Faced with uncooperative parents, the family courts can apply a range of sanctions, as long as these do not affect the welfare of the couple’s children.
Family court disputes are inevitably difficult experiences for the parents, and emotions can run high. But while the accusations might fly in correspondence between Mum and Dad, the courts insist on decorum and cooperation.
But what if the parents are unable or unwilling to deliver this? What if a parent flagrantly ignores the court order or prevents their former spouse or partner from seeing the children at agreed times? What if they’ve broken other agreements set out in a binding child arrangements order drafted by a court? The difficult parent may be motivated by jealousy of your new relationship, for example, or resentment of the time you get to spend with the children. This article discusses how the court deal with such issues and the problems caused by uncooperative parents.
What role does the family court play when dealing with uncooperative parents?
The family court system in England and Wales (similar principles apply with variations in Scotland and Northern Ireland) is governed by the Children Act 1989, which places the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration. When faced with uncooperative parents, family courts have a range of legal tools, sanctions, and strategies to address non-compliance and ensure that children’s needs are met.
Legal framework: The paramountcy principle
The starting point for all family court decisions involving children is Section 1 of the Children Act 1989, which states that the child’s welfare is the court’s paramount concern. The court’s role is not to punish parents, but to make decisions that best serve the child’s emotional, physical, and psychological needs. When a parent is uncooperative, this principle guides how the court intervenes, often leading to a balancing act between enforcing orders and promoting long-term cooperation between parents.
What are the types of parental non-cooperation?
Uncooperative behaviour by parents can manifest in several ways, including:
- Non-compliance with child arrangement orders (e.g., refusing to allow contact)
- Parental alienation, where one parent deliberately undermines the child’s relationship with the other parent
- Failure to attend court hearings or engage with Cafcass (Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service)
- Making unfounded allegations of abuse to restrict contact
- Withholding information about the child’s welfare or education
Each type of behaviour requires a tailored response from the court, but the underlying goal remains the same: to protect the child’s right to maintain relationships with both parents, where it is safe and appropriate to do so.
What are the court’s responses to non-cooperative parents?
- Enforcement of court orders
When a parent refuses to comply with a child arrangements order (CAO), the other parent can apply for enforcement under Section 11J of the Children Act 1989. The court may then:
- Warn the parent about the consequences of continued non-compliance
- Impose a community service order of up to 200 hours
- Order compensation for financial loss, such as missed holidays or travel expenses
- Vary the existing order to promote compliance
- Transfer residence (in extreme cases) if it is in the child’s best interests
One penalty available to the family courts is specifically designed for parents with whom the children live on a day-to-day basis: what if they start to misbehave so badly the welfare of the children is threatened? A change of residence order means the child or children will be sent to live with their other parent. This is an option of last resort: at minimum it means all the disruption and strangeness to a new home, but it can also mean a new school or even new friends. But sometimes the courts have no other choice. A recently published case illustrates the circumstances in which a Change of Residence order might be ordered by the family courts.
In this case, County Court Judge C Baker sent a toddler referred to as ‘Ben’ to live with father, thanks to his mother’s refusal to “engage with or cooperate with proceedings concerning the child’s welfare.” The boy’s welfare therefore demanded removal from the mother’s day-to-day care, he explained.
Ben was born in 2021. The following year, his father complained to the family courts that he could not see his son. Not long afterwards, the mother sought a non-molestation order against the father specifying that he could have no contact and accusing him of sexual assault. The Police did not pursue the case after reading text messages between the two. Nevertheless, she was granted a temporary, interim injunction. Multiple court hearings followed, some concerning the jurisdiction (legal authority) of the courts involved, the majority of which the mother did not attend.
His Honour Judge Baker explained:
“It is recorded … that the Court had warned the mother on 5th May 2022 that, should she fail to attend [a significant hearing], that the matter could proceed in her absence and legally binding orders could be made. It records that it is satisfied it has jurisdiction to deal with the dispute relating to Ben, included, but not limited to, making orders regarding his living and contact arrangements.”
But the mother failed to take the warning seriously. She did not attend the hearing and again questioned the court’s jurisdiction.
The non-molestation order was discharged and Cumbria County Council raised concerns over the toddler’s welfare. He was made subject to a temporary care order in which social workers would share parental responsibility with the mother.
Judge Baker noted:
“I ordered the mother to attend court on 24th October [2022] and I made it clear that she could ask for special measures, such as screens and separate waiting areas, in respect of her attendance, and I provided for the mother to be personally served by a process server in respect of that hearing [i.e. have notice of the hearing personally delivered to her].”
The father attended the hearing but the mother did not.
In December, the Judge explained in a legal order that:
“The father made it clear to the Court he would prefer for Ben to live with his mother and for him to have contact with a view to stepping up to shared care arrangements in the future, but the fact that mother is unwilling to even attend court or speak to the social worker is making that impossible.”
