This is general information only, not legal advice.

When "I was worried about my child" isn't a defence: breaching contact orders and coercive control

A recent published family court judgment is a useful read for any parent going through the court, whether you're worried about a former partner not returning your child, or you're the parent facing accusations of breach yourself.

The pattern the court was looking at

The case involved a young child under a shared child arrangements order, with the child based primarily with one parent and spending regular time with the other. Over several months, the parent with the smaller share of time repeatedly failed to return the child on the agreed dates, sometimes for weeks at a time, with one retention only ending after police involvement.

Each time, that parent gave the court a different explanation: travel difficulties, distress caused by a professional visit, confusion over dates, concerns about the child's health. Each explanation shifted or fell apart under questioning.

Why "safeguarding concerns" didn't provide a defence

The central argument was that the breaching parent wasn't being abusive, but protecting the child. The court rejected this. The finding was that a pattern of unilateral retention, cutting off contact and communication, and refusing to go back to court, can amount to coercive and controlling behaviour, even where punishing the other parent wasn't the specific intention. What mattered was that the parent knew the order was being breached and knew, or should have known, the impact this would have.

This is worth sitting with. If you genuinely believe there is a safeguarding issue, the order tells you what to do: go back to court and apply to vary or suspend contact. What you cannot do is decide unilaterally to keep the child and wait for the other parent to chase you through the courts.

The kind of outcome that can follow

In this case, the court:

• Moved from a shared arrangement to the child living with one parent, with time at the other's home
• Reduced the breaching parent's contact to professionally supervised sessions only, funded by that parent rather than the other
• Made a prohibited steps order preventing removal of the child from nursery, school, or any other carer without written agreement
• Attached a penal notice to the return provisions
• Made a section 91(14) order restricting further applications by the breaching parent for a set period

The court was clear that none of this was about punishing the parent involved. It was about what the child needed: stability, a settled base, and a chance to recover from repeated disruption.

Why this matters if you're a litigant in person

A few points from this kind of case apply well beyond any one family.

Repeated breach has consequences beyond the immediate return. It can shape the court's view of the whole relationship, including whether it amounts to coercive control, which then affects contact arrangements going forward.

"I thought I was doing the right thing" isn't enough on its own. Courts look at whether you actually applied to vary the order when you had concerns. If you didn't, that's a problem, however genuine the worry felt at the time.

Costs of supervision aren't automatically shared. Where supervision is needed because of one parent's conduct, the court can require that parent to bear the cost, rather than splitting it.

A section 91(14) order isn't rare anymore. These "no further applications without permission" orders are being used more actively in cases involving domestic abuse or repeated litigation, not just against parents who bring hopeless applications.

Consistency matters to judges. A parent whose account stays the same throughout tends to be believed over one whose account shifts under questioning.

The takeaway

If you're worried your child isn't safe with the other parent, the answer is almost always to go back to court, not to take matters into your own hands. And if you're on the receiving end of repeated non-return or breach, keep a clear record: dates, what was said, what happened. Courts weigh a consistent account very heavily.

---

Bridge The Gap is a free directory connecting people going through the family court with independent McKenzie Friends. Nothing in this article is legal advice. If you're dealing with a breach of a child arrangements order, speak to a solicitor or McKenzie Friend about your specific situation.