The decision of Mrs Justice Lieven in AA (Mother) v XX (Father) [2025] EWHC 216 (Fam) handed down on 15 August 2025, is a landmark reminder of the family court’s contempt jurisdiction.
The father was sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment for repeated, deliberate breaches of return and contact orders relating to his daughter, forcibly abducted in Iran in 2024 by the paternal family.
Consolidating the jurisprudence on contempt in family cases, this case highlights not only the facts that can trigger a committal application and the procedural discipline needed to be successful but also how judges are likely to approach sentencing.
The factual context
The case concerned an 11-year-old girl, B, abducted in Iran in January 2024.
The father, an Iranian national, entered the UK in 2020 and claimed asylum. He was later granted limited leave to remain until 7 June 2027. In December 2023, his wife (the mother) and their daughter, B, entered the UK on family reunion visas linked to the father’s status giving them permission to live in the UK until 7 June 2027.
Only a few weeks later, on 10 January 2024, the mother and B travelled back to Iran for a holiday. At Tehran airport, as they exited the terminal, B was forcibly removed from her mother by the paternal uncle, who threatened the mother with a gun. At the time of the committal hearing, the mother had not seen B for a period of nineteen months.
Upon the abduction, the mother immediately returned to the UK to secure B’s return. On 4 June 2024, the mother issued wardship proceedings. B was made a ward of the court in July 2024.
Over the course of more than a dozen hearings, the High Court made return orders and interim contact directions, all of which the father ignored. In all but one hearing the father was a litigant in person, however, even on the morning of that one hearing, his legal team made an application to come off the record.
- October 2024: A return order directed the father to arrange for B’s return by 8 November 2024. He was also required to take steps to renew B’s Iranian passport.
- November 2024: The order was renewed after non-compliance.
- December 2024: Further directions were made and the father explicitly advised of his rights in the event of committal proceedings, including access to non-means- tested legal aid.
- April 2025: A detailed interim contact regime was set out, requiring B to be made available for WhatsApp video calls on fixed days and times.
- June 2025: Following expert evidence on Iranian law, the court recorded that the father could secure B’s return by delegating parental authority to his brother. The father himself told the court that B could be returned to England and Wales ‘with his agreement.’ A further return order was made for 16 August 2025.
The father was served every order in English and Farsi, each carrying a penal notice. Despite this, the father refused to comply. He did not renew B’s passport, did not sign the delegation letter prepared by the mother’s solicitors, did not purchase tickets and did not facilitate a single instance of interim contact. The mother and her legal team made repeated efforts, both in England and through proceedings in Iran, to establish contact, all of which were frustrated by the paternal family.
The father’s behaviour worsened as the proceedings continued. At one hearing he left midway through submissions. At the committal hearing in August 2025, he came to the court building but refused to enter the courtroom unless his ‘personal conditions’ were met, including the removal of security officers (who were present because of his past aggression towards staff and counsel). He sat outside the courtroom for much of the hearing despite repeated attempts by the Judge via an interpreter to convince him to participate.
Procedural Framework: FPR 37.4
FPR 2010, r.37.4 sets out the requirements for contempt applications. Rule 37.4(2) sets out the specific requirements. The rule requires that the application must specify, unless inapplicable:
- The precise nature of the alleged contempt
- The date and terms of the order allegedly breached
- Proof of personal service and the date of service or terms of dispensation of service
- The existence of a penal notice
- Date and terms of any undertaking allegedly breached
- Confirmation that the respondent understood the terms of any undertakings and consequences of failure to comply
- A numbered chronology of alleged breaches
- A recital of the respondent’s rights, such as:
-
- Right to be legally represented
- Right to apply for legal aid which may be available on a non-means test basis
- Entitled to services of an interpreter
- Reasonable time to prepare for the hearing
- Entitled but not obliged to given written or oral evidence in their defence
- Right to remain silent
- Notice that a finding maybe made in absence, but contempt will only be found if satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt
- Possible sanctions faced if contempt is found
- If contempt is admitted and an apology offered, the court may reduce the seriousness of any punishment
- Court’s findings will be provided in writing
- Court will sit in public, and the findings will be made public
Before r.37.4 was updated, the Court of Appeal in Re L (A Child) [2016] EWCA Civ 173 made clear that committal applications must set out allegations with ‘complete clarity.’ Although the procedural landscape has shifted, that principle still governs the court’s approach.
Committal is, in effect, the family court’s most serios sanction. Contempt proceedings are analogous to criminal proceedings. All breaches must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Committal
In this case, Lieven J thoroughly scrutinised compliance with the requirements. She reminded herself of the need, in every case, to consider whether a penal notice was attached, whether it was interpreted and translated, whether there was knowledge of rights and service. She also reminded herself that each breach must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and that the court must be satisfied that it was possible for the father to comply.
Every order was interpreted into Farsi in writing, and the father was effectively served each one. His rights to representation and legal aid were explained in at least two prior orders. Service of the committal application by post was permitted after professional process servers declined to attempt personal service due to safety concerns. The court was satisfied that this was “good service” (an important affirmation for practitioners where litigants present risks to personal safety).
Lieven J went onto to methodically analyse nine breaches in four different orders, rejecting those where specificity was lacking, but making findings where the orders were clear, penal notice attached and compliance plainly possible. She relied on expert evidence of Iranian law from Andrew Allen KC, which confirmed the father could delegate parental authority to secure B’s return, which he had failed to do. More importantly, the father himself had positively asserted at a previous hearing that he could return B if he wished.
