Technical Matter Guide
Law, guidance and procedure checked 22 September 2026When contact stops: what does the Family Court actually need to understand?
A child ceasing to spend time with a parent does not, by itself, tell the court why the relationship has broken down or what should happen next. The legal analysis begins with the child's welfare, the current order, the evidence explaining the breakdown, the child's wishes and feelings, any safeguarding issues and the realistic options for restoring or safely managing the relationship.
First identify what kind of contact breakdown this actually is
“Contact has stopped” can describe several legally different situations. Before deciding what application or response is required, establish the current procedural position.
The welfare principle still governs the decision
Under section 1 of the Children Act 1989, the child's welfare is the court's paramount consideration when determining questions about the child's upbringing. The court considers the welfare checklist, including the child's ascertainable wishes and feelings in light of age and understanding, the child's needs, the effect of change, harm suffered or risk of harm, parenting capacity and the range of powers available.
Contact breakdown is not proof of its cause
A stopped relationship does not prove that one parent has deliberately prevented contact. Equally, a statement that “the child does not want to go” does not by itself explain how that position developed.
The court may need to distinguish between:
- a child responding to abuse, fear or harmful parenting;
- a child struggling with parental conflict or divided loyalties;
- ordinary developmental or practical resistance;
- a damaged or weakened relationship;
- adult behaviours that have undermined the child's relationship with the other parent;
- a child's independently held views;
- or a combination of these factors.
Which procedural route applies?
No existing Child Arrangements Order
Where arrangements were informal and agreement can no longer be reached, an application for a Child Arrangements Order is ordinarily made using Form C100, subject to the applicable MIAM requirements and exemptions.
Existing order is being breached
Form C79 is the dedicated enforcement application where a party asks the court to take action because a Child Arrangements Order is not being followed.
Existing order needs changing
Where the problem is that the existing arrangement itself no longer meets the child's needs, an application to vary the Child Arrangements Order may be the more appropriate route.
Proceedings are already underway
Contact breakdown should normally be raised promptly within those proceedings. The appropriate procedural step depends on the orders already made, what relief is sought and whether a separate application is necessary.
Standard CAP and the Child Focused Model
Under the standard Child Arrangements Programme, a contact dispute may involve Cafcass safeguarding enquiries, an FHDRA, case-management directions, a section 7 welfare report, fact-finding where necessary, a DRA and ultimately a final hearing.
In areas operating under the Child Focused Model, PD36Z and PD12B (Pilot) modify that route. The model is more investigative and front-loaded and may involve a Child Impact Report and different hearing terminology and sequencing.
When the child is said to be refusing contact
A child's wishes and feelings matter. But the Family Court does not ordinarily treat the phrase “the child refuses” as the end of the enquiry.
The Children Act requires the court to consider the child's ascertainable wishes and feelings in light of the child's age and understanding. The weight attached to those views will therefore differ from case to case.
Current Family Justice Council guidance: investigate the reasons, not the label
The Family Justice Council's 2024 guidance specifically addresses children who show reluctance, resistance or refusal to spend time with a parent.
It states that “parental alienation syndrome” has no evidential basis and should not be used as a pseudo-diagnostic explanation for a child's behaviour.
The court's task is to investigate what has happened to the child, determine any disputed facts that actually matter, understand the impact of parental behaviour and keep the child's voice central to the welfare analysis.
Cafcass takes a similar approach
Cafcass guidance recognises that there can be a range of reasons why a child does not want to spend family time with a parent. Its assessment framework considers domestic abuse and harmful parenting, harmful parental conflict, adult behaviours affecting the child's relationship with another parent, the child's experiences and the child's own wishes and feelings.
Cafcass says the first step when assessing alleged alienating behaviour is to consider whether domestic abuse or other harmful parenting is a factor.
