is this a 'good reason'?

[1ofthosedays]

In this situation the NRP had previously offered to miss a contact session to allow for holiday time. The RP disregarded this suggestion and booked a holiday over a different contact session that had not been agreed by both parties.

The order states that the RP can not breach the order 'without good reason'.

Its also worth mentioning that the RP repeatedly refuses to allow the NRP to take the child on holiday.

Would giving the child a holiday be a 'good reason'? Given that the NRP had offered to miss time to allow for holiday time and has also been denied the opportunity to give the child a holiday themselves.

[Fourormore]

That "without good reason" clause looks like it's asking for trouble, to me!

If the NRP agreed to miss a contact session to accomodate a holiday then I imagine it would be hard for them to argue that a holiday wasn't a good reason. Also if it's only one 'breach', it's probably not worth returning to court over.

Denying the child a holiday with the NRP is another matter entirely and is something I would return to court for.

[1ofthosedays]

Month before the breach, the NRP suggested to miss an overnight contact to allow RP to have 'quality time' over the school holidays with the child as it was heavily in NRPs favour. This wasnt for a specific holiday or had been asked for by the RP. At this stage there was no mention of RP even thinking about a holiday, it was more just a good will gesture on NRPs part to split holiday time more equally.

RP breached by taking child on holiday over the weekend contact session instead of the suggested overnight contact. It was only 2 weeks before the breach that the NRP was made aware that there even was a holiday!

I know that usually its not worth going back to court for one breach, however the RP has a history of disrupting contact at key stages of progression between NRP and child and this was one of them. It feels very much deliberate and intentional. There are also some pretty strict stipulations in the order re RPs attitude towards contact that if breached could result in reversed custody.

Along with the breach there have been other things that have caused concern and that go against the order, however are harder to prove with 'solid evidence'.. (there is evidence but the type that even though you could record dates etc of incidents it could still be denied..)

The NRP wants to use the breach as the main reason to file for enforcement and then bring the other matters up with it. Each matter on their own, although serious, probably wouldn't be enough to file for enforcement but do raise serious concerns of the child's welfare when happening altogether.
I guess I'm just concerned that although we think that this is 'solid evidence' that the changes required of the RP arent happening, in actual fact its not as a holiday would be classed as 'a good reason'.

Have I made much sense?

[1ofthosedays]

months before**

[Fourormore]

Its a bit tricky to understand to be honest.
My experience of trying to have the RP held to account for things like this is pretty dire. A stern word is the most that has happened and mostly it's been entirely ignored.

There are some really good lawyers who post on here though so hopefully one of them will be able to give you their view

[1ofthosedays]

Thanks Fourormore!

I know it is a tricky situation and I understand that my DP (the NRP) is extremely lucky with his recent experiences of family court and has a lot in his order that most other people wouldn't have. (although took 4 years to get here and still doesn't seem to have sunk in to the RP how serious this could be).

Its just hard to figure out when something is serious enough to be enforceable or not. it a fine line between wanting to 'nip something in bud' and feeling petty!

[Collaborate]

It sounds as if the order needs to be tightened up rather than someone gets "punished".

s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/hmctsformfinder/c79-eng.pdf

this is the link to the court application form. T=You are simply asking for enforcement. You are no longer required to set out what type of enforcement you need. That is a good thing.

I would expect that the court would want there to be more dialogue before the arrangements are varied - it should not simply be the case that the PWC tells the AP what time they are going to be missing.

If the current order is shown not to be working (and you might want to wait until it happens again before you take it back to court) the court would consider varying it. You could combine it with an application for holiday contact with AP.