Thanks a bunch Peruvian. That is not very cheery news.
However, this thread is forcing me to brush up my obviously shaky knowledge of the committal process, I return to the seminal case of Hammerton
www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed2305
This para is relevant
...Yet a sense of urgency often impedes the fair conduct of committal proceedings. The courts have frequently, in such cases, explained the importance of time for reflection. This is no less true in family cases, inflamed, as they often are, with a high degree of tense emotion (see e.g., in Re M (A Minor) Contempt of Court: Committal of Court's Own Motion) [1999] Fam 263 and in Re G (para 22)). But the need for an opportunity to "take stock" is a feature in all contempt cases, particularly in the criminal courts (see in particular the first principle identified in R v Moran 81 Cr. App.R.51). The need for immediate action may be, of course, particularly important where the contempt consists of behaviour in front of the judge. Even in such cases a judge must consider whether it is necessary to deal with the allegations of contempt as a matter of urgency, or whether fairness demands an adjournment, in particular where the defendant is unrepresented.
So yes, the court can commit of its own motion if its really urgent, otherwise it looks like its up to the father or the guardian to apply to commit RM and the Judge is wise to take time for reflection.
Re M says
Contempt may be used by a circuit judge of his own motion in order to enforce a contact order but should be used in exceptional and urgent cases only and the judge who initiates contempt proceedings should not also adjudicate on the motion for committal
Now that I am ashamed to say I did NOT recall, but it makes perfect sense, otherwise there is risk the judge could be motivated by anger at the person's behaviour.
It sounds to me as if the Judge wants to keep hold of this. So by asking one of the other parties to make the application, he will decide the punishment.