Section 11J Children Act 1989: enforcing a child arrangements order
Section 11J CA 1989 lets the court impose an unpaid work requirement where a child arrangements order has been breached without reasonable excuse.
Official text
·
CA 1989 s. 11J — United Kingdom
11J This section applies if a child arrangements with respect to a child has been made. If the court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a person has failed to comply with a provision of the child arrangements order, it may make an order (an “enforcement order”) imposing on the person an unpaid work requirement. But the court may not make an enforcement order if it is satisfied that the person had a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the provision . The burden of proof as to the matter mentioned in subsection (3) lies on the person claiming to have had a reasonable excuse, and the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. The court may make an enforcement order in relation to the child arrangements order only on the application of— a person who is, for the purposes of the child arrangements order , the person with whom the child concerned lives or is to live; a person whose contact with the child concerned is provided for in the child arrangements order ; any individual subject to a condition under section 11(7)(b) or an activity condition imposed by the child arrangements order ; or the child concerned. Where the person proposing to apply for an enforcement order in relation to a child arrangements order is the child concerned, the child must obtain the leave of the court before making such an application. The court may grant leave to the child concerned only if it is satisfied that he has sufficient understanding to make the proposed application. Subsection (2) has effect subject to the restrictions in sections 11K and 11L. The court may suspend an enforcement order for such period as it thinks fit. Nothing in this section prevents a court from making more than one enforcement order in relation to the same person on the same occasion. Proceedings in which any question of making an enforcement order, or any other question with respect to such an order, arises are to be regarded for the purposes of section 11(1) and (2) as proceedings in which a question arises with respect to a section 8 order. In Schedule A1— Part 1 makes provision as regards an unpaid work requirement; Part 2 makes provision in relation to the revocation and amendment of enforcement orders and failure to comply with such orders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Section 11J is the enforcement order. Where a child arrangements order is in force and the court is satisfied "beyond reasonable doubt" that a person has failed to comply with a provision of it, the court may make an order imposing an unpaid work requirement on that person. The criminal standard of proof for the breach is unusual in family proceedings and it is deliberate: an enforcement order is a punitive sanction.
Subsection (3) is the answer most respondents give and subsection (4) tells you how it is decided. The court may not make an enforcement order if satisfied that the person had a reasonable excuse for the failure - and the burden of proving a reasonable excuse lies on the person claiming it, to the civil standard of the balance of probabilities. So the breach must be proved to the criminal standard by the applicant, while the excuse must be proved to the civil standard by the respondent.
Subsection (5) limits who may apply: the person with whom the child lives or is to live under the order; a person whose contact with the child is provided for in it; anyone subject to a condition under section 11(7)(b) or an activity condition; and the child, who needs the court's leave and must be found to have sufficient understanding. The court may suspend an enforcement order, and may make more than one against the same person on the same occasion. Schedule A1 contains the detail of the unpaid work requirement and of what happens when an enforcement order is itself breached. A separate power in section 11O allows an order for compensation for financial loss caused by the breach.
When it applies
A parent repeatedly failing to return a child at the time the order specifies.
Contact stopped altogether despite an order providing for it.
A respondent saying the child refused to go, or was ill on the day.
A parent who has already been warned once and has breached again.
Costs wasted on flights or holidays that could not be used because of a breach.
What this section does not say
×It is not contempt of court. Committal for contempt is a separate route with its own procedure.
×It does not change the order. If the arrangements no longer work, the answer is a variation application under section 8, not enforcement.
×It does not compensate the applicant. Compensation for financial loss caused by a breach is section 11O.
×It does not apply without a warning notice attached to the order - section 11I provides for those.
×It is not available for breach of an order that is not a child arrangements order.
Worked examples
Invented situations, written to show how the wording bites. They are not real cases, not judgments and not precedent, and nothing here predicts what would happen in yours.
Illustrative example
An order provides for a child to spend alternate weekends with one parent. Since the spring the child has not been brought, each time with a different explanation - illness, a party, a family trip.
How the wording applies
An enforcement order requires the court to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a person has failed to comply, which is the criminal standard and unusual in family proceedings. Subsection (3) then allows a reasonable excuse to defeat it, and subsection (4) puts the burden of proving that excuse on the person claiming it, to the civil standard. The fact that decides the case is therefore the pattern rather than any single weekend: individually explicable absences look different when set out as a run.
How the parties settled it
Both agree a handover at a neutral location with a written log kept by each, and that any missed weekend is made up the following one unless a medical note is provided within three days.
Illustrative example
A parent says the child, now thirteen, simply refuses to get in the car, and that they cannot force them. The other parent says that is not an excuse.
How the wording applies
Whether a child's refusal is a reasonable excuse is exactly the question subsections (3) and (4) put in issue, and the burden of establishing it sits on the parent relying on it. The fact that decides how it is viewed is what the resident parent actually did about it - encouragement, explanation, practical steps - because the excuse is about the adult's conduct rather than the child's mood. If the arrangement no longer works at all, the answer is a variation under section 8 rather than enforcement.
How the parties settled it
They agree to a shorter, more frequent pattern the child has said they would manage, and to reconsider the existing order at a review meeting in three months rather than pursuing enforcement.
Say what is happening. A neutral mediator hears your side and the other party's, and walks you both to a written agreement. In the advanced settings you can ask for the decision to be reasoned on the Acts of Parliament that apply in England and Wales.
We copy this text from the official publisher and re-check it against that source on every page load, but we cannot guarantee it is complete, current or free of error, and we accept no liability for any reliance on it. An amendment can take effect before a consolidation catches up. The publisher's own copy is linked below; where the two differ, it is the official one that counts.
This page reproduces the text of CA 1989 s. 11J in force at the date shown and explains it in general terms. It is not legal advice and takes no account of the circumstances of your case, which can change the answer completely. For a live dispute, for limitation periods, and before taking any step in court, consult a qualified lawyer in England and Wales.