CA-2025-001272 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1048

The parents are Slovakian and A was born following an extra marital relationship between the parents. The parents separated in 2017 and on 27 September 2017 the mother relocated to England without the father’s knowledge or consent where they have remained ever since. The father continues to live in Slovakia and served a term of imprisonment there for fraud following A’s removal to this country.

The father initiated return proceedings under the Hague Convention in 2019. A return order was refused on the basis that A had become settled in England for more than 12 months. The father therefore initiated Children Act 1989 proceedings in 2020 and made an application seeking effective rights of access under Article 21 of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

In August 2021 a fact finding hearing took place before HHJ Lloyd-Jones. At the conclusion of the hearing, HHJ Lloyd-Jones did not find the mother’s allegations of domestic abuse to have been proved. On 8 December 2021, the mother’s application for permission to appeal the fact finding judgment was refused.

A final welfare hearing took place before HHJ Lloyd-Jones which resulted in an order dated 17 May 2023. By that order the judge made a lived with order to the mother and refused her application to terminate the father’s parental responsibility. The judge further ordered the mother to (i) provide a written welfare update to the father via his solicitors on a monthly basis and (ii) to allow the Guardian to meet A to carry out Storyboard work (“the orders”).

These orders were therefore orders made with the welfare of A as the paramount consideration pursuant to section 1(3) Children Act 1989. They were not appealed by the mother.

In the period of time between the father making his application in June 2020 and the present, the courts have attempted to enforce this “step by step” approach whose aim was to help A to know the identity of her father and to understand something of her life story and personal identity, before giving any consideration as to whether any direct, or two way indirect, communication between her and the father is in her best interests.

The mother has been and remains utterly opposed to complying with the orders, saying that to do so would cause harm to A.

By an order of HHJ Vincent dated 5 June 2024, the mother was found to be in contempt of court and ordered to pay a fine of £250 within 14 days. The mother continued not to comply with the orders.

A further finding of contempt was made by HHJ Moradifar on 9 August 2024 and a fine of £500 was ordered to be paid in monthly instalments. The mother again did not comply with the orders.

This appeal relates to the third set of committal proceedings instigated by the father. The following is a summary of the orders which have been made in an attempt to obtain the mother’s compliance with the orders:

A hearing took place before the judge on 18 March 2025 which was intended to be for the purpose of making a final determination on this latest committal application.

At the hearing, the mother was found to be in breach in respect of six allegations set out in a schedule of breaches dated 29 November 2024. Those findings were based in large measure on the mother’s own admissions. The court was satisfied that they were proved to the criminal standard. Permission to appeal the findings was refused as totally without merit by Peter Jackson LJ on 2 July 2025.

The findings of contempt were as follows:

At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge decided to adjourn sentence in order to give the mother one final opportunity to comply with the Court’s orders. She explained her reasons as follows:

“Only because of A am I going to do this. I am going to adjourn sentence for a month, in the meanwhile, I will direct that there will be life story work between the guardian and A, and I will request the guardian but not direct to explain to you what life story work is. If having had it explained to you, you still persist in ignoring court orders, I will consider how I will sentence you. Taking into account the fines don’t work because you don’t pay them in full, and you appear to think it is right to ignore court orders. This is your very last chance. You have been in continuing and continuous breach since August 2023. The purpose of these proceedings are twofold. One, to make sure that the underlying directions that have been breached are actually brought to fruition. And two, to ensure that everyone understands that court orders are not optional. I will see you in a month’s time, by which time, I expect to be told that the guardian has seen A. You need to make a very big decision as to what’s in your daughter’s best interest. Following court orders that have been made in her best interests or going to prison.

At some point this is coming to an end. And if I have to sentence you to prison, be under no illusion a sentence is likely to be measured in months not days, sometimes they are measured in years. It is up to you now, how I sentence you. But no amount of imploring to the better nature of the court is going to get you out of this. All you have to do is comply with the court orders. You say contact with her father is not in her best interests, but at the moment, we are not even at the stage of considering contact with her father, all you are being asked to do is give monthly reports about her and let a court appointed professional see your daughter. You should also know that if you continue on the course that you have set, then the court may think that the only way forward is to take A from you and place her in the care of her father.”

In an order made in the parallel welfare proceedings on 18 March 2025, the Guardian was requested to communicate with the mother “to explain what Storyboard work entails” but, the recital made clear, it was nevertheless for the Guardian to undertake the work she deemed appropriate. Similarly in respect of the mother’s objections to sending the father written updates as to A’s welfare, the court restated the mother’s obligation to comply with the order.