The Family Court at Liverpool found a father in contempt for giving confidential court documents to school pupils to pass to his children, in breach of an order in private children proceedings, in a judgment of 9 March 2026.
Key facts
- Who: The father (AF) and mother (RM) in this case, which concerned two children in private children proceedings.
- From: Judgment dated 9 March 2026
- Source: AF v RM [2026] EWFC 105 (B)
The mother, RM, applied to commit the father, AF, to prison for breaching an order made on 11 May 2025 in private children proceedings about their two children. Both parents appeared without lawyers. Because of allegations of domestic abuse, the court prohibited them from cross-examining each other directly and appointed Qualified Legal Representatives. These are court-appointed lawyers who cross-examine a party on behalf of the other party. They do not represent that party or give advice. Only one could be found, so he cross-examined the mother on the father's behalf, and the judge put the mother's prepared questions to the father.
At the start of the hearing the father asked for an adjournment, saying the representative had not contacted him and had not been given the historical papers from his earlier applications. The judge refused. The judge also refused an earlier request to adjourn the final hearing, which was based on the allegations not being properly particularised and on documents being provided piecemeal. The allegations had been summarised in an order of 7 August 2025, and the father confirmed on 19 January 2026 that he had the documents against him.
The question
The mother alleged that on 25 June 2025 the father (a) showed or gave documents from the proceedings to third parties, in breach of the Family Procedure Rules and section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960, and (b) communicated or tried to communicate with the children through third parties. Paragraph 8 of the order required indirect contact to be sent by post to a specified relative's address.
The decision
The judge found both breaches proved to the criminal standard, meaning the judge was sure. The father gave court documents to four pupils at a school attended by one of the children. They included a letter to the children, statements filed by each parent, the judgment of 11 May 2025, a report from a NYAS caseworker, and a flash drive of court documents.
The reasoning
The judge held that the father knew the terms of the order, because he had appealed it with a copy attached. His letter asked the children not to let their mother or others see it, which the judge took as showing he knew he was acting outside the order. The judge concluded that the communications did not need to reach the children to breach this order, because its terms set out how indirect contact had to be sent.
The judgment then turned to sentence. The maximum is two years, and the court referred to the Court of Appeal's guidance in Hale v Tanner [2000] 2 FLR 879, which says imprisonment is not an automatic response to a breach and that suspension is usually the first way of attempting to secure compliance.
What this means for parents in private children proceedings
- In this case, the court held that sending contact by a route other than the one the order specified was a breach, even though the communications did not reach the children.
- Papers from family proceedings are confidential. The court found that giving them to others breached the order and was a contempt.
- Committal proceedings are treated as essentially criminal in nature. The applicant must prove the breach so that the judge is sure, and the person accused has the right to remain silent.
- If you are unsure what an order allows, or face a committal application, get legal advice before acting.
Sources
- AF v RM [2026] EWFC 105 (B), Family Court at Liverpool, 9 March 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2026/105