Lieven J went onto to work through the allegations of breach in sequence applying the legal framework from FPR 37.4 and the clarity principle from Re L.
- Return orders and Embassy and passport steps:
- The father was ordered to cause B’s return by specified deadlines.
- He was ordered to attend the Iranian Embassy, provide written consent for passport renewal and give evidence of doing so.
- The expert evidence from Andrew Allen C confirmed the father could delegate parental authority under Iranian Law to secure passport renewal and return.
- The father himself informed the court at earlier hearing that B could be returned “with this agreement.”
- The father was directed to sign and send a letter delegating parental rights to his brother, enabling passport renewal.
- The father took no steps to comply with these orders. No evidence was filed or an explanation given.
- The only defence possible to such non-compliance would be ‘impossibility’ i.e. the father used his best endeavours to ensure a return but failed to do so, however, the father took no action, deliberately refusing to comply.
- Interim contact orders:
- The father was required to make B available for WhatsApp video calls on specified dates/ times.
- Evidence from the mother and her solicitor showed repeated attempts were made but no contact occurred.
- Iranian social welfare correspondence confirmed the paternal uncle refused to allow contact.
Lieven J found nine separate breaches proved beyond reasonable doubt. She excluded those allegations where the orders were not specific enough or where later orders had overtaken earlier ones, demonstrating application of the clarity principle.
In Omay Ali Elhag Elkndo v Elnoaman Gassam Elsyed [2024] EWHC 2230 (Fam) Cobb J confirmed that court may proceed in a party’s absence and make orders in their absence if satisfied that the respondent has had a fair opportunity to participate but has deliberately chosen not to attend. The father’s absence in these proceedings could not have been more deliberate with him sitting outside the court room refusing to come in.
The sentencing
Having found contempt proved, the Judge turned to sentencing principles drawing on the key authorities:
Bailey v Bailey [2022] EWFC 5 – imprisonment is not to be regarded as the automatic response; the court must weigh alternative sanctions – it may make no order, it may adjourn, it may fine, or it may requisition assets or make a mental health order. However, there is no principle that imprisonment is not to be imposed at the first occasion, each case turns on its own facts (Thorpe v Thorpe [1998] 2 FLR 127)
- If imprisonment is appropriate, the length of the committal should be set on its own merit, not inflated just because it might be suspended.
- Court has two objectives; mark the court’s disapproval of disobedience and to secure compliance.
- The length of the sentence must have a reasonable relation to the maximum of 2 years available to the court.
- Consideration of suspension not an exceptional case, it is usually the first way of attempting to secure compliance with the order.
- The length of the sentence is a separate consideration but can be linked to continuing compliance of the order.
- The court must bear in mind the context, which may be aggravating or mitigating, especially considering relationship breakdown.
- The court cannot ignore the parallel proceedings ongoing in another court based on either the same facts or some of the same facts to avoid double punishment for the same facts.
- Courts must give brief reasons for the sentence, its length and any suspension decision.
Oliver v Shaikh [2020] EWHC 2658 (QB) – committal should only be imposed if contempt is so serious no other penalty is appropriate.
B (a child) (Sentencing in contempt proceedings) [2025] EWCA Civ 1048 – the Court of Appeal underlined the importance of parties complying with orders, signalling a firmer line.
The Judge concluded that a custodial sentence was necessary for two reasons:
- The history of the case showed that imprisonment was the only realistic way of securing b’s return, given that the father had ignored every opportunity and preparatory step required.
- Custody was required to demonstrate the court’s disapproval of the father’s complete and deliberate breaches of orders, both in relation to B’s return and interim contact.
An aggravating factor was that the father had been involved in the forcible removal of his nine-year-old daughter at Tehran airport and continued retention in Iran, which had resulted in nineteen months of separation from her mother – conduct the Judge described as an extreme act of cruelty.
In considering sentence, the court weighed whether a short suspension might secure compliance but rejected this, noting that the father had consistently treated the process with contempt and believed he could dictate the terms to the court; only immediate imprisonment would convey the seriousness of the matter.
The Judge imposed a six-month term of imprisonment. While this was treated as a first offence, the Judge expressed hope that the sentence, which in practice is likely to be much shorter, would impress upon the father that he had no choice but to comply and take steps to secure B’s return.
Finally, the father was told that if he complied and facilitated B’s return to England and Wale, he could apply to purge his contempt.
Conclusion
This case is a stark reminder that court orders are not optional and that the court will not hesitate to use its contempt powers, including immediate custody, where deliberate non-compliance undermines the rule of law.
For practitioners, the judgment reinforces three key lessons:
- The importance of procedural rigour: every order needs to carry a penal notice, be effectively served and translated (if needed) and the respondent’s rights must be clearly set out and communicated.
- The need for clarity: only breaches that are precise, binary and provable will withstand the criminal standard of proof.
- The seriousness of enforcement: the court are increasingly signalling, as the Court of Appeal did in B (a child) (Sentencing in contempt proceedings) [2025] EWCA Civ 1048 that persistent defiance will attract real sanctions, even for first committal.
Custodial sentences are not imposed lightly, but when the welfare of a child is at stake and a parent treats orders with contempt, imprisonment may be the only effective remedy.