R.A.B. v. M.I.B.

[3] Rule of Court 49.32 provides that notwithstanding abandonment by the pursuer, the court may allow the defender in a family action to pursue an order or claim sought in his or her defences. I accordingly heard proof with regard to the defender's claim for a residence order in relation to the child of the marriage. The remainder of this opinion is concerned with that claim.

Current circumstances [6] At the proof I heard evidence from the defender, from her brother, and from Professor Thomas A W N MacKay, Consultant Psychologist, who had provided a report dated 28 September 2009 and a supplementary report dated 2 February 2010 . On the basis of that evidence, I make the following findings.

[8] Family support for the defender is available from her mother, brother and sister, all of whom live nearby in London and have a good relationship with R. At weekends and during holidays the defender and her children visit the family home of the defender's mother and often stay over. If the defender were to fall ill, she could call on members of her family to look after the children.

[10] In his supplementary report, Professor MacKay set out his conclusions which included the following:

� R is in good mental health and there are no concerns of any kind in regard to her psychological well-being.