident parent; and
- the limited utility of partial days following long travel.
Rejection of arbitrary time limits on foreign holidays
Maximum durations (e.g. 14 days) may be inappropriate where they lack a strong welfare justification and unduly restrict realistic long‑haul travel.
Prescriptive orders justified by conflict
Although the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 favours minimal intervention, this case illustrates that in a high‑conflict context, detailed, prescriptive orders can be necessary and beneficial to child welfare by “front‑loading” clarity and reducing the need for future disputes.

4. Complex Legal and Procedural Concepts Explained

4.1 Key Scottish civil procedure terms

Pursuer: the party who initiates the court action (analogous to a “claimant” in other jurisdictions).
Defender: the party against whom the action is brought (analogous to a “defendant”).
Minuter: a person who lodges a “minute” in existing proceedings, typically to seek some specific order or variation. Here, the minuter’s involvement is no longer central.
By order hearing: a procedural hearing convened to make further orders, clarify implementation, or manage the case after a main decision has been given.
Curator (often “curator ad litem”): an independent person (often a solicitor or advocate) appointed to represent and safeguard the interests of children in litigation.
Pleas‑in‑law: concise statements of the legal arguments on which a party relies to support the orders they seek. The court “sustains” or “repels” them in its disposal.
Conclusions: the formal orders requested by a party (e.g. for residence, contact, specific issue orders).

4.2 Family law concepts

Residence order: an order specifying with whom a child is to live. In this case, by the time of the present opinion, residence with the defender was undisputed and no formal residence order was required.
Contact order: an order specifying the arrangements under which a non‑resident parent (or other person) has contact with a child.
Specific issue order: an order made under section 11 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 to resolve a specific question about parental responsibilities or rights (e.g. relocation to another country).
No order principle: the rule that the court should not make an order unless doing so is better for the child than making no order at all. It encourages judicial restraint in suitable cases.
Paramountcy of welfare: the child’s welfare is the court’s overriding concern, taking precedence over the preferences or convenience of either parent.

4.3 The concept of “making memories”

The phrase “make memories”, used by Dr MacKinlay and adopted by the court, captures the idea that:

Holidays are not merely longer blocks of ordinary time.
They give children opportunities for distinct experiences (trips, family events, travel) that shape their emotional relationship with each parent.
Fragmenting these blocks may diminish that qualitative value.

This is a useful shorthand for why courts may allocate holidays differently from term‑time and may favour unbroken stretches of time with each parent over frequent chopping‑and‑changing.

5. Impact and Future Significance

5.1 Long‑distance parenting and cross‑border families

This case is particularly relevant where:

One parent lives and works in another jurisdiction (here, England); and
Child relocation has been refused, leaving the children resident in Scotland but with the non‑resident parent based some distance away.

For such families, the judgment:

Shows how substantial contact (especially in holidays) can still be structured for a distant parent.
Demonstrates that the court will take realistic account of work calendars (e.g. football fixtures, international breaks) insofar as they are properly raised and compatible with child welfare.
Highlights that travel burdens on children – especially around Christmas – carry real weight.

5.2 Guidance for practitioners drafting contact orders

For solicitors and counsel, the opinion offers practical templates and cautionary lessons:

Use of a hierarchy of handover locations to avoid ad hoc negotiation in high‑conflict cases.
Clear start and end times for each holiday block, including whether the return is to school or to the other parent the day before.
Incorporation of regular video contact schedules (day and time) that respect family rhythms and minimise disruption.
Recognition that foreign travel limits should only be imposed where there is a substantive welfare rationale, not merely a desire for parity.
The value of explicitly addressing Christmas Day video calls, rather than assuming they will be agreed informally in a high‑conflict context.

5.3 Judicial approach to high‑conflict co‑parenting

The opinion also illustrates a broader judicial stance:

The court will not shy away from detailed prescriptions where parental conflict and geographical distance make loosely framed orders unsuitable.
At the same time, it will resist turning itself into a micromanager of day‑to‑day issues (such as brief technical glitches in video calls).
There is an explicit expectation that, despite past animosity, parents will exercise a degree of good faith and flexibility – especially at emotionally significant times like Christmas.

6. Conclusion

JU v NU [2025] CSOH 117 does not create new doctrine but represents a significant and highly practical exposition of how the Scottish courts will tailor contact regimes in complex, high‑conflict, long‑distance parenting arrangements.

Key takeaways include:

The court’s willingness to construct a hierarchy of handover locations to reduce conflict.
Recognition of holiday time as qualitatively distinct, justifying coherent, uninterrupted blocks of contact, particularly for the parent with less overall holiday time.
A structured yet flexible video contact regime that supports the distant parent’s role without unduly encroaching on the resident parent’s weekend life.
Child‑focused reasoning on Christmas and travel, prioritising the children’s experience of holidays over parental convenience alone.
Rejection of arbitrary constraints on foreign holidays when they lack a strong welfare justification.

Ultimately, the opinion illustrates the application of the welfare principle in a detailed, real‑world setting. It emphasises that where parental relations are strained, precision and predictability in contact orders can be crucial to safeguarding children from ongoing conflict, while still preserving meaningful relationships with both parents. For practitioners and judges alike, it offers a carefully reasoned model for structuring complex care arrangements in similar future cases.