The issues raised by B v C & Anor [2026] resonate strongly with cases practitioners encounter all too frequently. We have acted in a strikingly similar case in which a previously involved and loving father enjoyed a close relationship with his daughter until the mother unilaterally suspended contact, asserting allegations of abuse. Those allegations were subsequently withdrawn, and no findings of abuse were ever made against the father.

However, by the time the case returned before the court, a significant period had passed without contact. During that lapse of time, the child (now aged 15) had become deeply entrenched in her expressed opposition to seeing her father so that the father’s application to reinstate contact with his daughter  was unsuccessful – not because he posed a risk, but because the court concluded that forcing a resumption of contact at that stage was no longer in the child’s best interests.

The outcome was devastating: a father cleared of wrongdoing, yet permanently deprived of a relationship with a child he had previously parented closely and lovingly. It is against that backdrop that B v C & Anor must be understood, and why the wider implications of cases in which breaches of court orders or unilateral suspensions of contact which appear to reshape outcomes demand close scrutiny.

Decisions of the Family Court do not exist in a vacuum. Even where judgments are anonymised and fact‑specific, they carry influence far beyond the immediate parties involved. That is why the case of B v C & Anor has caused understandable concern among family law practitioners and parents alike.

At its heart, the case raises a troubling question: can a parent who breaches a court order ultimately benefit from that breach? If the answer is perceived to be “yes”, the consequences for the integrity of the family justice system are profound.

The background

The parents in this case were in a relationship for less than four years. When they separated, the father successfully applied for a Child Arrangements Order to see his daughter who was 18 months old. The final Order was made in December 2012. Fast forward to March 2022 and the father was compelled to apply for enforcement of that Order that the mother had breached.

The Court directed an ICFA (Improving Child and Family Arrangements). This is a short-term, court-ordered Cafcass service in England that helps separated parents agree on safe, sustainable contact arrangements for children. It focuses on reducing conflict and creating parenting plans.

The mother’s engagement in the proceedings ceased from about June 2023.  This resulted in fines, a warrant for the mother’s arrest and a DWP order (also known as a Disclosure Order requiring the Department of Work and Pensions to disclose an individual’s address).

By the time that this case came before HHJ Scott there had been at least 13 hearings on the father’s enforcement application and the child had turned 15 years old. A guardian had been appointed for the child.

The guardian advised that the child’s emotional well-being was being harmed by not having a relationship with her father. However, the guardian concluded that taking steps to re-establish that relationship would be more harmful than not because the child was adamant that she did not want to see her father and ultimately, she was at an age that she could vote with her feet.

The judge found beyond reasonable doubt that the mother breached the Child Arrangements Order and there was no reasonable excuse for doing so. However, the judge did not make any orders against the mother and any orders in favour of the father. The father was unsuccessful in his attempt to re-instate time with his daughter.

Rewarding non‑compliance

In B v C & Anor, the concern for many observers is not simply the outcome, but the message the outcome risks sending: that a parent who unilaterally breaches an order, frustrates contact, or creates a “new status quo” may later rely on the passage of time and the child’s adjustment to justify the breach.

Family practitioners are well aware of a recurring problem in children cases: a parent breaches an order, time passes, and the court is then invited to consider the “reality on the ground” as a decisive factor.

Although B v C & Anor will be confined, legally, to its own facts, the influence of such a decision is wide.

If the perception develops that breaches can be tactically advantageous, practitioners will see:

• more defensive litigation,
• more enforcement applications,
• less willingness to compromise, and
• increased emotional and financial cost for families.

Ultimately, children pay the price.

The need for clear judicial messaging

To preserve confidence in the family justice system, the message must be unequivocal:

Court orders matter.
Breaches matter.
And no parent should expect to gain an advantage by defying the court.

This does not mean imposing punitive outcomes at the expense of a child’s welfare. It means ensuring that welfare assessments are not distorted by delay, manipulation or deliberate non‑compliance.

For the system to function – and for children to be protected – compliance with court orders must remain the baseline, not the bargaining chip.

Contact us

If you are concerned about the enforcement of a Child Arrangements Order or facing allegations of breach, early specialist advice is essential. The consequences of inaction (or strategic non‑compliance) can be long‑lasting.

If you need more advice and guidance on any of the above, do get in touch with Saika Alam. Saika is a well-respected family and divorce lawyer based in St James’s, London. Known for her personal and pragmatic approach, Saika represents her clients in all aspects of their family relationships.

Find out more about our family advice here, including our wrap around services option which also offers wider support from a carefully selected network of independent professionals who work alongside us to ensure holistic care during difficult times.

You can contact Saika on [email protected] or 020 78510110.