Disputes about child care arrangements are amongst the most emotional aspects of family law. Parents may feel frustrated, fearful, or powerless, but when a court order is made, it isn’t optional. A parent who deliberately refuses to comply risks serious consequences.
How Scotland approaches contempt
In Scotland, most disputes about child contact fall under section 11 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. If a parent refuses to comply with a contact order, the other parent can return to court to seek enforcement or committal for contempt.
Contempt is not a crime, but it is “quasi-criminal.” The standard of proof is high—beyond reasonable doubt. If contempt is proven, the maximum penalties are three months in prison or a £2,500 fine.
In practice, however, Scottish courts are reluctant to jail parents, particularly if the parent in breach is the child’s main carer. Judges usually start with warnings or suspended sentences before resorting to prison. However, there are examples of extreme cases where periods of imprisonment have been imposed by courts.
An examination of real cases in Scotland
Looking at Scottish case law gives a clear picture of how contempt works in child contact disputes:-
- B v R [2009]
A father failed to return his child to the mother, in breach of a court order. He then tried to use court procedure to paint a false picture, blaming the child for refusing to go. The judge found this was a deliberate attempt to deflect blame and mislead the court. The father was jailed. - M v S [2009] CSIH 44
A mother repeatedly failed to comply with orders, obstructed proceedings, and even failed to turn up at hearings. She was sentenced to three months in prison. Her appeal arguing the punishment was disproportionate was dismissed. - G v B [2011] CSIH 56
A mother who persistently obstructed the father’s contact and used delaying tactics was sentenced to two months in prison. The appeal court upheld the sentence as proportionate, pointing to her ongoing attempts to sever the father–child bond. - CEF v MLH [2014]
Here, a sheriff emphasised an important legal distinction: when making a contact order, the child’s welfare is paramount. However, once an order exists, the focus in contempt proceedings shifts to the rule of law. The parent knew of the order but wilfully refused to comply. A prison sentence was granted but suspended for three weeks, giving time to restore contact. - JDE v SDW [2014]
The mother claimed she had tried to persuade her child to go for contact, but the child refused. The court examined what might count as a “reasonable excuse.” Illness, genuine fears of abduction, or inability to care for the child might qualify—but simply saying “the child doesn’t want to go” was not enough. A suspended prison sentence was imposed. - AH v CH [2016]
This long-running case raised the issue of transferring residence as a sanction against a non-compliant parent. The court rejected this idea, stressing it would be too drastic and harmful. Instead, direct contact was ordered, and the parent was urged to put aside her fears. This contrasts with English cases, such as TE v SH [2010], where an English court transferred residence from the child’s mother to the child’s father. The court in that case found the child had suffered emotional harm, even though the mother’s day-to-day care was not criticised. The court concluded that direct contact was unlikely to be re-established if the mother retained residence. As a result, residence was transferred to the father, despite the court acknowledging this would be traumatic in the short term. - SM v CM [2017] CSIH 1
The Inner House confirmed that imprisonment should only ever be a last resort, especially where the children live with the parent in breach. Courts must weigh the impact on the child if their main carer is jailed. - B v A [2021]
A mother deliberately refused to allow contact simply because she disagreed with the order. She was found in contempt, and the sheriff gave a blunt warning: she and her husband faced up to 90 days in prison if the defiance continued.
Together, these cases show that whilst Scottish courts tread carefully, they will escalate to imprisonment if defiance is deliberate, repeated, and damaging to the child’s relationship with the other parent.
What this means for parents
If you are involved in proceedings concerning a child’s care arrangements and an order is imposed by the court, that order is not optional. Even if you disagree with it, you cannot simply wilfully ignore it without reasonable excuse. Doing so risks contempt proceedings, fines, and potentially imprisonment. The right step is to go back to court to seek a variation.
That said, courts do recognise that life is complex. A child may refuse contact, or genuine safety issues may arise. These can amount to “reasonable excuses.” What the courts will not accept is wilful obstruction or persistent refusal.
If you find yourself at risk of being in contempt of court, or if the circumstances make compliance with a contact order extremely difficult, it is essential to seek advice from an experienced family lawyer as soon as possible. Early professional guidance can help you understand your rights and obligations and take the correct steps to protect both yourself and your child.
Contributor
Partner
