Call us: Mon - Fri 8:30am - 7pm, Sat - Sun 9am - 5pm
Call local rate 0330 056 3171
Mon - Fri 8:30am - 7pm | Sat - Sun 9am - 5pm
Call local rate 0330 056 3171
Mon - Fri 8:30am - 7pm | Sat - Sun 9am - 5pm

Judge orders enforcement of contact

A High Court judge has ruled that a contact order should be enforced despite a mother’s objections.

The mother in this case lived in England while the father lived in Sweden. They had a son and a daughter, aged 11 and nine years-old.

A contact order established that the former couple’s two children would live primarily with their mother. These are made to establish how long children will spend with each of their separated parents. However, the children in this case were to spend time with their father in Sweden during school holidays such as the summer and Christmas breaks. The order also allowed for the father to take care of the children in England for a weekend each month.

This arrangement came to an end following a public confrontation between the parents at an English airport. The father was waiting there for the children, as he usually did when he took them to Sweden, but became increasingly agitated when the mother, her new husband and the children did not arrive on time. The father was concerned about missing his flight to Sweden and an argument began when the mother arrived. As a result of the confrontation, security and the police were called in. The commotion resulted in the father and children’s flight leaving without them but the police made no charges.

The father applied for the contact order to be enforced, while the mother applied to have all direct contact between him and the children suspended. She claimed that the children were always upset at the prospect of visiting their father.

Sitting at the Civil Justice Centre in Manchester, Her Honour Judge Newton said that while the father was not “entirely blameless for the distressing scene at the airport”, she understood his frustration.  She said that the incident “was largely instigated by the mother’s behaviour”.

More generally, the judge said that the mother was “wholly unconvincing” whereas the father gave much better evidence and his “warmth and concern for the children was readily apparent”. She commended him for being “remarkably committed”, and cited the fact that he had visited the UK 37 times in a single year to see his children.

She noted that when the mother sent the children to be collected by the father, they had “no change of clothing, no favourite toys, nothing to cuddle, no books, not even a toothbrush”. The judge said that “the totally separate existences they have with each parent is deeply unfortunate and unhealthy”.

Judge Newton ruled in favour of the father and declared that the initial contact order should be enforced. She accepted that the mother was “extremely anxious” about the children and urged her to seek professional help, if necessary, in order to better cope with these anxieties. The judge concluded that a failure to do so could cause “significant damage” to the mother’s relationship with her children.

To read P (A Child : enforcement of contact order) in full, click here.

The blog team at Stowe is a group of writers based across our family law offices who share their advice on the wellbeing and emotional aspects of divorce or separation from personal experience. As well as pieces from our family law solicitors, guest contributors also regularly contribute to share their knowledge.

Contact us

As the UK's largest family law firm we understand that every case is personal.


  1. Andy says:

    I would give the judge a big pat on the back for common sence in such a delicate situation..For once the law that has been always supported the mother in such issues now seems to be challenged as now proven, in the Fathers case,his quality of life can be re instated as this would benefit both parties until the Mother appeals just for spite…Ususl such cases no one wins…

  2. Alistair Nunn says:

    It’s just as well it wasn’t the Swedish Courts who were dealing with it. They are a law unto themselves and are happy to break every UN Convention when it suits them based by using the well used phrase, “In The Best Interests of the Child”.

  3. Andrew says:

    That a parent of either gender is required to obey the order of the court to allow contact should not even be news. Every order for contact should automatically be endorsed with a penal notice and breaking it should carry the same risk of imprisonment as breaking a non-mol. Suspended the first time, down the stairs the second.

  4. Luke says:

    “A High Court judge has ruled that a contact order should be enforced despite a mother’s objections.”

    …and ?

    This shouldn’t be news and even looking at the circumstances of the case it still shouldn’t be news – I don’t suppose either parent acted fairly but did the Judge really need more than 30 minutes on this ?

    The mother should pay all costs in this case for a frivolous action.

Leave a comment

Help & advice categories


Newsletter Sign Up

Sign up for advice on divorce and relationships from our lawyers, divorce coaches and relationship experts.

What type of information are you looking for?

Privacy Policy