Most relocation cases resemble a tense World Cup semi-final, destined to be determined by a penalty shootout as two well organised opponents cancel each other out.

Not so DH v GH, where the mother, like the disintegrating Brazilian defence of 2014, produced a relocation proposal which Sheriff Arthurson concluded lacked “any elements of planning and consultation”.

The pursuer was “inviting the court simply to send the children to a place [Florida] where employment, income, accommodation and schooling could simply be wished into reality by the will of a determined pursuer”.

The proposal advanced for relocation was so weak that the sheriff concluded: “I am bound to express that I am concerned that it was allowed to reach proof at this court at all.”

Click here to view the judgment.