Many orders made by the family courts will contain the following warning:

“WARNING: IF YOU DO NOT COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER, YOU MAY BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT AND YOU MAY BE SENT TO PRISON, BE FINED, OR HAVE YOUR ASSETS SEIZED.”

Whilst the family court prefers to leave decisions surrounding a person’s personal liberty to the criminal courts, it does have some overlapping sentencing powers, allowing it to imprison or fine someone. This is something Her Honour Judge Madeleine Reardon had to grapple with recently in Lafronte v Johnson [2025] EWFC 20.

A Non-Molestation Order has been made by the family court against Aaron Johnson, preventing him from using or threatening violence against his ex-partner, Lydia Lafronte, instructing or encouraging violence against her or attempting to remove their child from her care.

Lydia claimed to the family court that between June 2021 and June 2022, Aaron attended her home, sent her abusive messages and hacked her email, all in violation of the order. She also made a report to the police and charges were brought against Aaron. The family court proceedings were stayed to allow the criminal proceedings to progress. Aaron faced a criminal trial in October 2024 but this was vacated twice during that month ‘because of the inability of the CPS to instruct counsel.’ The trial was relisted but not until December 2026, over five years after the first breach was reported to the police. In those circumstances, the family court allowed Lydia to apply for Aaron’s committal to prison for contempt of court.

Her Honour Judge Madeleine Reardon remarked, ‘not unreasonably, the claimant took the view that she wished to progress with this application and at the last hearing in November 2024 this court, which had until then adjourned the proceedings to give precedence to the criminal trial, agreed and listed this final hearing… Faced with inordinate delays in the criminal proceedings, this court took the decision that the contempt proceedings should no longer await the criminal trial and this final hearing was listed… It is unusual for a civil court to hear an application for committal based on the breach of a non-molestation order. That it has happened in this case is due solely to the inability of the criminal court to list a trial within a reasonable time frame.”

The family court found that Aaron had violated the Non-Molestation Order by attending Lydia’s home. However, they found that the allegations relating to abusive messages and email hacking were not substantiated by evidence. As such, it was determined that a long committal sentence was not justified and that any sentence must relate reasonably to the maximum sentence of two years for the breaches.

Aaron submitted a letter of apology and provided context of the breaches regarding his mental health which was confirmed by a healthcare professional. His barrister invited the court to impose no penalty. The court considered Aaron’s circumstances and imposed a fine of £200, payable within 12 months.

The court expressed that it was regrettable that Lydia had to resort to committal proceedings due to delays in the criminal courts, implying that the latter would have been the preferable route given its wider range of sentencing powers.

To conclude, the family court does have the power to send someone to prison for breaching an order and is also willing to step in ahead of the criminal courts to do so if necessary.