A further attempt at a hearing later the same month was attended by the baby’s maternal grandmother, who had previously refused to accept papers from the process server, who reported that:
“During our conversation on the doorstep, the grandmother stated that if I came back to try to serve her with the papers, they would not answer the door and that her daughter, [Amy], would not accept any papers as ‘the Court and social services are all corrupt.’ She also stated to me that they were being assisted and given advice by a ‘family friend’, and that Ben had no birth certificate, because if he had one, he’s then ‘owned by the government’.”
The mother also emailed the court, declaring that:
“We will not be attending your hearing today. This is because again the court has failed to provide us with evidence of the authority that grants them power to make demands of any man…I must remind you that the police are public servants and are not lawfully permitted to get involved in civil matters, which they confirmed.”
She went on to express views suggesting she was an adherent of ‘Freemen of the Land’ legal conspiracy theories.
Judge Baker concluded that while it was likely that Ben’s physical needs were being met by his mother, given his young age, but added:
“When one draws back and looks at the situation with respect to Ben’s medium and long ‑term welfare, in my view, the situation is different. Ben is steeped in the environment where certainly there is evidence that there is a very real risk that the family has some frankly ridiculous views, and views that put them directly in conflict with both the court, society in general, and child protective services.”
Ben was therefore removed from his mother’s care and placed with his father on a temporary basis. At that point, the mother began to attend court hearings and admitted that she had been badly advised. The temporary change of residence order was made into a child arrangements order with an accompanying 12 month supervision order, requiring the involvement of social workers.
- Use of Cafcass officers and guardians
Cafcass officers play a central role in assessing the family situation and advising the court on the child’s welfare. If a parent is uncooperative with Cafcass (e.g., refusing to attend meetings or provide truthful information), this may be viewed unfavourably by the court. In contentious or high-conflict cases, the court may appoint a guardian under Rule 16.4 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 to independently represent the child’s interests.
- Penalties for false allegations and manipulation
If a parent is found to have made false allegations—such as fabricating claims of abuse to obstruct contact—this can severely damage their credibility and may result in sanctions. In Re H-B (Contact) [2015] EWCA Civ 389, the Court of Appeal held that unfounded allegations, particularly if repeated or malicious, could justify changes in residence or restrictions on the accusing parent’s contact.
- Parental alienation cases
Parental alienation has become an increasing focus of family court proceedings. While controversial in terms of diagnosis and handling, the courts have recognised that deliberate interference in a child’s relationship with the other parent can be emotionally abusive. In Re A (Children) (Parental Alienation) [2019] EWFC B56, the court ordered a transfer of residence to the alienated parent after prolonged obstruction and psychological manipulation by the resident parent.
- Committal Proceedings
In extreme cases, the court may commit an uncooperative parent to prison for contempt of court. This is rare and considered a last resort, used when all other interventions have failed. The court must weigh the seriousness of non-compliance against the potential harm to the child caused by imprisoning a parent. For example, in Re L-W (Enforcement and Committal: Contact) [2010] EWCA Civ 1253, the court upheld a suspended committal order to coerce compliance.
However, these harsher penalties must be applied with caution precisely because the individual is a parent. A mother cannot look after her children in jail and a father who works long hours may not be able to provide substitute care.
Consequently, the courts’ default to misbehaving parents has been to give them further chances and issue new court orders, in order to minimise disruption to family life. This has sometimes led to complaints from the other parent that the family courts are soft on mothers and biased towards fathers. This is not true.
Practical strategies and judicial discretion
While legal tools are available, family courts often prefer to take a problem-solving approach. Judges may:
- Encourage mediation or co-parenting programs
- Refer parents to parenting courses
- Use indirect contact (e.g., letters, video calls) as a stepping-stone
- Make gradual, stepped contact orders to build trust
- Appoint psychologists or social workers to help assess and rebuild damaged relationships
Judges have wide discretion and often adapt their strategies depending on the personalities involved, the history of the case, and the child’s wishes and feelings—particularly where the child is old enough to express a reasoned preference.
Balancing sanctions and reconciliation
The family court must balance the need to uphold respect for court orders with the objective of long-term cooperation. Overly punitive measures may inflame conflict, while leniency may embolden obstructive behaviour. Therefore, courts often take an incremental approach—starting with warnings or modified arrangements and escalating to sanctions only when necessary.
For example, in Re S (Transfer of Residence) [2010], the court explored several rehabilitative options before deciding to transfer the child’s residence because of persistent alienation. This illustrates the courts’ reluctance to disrupt children’s lives unless there is compelling evidence that doing so is in their best interests.
As we have seen, the family court responds to uncooperative parents with a mix of enforcement powers, welfare assessments, and judicial discretion. While the law provides mechanisms to address non-compliance—including fines, community service, transfer of residence, and even imprisonment—judges generally prefer a measured, child-focused response. The overriding goal is to safeguard the child’s welfare and promote healthy, ongoing relationships with both parents wherever possible.
Uncooperative behaviour that frustrates this goal is taken seriously, but the court will always seek to understand the underlying reasons, mitigate conflict, and promote long-term cooperation. In this way, the family justice system tries to remain firm yet compassionate—ensuring that children are not the ultimate victims of parental conflict.