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

Uncle of abducted child avoids prison

Recent Posts

Related Posts

Family Court Fees to Rise

March 28, 2024

The uncle of an abducted child has escaped a prison sentence for contempt of court.

The six-year old boy was the son of a British father and a Polish mother. He lived with his mother in Poland full-time. Late last year, the mother allowed him to visit his father on condition he returned the boy in time for school in January.

However, the father did not return his son on the agreed date. Instead, he “effectively disappeared with him”. Sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, Mr Justice Holman noted that there had been evidence that the two had “rapidly travelled between Germany, Belgium and France, and may then have entered England”.

As a result, the mother launched proceedings in the English courts and applied for a collection order. Anyone presented with such an order must inform the authorities of “all matters within his or her knowledge or understanding which might reasonably assist him in locating the child”. This was significant in this case because neither the mother, nor the authorities could be certain where the father and child were.

In June, police visited the uncle’s home and presented him with the order. He claimed that he did not know where his brother and nephew were. The authorities believed he “knew more than he was revealing” and was therefore disobeying the order. Consequently he was arrested and spent 13 nights in custody.

The mother then applied for the uncle to be committed to prison for contempt of court. However, the Family Procedure Rules 2010 state that in orders which can result in jail time, the consequences of disobeying must be “prominently displayed” on the front page, Mr Justice Holman said.

But the warning on this order was not featured until the fifth page, the judge explained, and video evidence from the police showed no indication he had read that much of the document. The mother drew attention to a rule that if a court decides “no injustice has been caused to the respondent”, any problems with the application can be set aside.

Mr Justice Holman disagreed with the mother’s claim, declaring that in fact “a great deal of injustice was caused” to the uncle. He did not think that either the man or the arresting officers “imagined for one moment … that he was about to spend no less than thirteen nights continuously in custody”.

With that in mind, the judge declared that he could not set aside the procedural problems with the mother’s application and “struck out” the mother’s application.

To read the full judgment, 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. Andrew says:

    Sad for the mother but the right result. People are not to be locked up unless the procedure is spot on.

    But there is a wider question. Is it fair or reasonable to expect people to take sides against their own kin and in favour of in-laws in disputes such as this? Frankly I think not but I know that others will differ.

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