Technical Matter Guide
Law, procedure and fees checked 22 September 2026Enforcement of a Child Arrangements Order: breach, reasonable excuse and the court's response
Enforcement is not simply a question of proving that an expected period of contact did not happen. The court must identify the precise obligation contained in the order, determine whether there was non-compliance, consider any reasonable excuse, assess the child's welfare and risk, and then decide what response — if any — is necessary and proportionate.
What has to be proved?
Start with the exact wording of the order
Before alleging breach, identify the operative paragraph that is said not to have been complied with.
A recital, expectation or statement of background is not automatically the same as an enforceable direction. Nor should an order be expanded after the event to impose an obligation that its wording does not contain.
Re L-W (Children) [2010] EWCA Civ 1253: read the obligation precisely
Re L-W remains an important Court of Appeal authority on enforcement and committal in private-law children proceedings.
The judgment emphasised that the court must first identify precisely what the order required the person to do. The obligation cannot simply be reconstructed from what another party thinks the order ought to have required.
This matters particularly where contact has not occurred because a child is said to have resisted. The legal question depends on the obligation actually imposed: for example, an obligation to make a child available is not necessarily identical to an obligation to guarantee that a child will participate irrespective of the circumstances.
The statutory section 11J test
A warning notice matters
Section 11I requires a warning notice to be attached when a Child Arrangements Order is made or varied. Section 11K limits the court's ability to make an enforcement order where the person had not received or otherwise been informed of the relevant warning.
For older orders made before 8 December 2008, GOV.UK directs applicants to use Form C78 to attach the necessary warning notice before enforcement.
C79 procedure and what happens after issue
Form C79
The current Form C79 is used to ask the Family Court to take action relating to the enforcement of a Child Arrangements Order. It can also be used for specified applications concerning an existing enforcement order and for compensation for financial loss.
The form was updated by HMCTS on 1 June 2026, including changes directing users to the appropriate confidential-details form.
Enforcement cases are supposed to move promptly
Under PD12B, gatekeepers should list an enforcement application for hearing — before the previously allocated judge where possible — within 20 working days of issue. The Practice Direction says enforcement cases should be concluded without delay.
Cafcass safeguarding checks
PD12B permits further safeguarding checks where gatekeepers consider them necessary. Where an enforcement application is issued more than three months after the order being enforced, safeguarding checks are to be ordered.
What PD12B requires the court to consider
- whether the facts concerning alleged non-compliance are agreed;
- whether a hearing is required to establish those facts;
- the reasons for the non-compliance;
- how the child's wishes and feelings should be ascertained;
- whether Cafcass advice is required;
- risks associated with any further or different child-arrangements order;
- whether dispute-resolution or parenting work is appropriate;
- whether an enforcement order may be appropriate; and
- the welfare checklist.
Evidence: build a breach schedule, not a grievance file
Enforcement evidence should make it easy to see the relationship between the order, alleged breach, explanation and proof.
| Record | What to identify |
|---|---|
| Order provision | Quote or identify the exact operative paragraph said to have been breached. |
| Contact / action due | Date, time, location and what the order required to happen. |
| What actually happened | No handover, shortened contact, cancellation, condition imposed or other alleged non-compliance. |
| Notice given | When the change or cancellation was communicated and by whom. |
| Reason given | Record the stated explanation accurately without presenting a disputed explanation as fact. |
| Supporting evidence | Relevant messages, emails, contact records, professional material or other evidence. |
| Replacement offered | Whether alternative time, indirect contact or another arrangement was proposed. |
| Financial loss | Where compensation is sought, identify the actual loss, proof of payment and causal link to the alleged breach. |
The sealed order is the starting document
Do not prepare an enforcement case from memory. Use the actual sealed Child Arrangements Order and any later order which varied it.
This is especially important where arrangements were subsequently adjusted informally. The history may matter to reasonable excuse, fairness and remedy even though an informal change did not itself replace the court order.
