One of the biggest challenges for divorced or separated parents can be child access, also known as visitation. No matter what the two parents, think about each other, they both need to always keep in mind that it is important for the children to see them behave respectfully to each other. It is important for the parents to cooperate with one another in order to make sure that the children get to spend enough time with both parents that a healthy relationship can continue even after divorce.

Sometimes the resentment, parents can feel towards each other after divorce can get in the way of doing what’s right for the children, if the parents allow this to happen. In that case, it can become more important to hurt the other parent than to do what is right for the children. That can include a denial of access. When that happens, how can access be enforced?

When separation agreements or divorce orders, give one parent the right to “liberal”, “reasonable”, or “generous” access is nearly impossible to get a court to enforce it when the “custodial” parent or parent with “primary care” refuses to cooperate. When the access parent takes such a complaint to court the result is almost always a change to more specific access, one based on a fixed schedule. The reason is obvious. Words such as “reasonable” are just too vague to be easily enforced. Such terms are ideal when they allow to reasonable parents all the flexibility they need to act in the best interests of their children. But they are worse than useless when one or both parents set about to exploit the intentional vagueness. Changing the access terms in the divorce order to a fixed schedule allows a divorce judge to have a better idea of whether there actually has been a breach of the terms or not.

If a more fixed schedule of access is denied. The judge is still more likely to revise the order and try to fine tune it. Before taking more drastic actions to enforce its terms. Usually it is only when this kind of fine tuning fails and the judge sees the parents continuing the fight over access that more serious steps will be considered.

Unfortunately this means that the access parent has to spend more money to keep going back to court before the judge takes stronger action to enforce the access terms. All the while the children miss out on access visits with the access parent and their relationship may suffer as a result.

What makes the judges reluctant to act more decisively is simply the fact that there are not very appealing options. A finding of contempt of court can result in a fine or jail. But also these choices can hurt the children by depriving them of the benefit of some financial resources or even of their primary caregiver. It also serves to heighten the tension between the parents from this point on.

Changing the child support amount is not usually a good alternative, because, the amount set was the amount needed to properly care for the children. By reducing the amount the access parent pays just means less for the children.

Ordering extra access to make up for the lost time might seem like a simple solution. However, it leaves open the question of how this extra access will be enforced when the original access was denied. Giving a third parody the responsibility of facilitating access can help. But, if the parents cannot agree on a person who will act free of charge, this option could be quite expensive. Also, disagreements can occur between the parent and the facilitator, which require the court’s intervention.

A stiff, but usually effective response is for the court to reverse the roles of the parents so that the children go into the primary care of the person who had been the access parent. Now it becomes the access parent’s responsibility to ensure that the children are provided with appropriate access with the other parent. This places the respective shoes on the other feet. Sometimes the mere threat of this is sufficient to bring about a change in the access deniers attitude. But the threat must be real.

The disadvantage in this option is that it sets aside the other factors which led to the children being placed with the primary care parent in the beginning. Usually only when the access problem becomes very serious when the court consider turning the situation on its head.

Sometimes, when the denial of access is significant, when the change of roles is inappropriate, and when the adverse effects of the ongoing dispute are taking a toll on the children, the divorce court has to seriously consider reducing or even canceling access altogether. Of course this is totally unfair to the aggrieved access parent, and unjustly rewards the parent guilty of denying access, these considerations are secondary to the best interests of the children. Therefore, in some situations, it is an option, a divorce court will seriously consider.

When access is denied, the best thing the access parent can do is to be thoughtful and reasonable and continue to show respect towards the other parent. He or she needs to show the court that the best interests of the children always take priority and when asking the court to enforce access present a plan that puts the children’s welfare first.