Skip to content

Children Act 1989 ss.11J & 11O — Enforcement orders + financial compensation

TL;DR. Sections 11J and 11O are the two principal enforcement provisions for breach of a child arrangements order in England and Wales (added to the Children Act 1989 by the Children and Adoption Act 2006, in force 8 December 2008).

  • Section 11J empowers the court to make an "enforcement order" imposing an unpaid work requirement on a person who has failed to comply with a CAO provision. The standard of proof for breach is beyond reasonable doubt — s.11J(2). The respondent has a defence of "reasonable excuse" with the burden on the respondent on the balance of probabilities — s.11J(3)-(4). Applications may be made by the live-with parent, the spend-time-with parent, persons subject to s.11(7)(b) conditions, or the child (with leave) — s.11J(5)-(7).

  • Section 11O empowers the court to order financial compensation for loss caused by the breach. Standard of proof for breach is the civil "satisfied" test (i.e. balance of probabilities — implicit in s.11O(2)) — distinguishing financial compensation from the beyond-reasonable-doubt s.11J unpaid-work threshold. Same reasonable-excuse defence — s.11O(3)-(4). Compensation may not exceed the applicant's actual loss — s.11O(9). The court must consider the welfare of the child concerned in exercising the s.11O power — s.11O(14).

Together with sections 11K-11N and 11P (additional restrictions, revocation, and welfare-cap provisions), ss.11J and 11O form the operative PA-context contact-enforcement framework.

Source: legislation.gov.uk — Crown copyright, Open Government Licence v3.0. · Fetched: 2026-06-13 · Editorial commentary licence: CC BY 4.0

Full statutory text (verbatim)

11J Enforcement orders

(1) This section applies if a child arrangements order with respect to a child has been made.

(2) 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.

(3) 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.

(4) 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.

(5) The court may make an enforcement order in relation to the child arrangements order only on the application of—

(a) a person who is, for the purposes of the child arrangements order, the person with whom the child concerned lives or is to live;

(b) 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

(d) the child concerned.

(6) 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.

(7) The court may grant leave to the child concerned only if it is satisfied that he has sufficient understanding to make the proposed application.

(8) Subsection (2) has effect subject to the restrictions in sections 11K and 11L.

(9) The court may suspend an enforcement order for such period as it thinks fit.

(10) Nothing in this section prevents a court from making more than one enforcement order in relation to the same person on the same occasion.

(11) 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.

(12) In Schedule A1—

(a) Part 1 makes provision as regards an unpaid work requirement;

(b) Part 2 makes provision in relation to the revocation and amendment of enforcement orders and failure to comply with such orders.

11O Compensation for financial loss

(1) This section applies if a child arrangements order with respect to a child has been made.

(2) If the court is satisfied that—

(a) an individual has failed to comply with a provision of the child arrangements order, and

(b) a person falling within subsection (6) has suffered financial loss by reason of the breach,

it may make an order requiring the individual in breach to pay the person compensation in respect of his financial loss.

(3) But the court may not make an order under subsection (2) if it is satisfied that the individual in breach had a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the particular provision of the child arrangements order.

(4) The burden of proof as to the matter mentioned in subsection (3) lies on the individual claiming to have had a reasonable excuse.

(5) An order under subsection (2) may be made only on an application by the person who claims to have suffered financial loss.

(6) A person falls within this subsection if he is—

(a) a person who is, for the purposes of the child arrangements order, a person with whom the child concerned lives or is to live;

(b) a person whose contact with the child concerned is provided for in the child arrangements order;

© an individual subject to a condition under section 11(7)(b) or an activity condition imposed by the contact order; or

(d) the child concerned.

(7) Where the person proposing to apply for an order under subsection (2) is the child concerned, the child must obtain the leave of the court before making such an application.

(8) The court may grant leave to the child concerned only if it is satisfied that he has sufficient understanding to make the proposed application.

(9) The amount of compensation is to be determined by the court, but may not exceed the amount of the applicant's financial loss.

(10) In determining the amount of compensation payable by the individual in breach, the court must take into account the individual's financial circumstances.

