S (a child), Re

A suspended committal order may properly enforce a contact order where a parent persistently and deliberately refuses to comply. Faced with open defiance, the court must uphold its authority and the rule of law. Committal may also be justified, as a last resort, to coerce future compliance.

An appellate court will uphold such a discretionary order where it falls within the wide ambit reasonably open to the trial judge. The child's welfare may favour support, mediation and mental health assistance, but those possibilities do not invalidate an otherwise justified committal order.

The parents had been engaged in prolonged proceedings concerning the father's contact with their six-year-old daughter. The mother repeatedly refused to comply with a contact order, despite having agreed in oral evidence that contact should take place. She subsequently failed to attend the committal hearing and stated that she would not obey the order.

Her Honour Judge Finnerty committed the mother to prison for seven days, suspended on condition that she permit contact on specified Saturdays. The mother appealed from that order. The central issue was whether the judge's discretionary imposition of suspended committal was justified in light of the persistent breaches and the child's interests.

1. Appeal dismissed unanimously. Lord Justice Thorpe held that the suspended committal order was within the wide ambit of the judge's discretion. The mother had persistently and deliberately obstructed contact, had failed to attend the committal hearing despite notice and had declared that she would not comply. The judge had scarcely any realistic alternative when confronted with that level of defiance. Failure to act would have neglected the court's duty to uphold its authority.

2. Lady Justice Arden agreed with Lord Justice Thorpe. Obedience to court orders is required by respect for the rule of law, which is an essential element of civil society. The committal order therefore had to be upheld.

3. Lord Justice Neuberger agreed with both judgments. The order was justified both to enforce respect for court orders and the rule of law, and, as a last resort, to coerce the mother into future compliance.

4. The court recognised the importance of finding a long-term solution serving the child's interests. The existing welfare assessment supported contact with the father. Assistance through CAFCASS, mental health services or culturally appropriate mediation might help change the mother's attitude and avoid imprisonment. Those matters fell within the trial judge's future management of the proceedings and did not undermine the committal order.

5. The county court proceedings stayed pending the appeal could be relisted. The appeal was dismissed, with detailed assessment on both sides.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Dismissed the mother's appeal and upheld the suspended committal order. The temporary stay of further county court proceedings consequently came to an end.

2. Halifax County Court: Her Honour Judge Finnerty committed the mother to prison for seven days, suspended on condition that she comply with the contact order. After a further failure to comply, the judge listed proceedings concerning enforcement and a possible interim residence order.