Build a contact chronology rather than a conclusion
| Record | What to capture |
|---|---|
| Contact due | Date, time and what the order or agreed arrangement required. |
| What actually happened | Whether contact was cancelled, shortened, refused, made conditional or did not take place. |
| Notice | When and how the change was communicated. |
| Reason given | Record the stated reason without converting it into an established fact. |
| What is attributed to the child | Record the child's alleged words separately from the adult's interpretation of them. |
| Independent evidence | Contact-centre records, professional observations, school information or other genuinely relevant evidence. |
| Alternative offered | Whether replacement time, shorter contact, indirect contact or another arrangement was proposed. |
| Pattern and impact | Whether the event appears isolated or part of a developing pattern and what effect the breakdown may be having on the child. |
Useful evidence may include
- the current and previous relevant orders;
- a dated contact chronology;
- messages arranging, cancelling or restricting contact;
- contact-centre or supervised-contact records;
- Cafcass or other professional records;
- school or health records where genuinely relevant to the child's welfare;
- evidence of attempts to offer safe alternatives or replacement time;
- evidence of what arrangements operated successfully before the breakdown;
- and evidence relating to the reasons advanced for the child's refusal.
Safeguarding, domestic abuse and disputed allegations
Where domestic abuse or other harm is alleged, contact cannot be considered as though the only issue is whether a relationship should resume. PD12J requires the court to address the impact of abuse, future risk and whether any arrangement can operate safely.
Interim contact
Where the court considers interim contact in a case involving domestic abuse or harm, PD12J requires consideration of risk-reduction measures, whether contact should be supported or supervised, whether indirect contact may be more appropriate, and whether the proposed contact would actually benefit the child.
Where a risk assessment concludes that a parent poses a risk to the child or the other parent, PD12J specifically cautions that supported contact or supervision by a relative is not an adequate response to that assessed risk.
Where domestic abuse is established
The court must consider the harm already suffered, the risk of future harm, the impact of the abuse on the child and the parent caring for the child, the behaviour of the relevant adults, and whether any future contact can be made safe and beneficial.
If direct contact is not appropriate, PD12J requires the court to consider whether indirect contact is safe and beneficial.
D [2026] EWCA Civ 969: risk assessment is not the same as a finding of fact
Cafcass may identify and assess safeguarding risk. But a professional assessment does not itself convert disputed allegations into judicial findings.
In D (Change of Circumstances: Domestic Abuse Allegations), the Court of Appeal held that where a section 7 recommendation became materially dependent on disputed allegations being treated as true, the need for fact-finding should have been revisited.
That principle is particularly important in contact-breakdown cases because a major restriction or restoration of contact may depend on the factual basis for the alleged risk.
Fact-finding is not automatic
A separate fact-finding hearing is required only where the disputed facts are sufficiently relevant to the welfare decision and determination is necessary and proportionate. Re H-N and Others emphasises that the court should not turn the case into an exhaustive trial of the adult relationship. The findings sought should be those needed to determine welfare and risk.
What can the court actually do?
The response to a contact breakdown should match the problem. The court is not limited to a binary choice between “full contact” and “no contact”.
Current Cafcass intervention: Enabling Family Time
Cafcass now operates the Enabling Family Time service, replacing the former ICFA service. It is a short, child-focused service designed to support children to build, maintain or rebuild safe and meaningful relationships with a parent or another important adult during private-law proceedings.
It is not a substitute for resolving serious safeguarding issues. Cafcass assesses suitability and the intervention must fit the welfare and risk issues in the case.
Enforcement is not simply punishment
Under PD12B, when enforcing a Child Arrangements Order the court considers the facts of the alleged non-compliance, the reasons for it, the child's wishes and feelings, Cafcass input where required, risks associated with future arrangements, the welfare checklist and the appropriate way forward.
The court's powers include variation of the order as well as statutory enforcement measures. This is important: a C79 application can expose a deeper welfare problem that requires the arrangement to be redesigned rather than merely sanctioned.
Time matters
Contact cases are unusually sensitive to delay because the factual position can become self-reinforcing. A child who has not seen a parent for a long period may become more anxious about restarting contact simply because the relationship has become unfamiliar.
That does not mean the court should force unsafe contact for the sake of speed. It means that genuine safeguarding issues and genuine relationship breakdown both need to be identified and addressed without avoidable drift.
© 2026 JSH Law Ltd. All rights reserved.
© 2026 JSH Law Ltd. All rights reserved.
© 2026 JSH Law Ltd. All rights reserved.
© 2026 JSH Law Ltd. All rights reserved.