(11) An amount ordered to be paid as compensation may be recovered by the applicant as a civil debt due to him.

(12) Subsection (2) has effect subject to the restrictions in section 11P.

(13) Proceedings in which any question of making an order under subsection (2) 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.

(14) In exercising its powers under this section, a court is to take into account the welfare of the child concerned.

Why ss.11J & 11O matter for parental-alienation analysis

The sections 11A-11P enforcement framework — of which ss.11J and 11O are the principal substantive provisions — was added by the Children and Adoption Act 2006 (in force 8 December 2008) precisely in response to the chronic problem of CAO non-compliance (then "contact-order non-compliance") in the English family-court system. PA-pattern contact-obstruction was a central policy motivation.

Section 11J — Unpaid work requirement

  • Beyond reasonable doubt standard (s.11J(2)) is the criminal standard. Parliament chose this elevated standard deliberately because an unpaid-work requirement is a quasi-criminal sanction. This means PA-pattern contact-obstruction must be proved to the criminal standard — practitioners must gather and present rigorous evidence (handover logs, contemporaneous notes, witness statements, communication records).

  • Reasonable-excuse defence (s.11J(3)-(4)) is the operational battleground. The alienating-pattern parent frequently invokes reasonable excuse — typically by reference to: (i) the child's expressed refusal; (ii) safeguarding concerns about the other parent; (iii) practical impossibility. The burden is on the respondent on the balance of probabilities. PA-aware practice treats coached child refusal as not satisfying the reasonable-excuse threshold, but the court's assessment is fact-sensitive.

  • Suspended enforcement orders (s.11J(9)) — operationally important: the court may suspend an enforcement order conditional on future compliance, which functions as a deferred sanction.

  • No restriction on multiple orders (s.11J(10)) — the court may impose multiple sanctions for cumulative breaches.

Section 11O — Financial compensation

  • Lower civil standard for breach (s.11O(2) — "if the court is satisfied" implies civil standard on the breach itself). This is the operational route where the criminal standard of s.11J cannot be met but the breach is established on balance.

  • Loss-causation requirement (s.11O(2)(b)) — financial compensation requires demonstrable financial loss flowing from the breach. Typical heads include: wasted travel expenses (cancelled visits to which the parent travelled); legal costs of subsequent enforcement applications; lost wages from cancellation of work to attend contact; childcare costs incurred because contact did not occur.

  • Cap at actual loss (s.11O(9)) — no punitive component; pure compensation.

  • Welfare consideration (s.11O(14)) — the court must take into account the welfare of the child concerned. In practice this constrains the s.11O remedy where a heavy financial order on the obstructing parent would itself harm the child (e.g., where the obstructing parent is the primary carer and financial impairment would impact the child's living conditions).

Restrictions in ss.11K, 11L, 11N, 11P

The substantive enforcement powers are subject to restriction provisions:

  • s.11K — limit on length of unpaid-work hours (40-200 hours); s.11J(8).
  • s.11L — restrictions on enforcement orders against persons aged 18-25; s.11J(8).
  • s.11P — the welfare-cap on the s.11O financial-compensation remedy.

The framework operates as a tiered enforcement architecture: court-led activities (s.11A-11C), warning notices (s.11I), enforcement orders (s.11J-11N), financial compensation (s.11O-11P), and ultimately committal for contempt (procedural, not statutory).

Cross-references within the AntiAlienate Knowledge Base

  • Companion CA 1989 statutes: s.1 (welfare paramountcy) · s.8 (orders toolkit — defines CAOs) · s.11 (general principles + conditional orders)
  • Re-arc case-law line: Re A [2019] EWCA Civ 1735 → Re S [2020] EWCA Civ 568 → Re H-N [2021] EWCA Civ 448 → Re C [2023] EWHC 345 (Fam)
  • ECHR positive-obligations anchor: ECHR Article 8 — effective enforcement is a positive-obligation requirement
  • Procedural companion: Family Procedure Rules 2010 Part 18 (procedure on enforcement applications)
  • Jurisdiction page: England and Wales

Primary source

Sources & authoritative references

Referenced in this page:

Topic baseline (independently verifiable):