A Father v A Mother (application for committal)
[2024] EWFC 127 (B)
Raza v Gall
4 October 2023
[2023] EWFC 181 (B)
Family Court
Mom didn't let Dad see his child even though the judge ordered her to. The judge said she had to go to jail for 28 days, but she can avoid jail if she agrees to let Dad see his child.
Key Facts
- •Ms. Gall (mother) repeatedly failed to comply with court orders regarding contact between her child and the father, Mr. Raza.
- •The court initiated contempt proceedings under Family Procedure Rule 37.6.
- •Ms. Gall did not attend several hearings despite penal notices and a warrant for her arrest.
- •The court found Ms. Gall in contempt of court for failing to attend a preliminary meeting at the Wycombe Child Contact Centre.
- •Ms. Gall did not offer any mitigation or show remorse for her actions.
Legal Principles
The court must consider whether committal to prison is the appropriate sanction for contempt of court in family cases, but it is not an automatic consequence.
Hale v Tanner [2000] 1 WLR 2377
In determining the appropriate sanction, the court must consider mitigating factors (e.g., early admission, remorse, ill health, impact on others), and the seriousness of the contempt.
Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited v Zafar [2019] EWCA Civ 392
Family Procedure Rule 37.6 outlines the procedure for contempt proceedings initiated by the court.
Family Procedure Rule 37.6
Contempt hearings are public unless the court directs otherwise.
Family Procedure Rule 37.8
Sanctions for contempt may include imprisonment, committal, fines, or confiscation of assets.
Family Procedure Rule 37.9
Outcomes
Ms. Gall was found in contempt of court.
She failed to comply with the court order to attend a meeting at the Wycombe Child Contact Centre, a crucial step in arranging contact with the father.
Ms. Gall was sentenced to 28 days' imprisonment, suspended on the condition that she attends a meeting at the Wycombe Child Contact Centre on 28 October 2023.
The court considered the seriousness of the breach, the lack of mitigation, and the need to ensure compliance with future orders. Suspension was chosen to avoid harming the child.