Imprisonment for not facilitating court order for contact - Charlie Foxtrot v Delta Echo: Glasgow Sheriff Court establishes contempt for failure to facilitate a court order

In the anonymised case of Charlie Foxtrot v Delta Echo [2026] SCGLW76, the pursuer father alleged that the defender mother deliberately failed, without good reason, to follow a final court order relating to contact with their daughter. After hearing all the evidence, the sheriff decided that this failure amounted to contempt of court. The sheriff found that the defender had intentionally failed to support or enable the child’s contact with her father and had actively obstructed that contact.

Facts and circumstances

The parties were in a relationship for 15 years, including a period of cohabitation of 13 years. Their daughter, Juliet, was born in 2013. Both the pursuer and the defender have parental rights and responsibilities in respect of Juliet. The parties separated in or around September 2020 and Juliet resides with the defender mother who has always been her primary caregiver.

In January 2021 the pursuer father commenced proceedings in Glasgow Sheriff Court seeking a contact order in respect of Juliet, in terms of section 11(2)(d) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. The defender mother opposed this. However, with the benefit of legal advice, the parties entered into a joint minute agreeing that a contact order should be granted in favour of the pursuer father and on 14 June 2023 the sheriff granted a final order entitling the pursuer father to non-residential contact with Juliet on three occasions every week.

Contact operated until 10 April 2025 when, without explanation, it ceased. Prior to the cessation, contact was said to have been enjoyed by Juliet, and at her request, she had started to have overnight, residential contact with the pursuer. She was also said to have developed close relationships with her paternal grandparents, aunt, and cousins.

The pursuer did not see nor hear from Juliet for over a year, with the defender stating that the then 12-year-old no longer wished to see him. On 20 June 2025 the pursuer alerted the court to the fact that the defender had failed to comply with the court order.

Legal issues in the case

Contempt of court is conduct that obstructs, prejudices or abuses the administration of justice, either in relation to a particular case or generally.

The sheriff must be convinced that the criminal burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, is met. Punishment for contempt can be a fine, imprisonment or both.

The case law indicates that if a court order is deliberately or wilfully disobeyed or ignored, then this can constitute a contempt of court. Further, conduct which is accidental or unintentional is not sufficient to constitute a contempt of court.

In the present case, before determining whether there was a contempt of court, the sheriff required to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there was a court order entitling the pursuer to contact with the child, that contact did not take place in accordance with that order, and that this failure was the result of wilful disobedience. Although it was claimed that Juliet refused to have contact with the pursuer, and indeed the sheriff clerk received a letter on 5 June 2026 from solicitors acting for Juliet confirming that she did not wish to have contact with her father, the sheriff required to determine whether this failure of the defender mother to facilitate contact in terms of the court order, was due to the defender mother’s wilful obstruction and persistent refusal.

Sheriff Reid found the evidence of the pursuer and his witnesses to be detailed, consistent and persuasive, however criticised the testimony of the defender finding this vague and threadbare, frequently evasive and unvouched.

The decision

Sheriff Reid, following the hearing of evidence at proof, found contempt to have been established. Specifically, that the defender had “wilfully failed to encourage, promote, or facilitate the child’s contact with her father” and separately, that she had, “wilfully impended and frustrated contact”. Therefore, she was found to be in contempt of court for wilfully disobeying the court order and intentionally failing to encourage or promote contact between Juliet and her father.

Sheriff Reid commented that the defender’s focus was simply on what the child had said, rather than on what the defender herself had said or done to encourage, promote or facilitate contact.

The defender was imprisoned for 7 days.

Commentary

A resident parent cannot evade their legal obligation to encourage, promote and facilitate court-ordered contact by relying on a child’s stated refusal. It is incumbent upon that parent to exercise their parental responsibilities positively, using appropriate parenting skills to encourage and, where possible, persuade the child to engage in contact. This obligation arises irrespective of the age of the child.

In the present case, the defender placed undue emphasis on Juliet’s purported preference not to see her father, rather than demonstrating what steps she herself had taken to encourage and support contact. The sheriff further found that the defender’s conduct went beyond passivity, in that she actively impeded communication and contact between the child and the pursuer.

Having examined previous case law, as well as Scottish Government statistics in respect of contempt in child contact disputes in Scotland, it is apparent that imprisonment for breaches of child contact orders is exceedingly rare. In 2009 a father was jailed for failure to return his child to the mother which was in breach of a court order, and a mother who repeatedly failed to comply with orders, obstructed proceedings, and even failed to turn up at hearings was imprisoned for three months. In 2011 a mother who persistently obstructed the father’s contact and used delaying tactics was sentenced to two months in prison. Two suspended prison sentences were imposed in 2014 for breaching contact orders in family actions. Limited data is available as to the number of child contact orders that are breached, however, it is believed that this is low and this reflects that Scottish courts will escalate to imprisonment only as a last resort in such cases.