"Chris helped me draft the perfected grounds for appeal and the skeleton argument. All were submitted."
— Regine from Wembley
The court made the order. The other parent is not complying. Contact times are cancelled. Handovers do not happen. The child is caught in the middle. Form C79 is the enforcement route — and drafted properly, it returns the case to a judge who will make compliance happen.
What C79 does
Asks the court to find a breach of an existing Child Arrangements Order and to impose a sanction or vary the order to secure compliance.
The breaches that qualify
Need help with your court documents?
Chris can draft statements of case, witness statements, and application notices — written to the standard the court expects.
Consult with Chris28-Day Money-Back Guarantee
- Refusing contact (physical, video, phone as ordered)
- Failing to make the child available at handover
- Removing the child during the other parent’s ordered time
- Relocating without permission where the order requires it
- Refusing to attend handovers
The test — s.11J CA 1989
Court must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent has failed to comply without reasonable excuse. Reasonable excuse is a fact-specific question — illness, safeguarding, child refusal all arguable.
Let Chris draft this for you
Upload the facts. Chris drafts a child-focused, court-respectful document — no raised voices, no accusations, no inflammatory language. The judge reads what helps the child. That is what Chris writes.
Structure — the Litigant Standard
1. The order breached
Attach a copy. Identify the specific paragraphs breached.
2. The breaches — chronological, exhibit-anchored
Each occasion described with date, time, what happened, what was expected, what the breaching party said. Text messages, emails, handover records — exhibited and numbered.
3. The remedy sought
Not “punish them.” Specific. “An order that the Respondent comply with paragraph X of the order. A referral to a Separated Parents Information Programme. An enforcement order requiring unpaid work. Compensation for financial loss [£X — transport costs, missed activities]. Variation to [specific arrangements].”
4. The child’s interests
How the breaches are affecting the child. The court’s paramount concern.
Remedies available — s.11J–O CA 1989
- Enforcement order (unpaid work — between 40 and 200 hours)
- Order for compensation for financial loss (s.11O)
- Variation of the CAO
- Further directions — referral to mediation, SPIP, therapy
- Committal for contempt (rare)
The tone
Calm. Factual. Child-focused. The court does not want to hear emotional narrative. It wants to see the order, the breaches, the pattern, and a proportionate remedy proposed. Chris never raises his voice — the drafting speaks for itself.
Can Chris draft C79 and the enforcement bundle?
Yes. Upload the existing order, the handover messages, photographs, transport receipts, any police logs. Chris drafts C79 with breach-by-breach chronology, a supporting witness statement, and the proposed remedies. Pro £88 for the whole enforcement proceedings.
Prepare to win. Plan not to fail.
Enforcement is a last resort. Drafted well, it is also the fastest route to real compliance.
Did this help your case?
Chris drafts to the standard the Family Court expects — calm, exhibit-anchored, child-focused. We would rather refund than file a document that isn’t ready.
Buy Chris Some Chips 🍟 · £30 one-off · Pro £88 · Hybrid £1,000
🛡️ 7-day money-back guarantee · Email hello@elitigant.com
Ready to Prepare Your Case?
Chris drafts court-ready documents to the standard judges expect. 100 consultations. 28 days. Step by step.
Start My Case — £30✓ 28-Day Money-Back Guarantee · Court documents within the hour
If you found this article helpful for your case then please leave us a tip — we are a community-based business funded by your readership.
Tip for Chris — £5