As any family law practitioner or parent who has been unfortunate enough to experience such matters first-hand will tell you, disputes over child contact are among the most emotionally charged matters to come before the Scottish courts. While disagreements between separated parents are common, it should be borne in mind that a court order regulating contact is not merely a suggestion by a court as to what could or should happen, it is legally binding.
In Scotland, child contact orders are made under section 11 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. If a parent with residence of a child (or children) repeatedly frustrates or refuses contact between the child (or children) and the other parent without lawful justification, the other parent may apply to the sheriff court seeking enforcement of the order or asking the court to hold the defaulting parent in contempt. Contempt of court is regarded as a quasi-criminal matter. This means the allegation must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, reflecting the seriousness of the proceedings. Before finding a party in contempt, the court will consider whether the breach was deliberate and whether there was a reasonable excuse for failing to comply.
This issue was the subject of recent deliberation at Glasgow Sheriff Court, in the reported and anonymised case of Charlie Foxtrot -v-Delta Echo 2026 SC GLW 76. This case is a clear reminder and warning to those who might be tempted to run the take a chance at court, that final contact orders are not optional. A resident parent cannot simply point to a child’s seeming reluctance to attend contact with the other parent, to justify non-compliance with the court order.
Charlie Foxtrot -v- Delta Echo 2026 SC GLW 76
A final contact decree was granted by the court on 14th June 2023, entitling the child’s father to non-residential contact with the child three times per week, following a joint minute. It is notable that contact worked satisfactorily for almost two years and then ceased in April 2025, with only a few brief encounters thereafter. The order was never formally varied from the terms set down by the court in June 2023. The child, now 12, was said by the defender to no longer wish to see her father.
The father first sought a contempt finding by minute in the original process in June 2025, which was dismissed as incompetent; a fresh summary application for contempt was lodged in October 2025, leading to a proof on 18th May 2026, following which the defender was found to have been in contempt of court. After written and oral submissions were made to the court on a suitable penalty for the contempt, the Sheriff ordered 7 days’ imprisonment. The defender was also found liable in the expenses of the contempt proceedings, and which were themselves likely to have been significant.
As will be noted within the Sheriff’s judgment, it was found that the defender had wilfully failed to encourage, promote or facilitate contact and, separately, had wilfully impeded and frustrated contact, thereby disobeying the decree without reasonable excuse. The court rejected reliance on the child’s expressed preference and found there was no evidence of meaningful steps by the defender to secure compliance with the court order.
On the facts established, the court found active obstruction of contact: clashing arrangements being put in place, early removals from school, forcibly removing the child from the pursuer’s car, blocking communications, removing the pursuer from school contacts, relocating and changing school without notification to the other parent, and intervening on the child’s social media to thwart any contact arrangements. The sheriff concluded that taken together, there was a concerted course to cut the father out of the child’s life, against a background of previously close and positive contact.
In view of the above, the sheriff considered that a financial penalty was insufficient given the protracted and entrenched contempt and the defender’s own financial means. Bizarrely, even though the sheriff gave the defender the opportunity to ‘purge’ her contempt and effectively comply with the order to avoid imprisonment, the defender still failed to do so. In view of her defiance, a 7‑day prison sentence was imposed.
Conclusion
This case underlines the court’s willingness to use contempt powers, including imprisonment, where there is deliberate and prolonged breach of a contact order.
- A valid contact order must be obeyed unless and until varied or suspended; passive acquiescence and citing a child’s seeming reluctance is not enough.
- In this case the pursuer’s messages and third‑party records supported a picture of positive contact sessions with the child before contact stopped, whilst the defender produced no timely, documentation showing the child’s views at proof.
- If circumstances change, the correct route is to seek variation or suspension, not unilateral cessation of contact.
- Courts expect resident parents to use reasonable parental strategies, such as reason, persuasion, inducements and if required sanctions short of force to ensure that contact operates in accordance with the court order.
- A bare assertion that a child refuses contact will carry little weight without evidence and proof of the resident’s parent’s facilitative efforts and encouragement.
- Deliberate, prolonged non‑compliance can attract imprisonment and expenses.
For parents experiencing repeated breaches of a contact order, early legal advice is essential. Applications to enforce or vary existing orders should be carefully prepared, supported by evidence, and focused on the child’s welfare rather than parental conflict.
If you would like to discuss this in more details, please contact our family law team to arrange a consultation.
DISCLAIMER
The content of this page is for information only. It is not intended to be construed as legal advice and should not be treated as a substitute for specific advice. Gibson Kerr Ltd accepts no responsibility for the content of any third party website to which this webpage refers. Gibson Kerr Ltd is regulated by the Law Society of Scotland.