When a Parent ignores a Contact Order: when does it become Contempt of Court?

Compliance with a court order regulating contact with a child is mandatory.  But a failure to comply with a s11 order under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 does not automatically mean that a parent is guilty of contempt.

The key question is why the order was not followed.

What does the court look at?

The court will consider the precise terms of the order, what happened, and whether the failure to comply was wilful and without reasonable excuse.

For example, there is an obvious difference between:

“I refused contact because I did not want the other parent to see the child.”

and:

“Contact could not take place because the child was unexpectedly ill and I genuinely believed it was unsafe.”

The fact that a child does not want to attend contact is also not necessarily an answer. The court may ask what the resident parent did to encourage and facilitate the contact.

The case law

In SM v CM [2017] CSIH 1, the Inner House considered contempt arising from failures to facilitate contact and stressed the need to deal with contact disputes promptly. Although imprisonment was imposed in that case, the decision also demonstrates why imprisonment of a parent who cares for a child requires particular caution.

TJ v SB is another important authority. It illustrates that establishing contempt and deciding what sanction, if any, should follow are separate questions.

More recently, Charlie Foxtrot v Delta Echo [2026] SCGLW 76 provides a striking modern example. The court found deliberate and active obstruction of ordered contact and imprisonment followed. The case is a useful reminder that, although imprisonment is exceptional, it remains a real possibility where non-compliance is serious and persistent.

It also contains an important procedural warning: even where there appears to be strong evidence of contempt, proceedings can fail if the contempt application is brought in an incompetent process.

What should practitioners do?

For the parent seeking enforcement:

• Identify the precise terms of the order.
• Set out each alleged breach clearly.
• Gather evidence of what actually happened.
• Distinguish deliberate obstruction from genuine inability to comply.
• Consider whether contempt is really the appropriate remedy, as opposed to variation or further orders.

For the parent accused of breach:

• Identify and evidence the reason for non-compliance.
• Do not simply rely on “the child refused”.
• Consider whether the order needs clarification or variation.
• Take positive steps to resolve the problem rather than allowing repeated breaches to accumulate.

The bottom line

A missed contact is not necessarily contempt. Repeated, deliberate obstruction of a clear court order can be.

The message from the recent case law is clear: court orders concerning children must be taken seriously — but contempt proceedings must also be approached carefully, fairly and with the child’s welfare firmly in view.

Need advice about a contact order?

At Livingstone Brown our Family Lawyers, our experienced family law team regularly advises on disputes involving child contact, s11 orders and alleged breaches of court orders.

We can assist whether you are seeking to enforce an order, responding to allegations of non-compliance, or considering whether an existing order needs to be varied.

If you are facing a dispute about compliance with a contact order, early legal advice can be important.

Contact Livingstone Brown's Family Law Team  to discuss how we can assist.