TM v GL [2026] EWFC 24 (B): enforcement can be misconceived where reality is more complicated
This recent first-instance judgment is a useful practical illustration. The father had issued enforcement proceedings while variation proceedings were already underway.
The judge examined the parties' history of agreeing alterations to the original arrangements and concluded that the enforcement application presented a stretched picture of what had actually occurred. The court considered that the application had been used in part to try to accelerate or leverage the wider dispute.
It is not a binding appellate authority, but it illustrates why a C79 should map the evidence honestly against the order rather than present every departure from an old timetable as deliberate obstruction.
Evidence that can weaken an enforcement application
- relying on a recital rather than an operative provision;
- failing to distinguish agreed alterations from unilateral non-compliance;
- omitting messages that explain why an arrangement changed;
- asserting that the child “must have been made to refuse” without evidence;
- including long histories unrelated to the alleged breaches;
- failing to identify the exact dates said to amount to breach;
- or asking the court to punish the other parent where the real issue is that the order needs variation.
Reasonable excuse, child refusal and safeguarding
What is a “reasonable excuse”?
The legislation does not provide a universal list. Whether an excuse is reasonable depends on the facts of the particular non-compliance.
A court may therefore need to examine what the person knew at the time, what risk was perceived, what steps were reasonably available, what the child was doing or saying, whether professional advice existed and whether the person could realistically comply with the precise obligation contained in the order.
Safeguarding concerns can fundamentally change the case
Where a party relies on domestic abuse, harmful parenting or another safeguarding reason for non-compliance, PD12J may require the court to address risk before simply insisting that the old arrangement resume.
The court may need to determine:
- whether relevant allegations are admitted, disputed or already the subject of findings;
- whether fact-finding is required;
- whether interim contact is safe;
- whether supervision or indirect contact is appropriate;
- whether the existing order should instead be varied;
- and whether the child's welfare requires a different arrangement.
F v M [2023] EWFC 252 (B): breach can coexist with a wider welfare problem
In F v M the court concluded that the father had failed to establish a reasonable excuse for breaches of the existing child-arrangements order.
But the judge did not simply move straight to penalty. Because of the wider findings, the children's Guardian and the welfare issues still requiring resolution, the enforcement question was suspended while the court considered whether the order itself might ultimately need variation.
This is a useful illustration of the difference between establishing breach and deciding what response best serves the children.
What can the court actually do?
PD12B describes a broad range of responses. Enforcement should therefore be viewed as a toolkit rather than a single punishment.
Unpaid work is not automatic
Section 11L requires more than a bare finding of non-compliance. Before making an enforcement order, the court must be satisfied that:
- the order is necessary to secure future compliance;
- its likely effect on the person is proportionate to the seriousness of the breach;
- appropriate unpaid-work provision is available;
- relevant information about the person and the likely impact of the order has been considered; and
- the child's welfare has been taken into account.
B v C & Anor [2026] EWFC 66 (B): breach established, but no unpaid-work order
In January 2026 the Family Court found beyond reasonable doubt that the mother had breached an earlier Child Arrangements Order and rejected the claimed reasonable excuse.
Nevertheless, the judge made no separate unpaid-work order. The case illustrates the important distinction between the finding of breach and the discretionary, welfare-sensitive decision about what should follow from it.
Compensation for financial loss
Section 11O allows the court to order compensation where a qualifying person has suffered financial loss because of the breach.
This requires actual financial loss and a causal connection to the particular non-compliance. A compensation claim should therefore identify:
- the expenditure or loss;
- when it was incurred;
- documentary proof such as receipts or booking records;
- how the alleged breach caused that loss; and
- whether any amount was refunded or recoverable elsewhere.
Section 11O also prevents a compensation order where the person in breach establishes a reasonable excuse for failing to comply.
Variation may be the more useful remedy
If the current order is vague, impractical or overtaken by the child's circumstances, enforcing the historic wording may solve very little. PD12B expressly permits the court to vary the Child Arrangements Order as a response to enforcement proceedings.
© 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.
© 2026 JSH Law Ltd. All rights reserved.