Your ex will not let you see the children: enforce the order
Last updated 2026-09-01 · Reviewed by Jaime Piñeira Pardo, registered with the ICAM bar, no. 138826
The short answer
You enforce the judgment. The second special rule of article 776 of the Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil prevents a strictly personal obligation like this being replaced by money and allows monthly coercive fines to continue beyond one year. The third allows the custody and contact arrangement to be modified where breach is repeated. Every failed handover must be documented the same day.
The judgment gives you alternate weekends and half the holidays. Since March there has been an excuse every Friday: the child has a cold, there is a birthday party, he has plans with his cousins. In six months you have seen your children three times. You answer by message, argue, and end up giving in so as not to make a scene in front of them. Your ex says the children do not want to go, that they are old enough to decide and that insisting will only make things worse. You have filed nothing at court.
The case, in five lines
- What is brought
- A claim to enforce the measures under article 776 of the Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil, with coercive fines and, if the breach persists, an application to modify the custody and contact arrangement.
- Before which court
- The sección de familia del Tribunal de Instancia (the family section of the first-instance court) that issued the decision being breached. Any disobedience offence is reported to the sección de Instrucción del Tribunal de Instancia (the investigating section).
- Deadline
- Enforcement of the judgment does not lapse as the months pass, but delay destroys the case: every weekend that is not claimed later becomes the evidence that contact had in fact been interrupted and that the arrangement no longer matched the children's reality.
- Who can bring it
- The parent in whose favour the contact arrangement was set, and also the resident parent where the other one is in breach. Article 158 measures may in addition be sought by the child, any relative or the public prosecutor.
- Financial risk
- Without a record of the failed handovers, enforcement becomes your word against theirs and may be dismissed with costs. And the third special rule of article 776 cuts both ways: a non resident parent who breaches can also see the arrangement modified.
Contact time cannot be replaced by money
The second special rule of article 776 of the Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil settles the most common misunderstanding in these enforcements. Where strictly personal non financial obligations are breached, the automatic substitution by a monetary equivalent provided for in paragraph three of article 709 does not apply. Handing over a child at six on a Friday is precisely that kind of obligation: it is not bought off, it is performed.
That same paragraph adds the tool that sustains enforcement over time: the court may, if it sees fit, maintain monthly coercive fines for as long as necessary beyond the one year limit set in that provision. Financial pressure therefore does not expire by the calendar while the breach continues, which is exactly what makes the strategy of holding out until the case fades away unworkable.
It is worth understanding what that fine is and is not. It is not damages payable to you, nor compensation for the lost weekends: it is an instrument to compel compliance, imposed repeatedly and accumulating while the conduct persists. Its purpose is to change the calculation of the person in breach, not to close the case with a payment.
Repeated breach can cost the resident parent custody
The third special rule of article 776 carries the consequence that really weighs: repeated failure to comply with the obligations arising from the contact arrangement, by either the resident or the non resident parent, may lead the court to modify the custody and contact arrangement, provided that accords with the prior assessment of the child's best interest.
Its three conditions must be read. The first is that the breach be repeated, not isolated, which makes the record of each failed handover the backbone of the case. The second is that the rule works both ways, so the parent who complains can also be affected if he returns the children late or skips his own periods. The third is that any change is subject to a prior assessment of the child's interest.
The children saying they do not want to go settles nothing
A child's refusal is a fact to be weighed, not an excuse that exempts. The parent with custody keeps the duty to facilitate compliance with what was decided, and so the legal answer is not to argue about whether the child wants to go, but to establish what the resident parent did so the handover could happen and what explanation was given on each Friday it did not.
Where the child's resistance is real and sustained, the problem stops being one of enforcement and becomes one of the content of the arrangement. There is room there for the appropriate provisions of the second paragraph of article 158 of the Código Civil to spare children harmful disturbance in cases of change of the person holding custody, or a review of the arrangement to make it workable, with meeting points or gradual resumption.
What does not work is giving up on claiming. A year of unexercised Fridays later reads as a consented interruption of the relationship, and the parent in breach arrives at the hearing with the best possible argument: that the arrangement no longer matches the children's reality. Documented persistence is what stops time working against you.
Article 158 protects the child while the standoff lasts
Article 158 of the Código Civil allows the court to order, of its own motion or at the request of the child, any relative or the public prosecutor, the appropriate provisions to spare children harmful disturbance in cases of change of the person holding custody and, in general, any other provisions it considers appropriate in order to remove the child from danger or spare them harm within the family environment.
That catalogue also includes the provisional suspension of the exercise of parental responsibility or of custody, and the provisional suspension of the contact and communication arrangements set in a judicial decision. The article itself makes clear that all these measures may be adopted within any civil or criminal proceedings or in a jurisdicción voluntaria case, guaranteeing that the child is heard.
When the breach stops being a civil matter
Article 556 of the Código Penal punishes with three months to one year in prison, or a fine of six to eighteen months, anyone who, not being covered by article 550, seriously resists or disobeys authority or its agents in the exercise of their functions. What that offence requires is serious disobedience to authority, not mere disagreement with the other parent about one particular weekend.
That is why the order of work matters so much. Enforcement comes first, and within it a personal order to comply is obtained under formal warning; then, if the breach continues despite that order, there is a solid factual basis on which to assess the criminal route. Reporting before any such order usually ends in the case being shelved, and that outcome is later brandished as proof that nothing was wrong.
The criminal route, moreover, neither replaces the civil one nor speeds it up. What restores the weekends is enforcement, with its monthly coercive fines sustained over time and with the real threat of modifying the custody arrangement. A complaint is an additional tool for cases where disobedience is open and continuous despite a personal warning.
How we run the case, step by step
- 1
Documenting each failed handover on the same day
You attend at the place and time set and leave a record: a message sent at that moment, a witness present, or a report at the police station. A breach with no record does not exist for the third special rule of article 776, which requires proven repetition.
- 2
Demanding compliance with the arrangement in writing
We send a written demand listing the dates breached and requiring compliance with the current calendar. It fixes the date of the conflict, prevents any claim of a different verbal agreement and provides the basis for later enforcement.
- 3
Enforcement claim with coercive fines
We seek enforcement of the measures, a personal order to comply under formal warning and the imposition of monthly coercive fines, which article 776 allows to be maintained beyond the one year limit.
- 4
Seeking article 158 measures if the child is suffering
Where the conflict is harming the child we seek the appropriate provisions of article 158, which may be adopted in any civil or criminal proceedings or in a jurisdicción voluntaria case, always guaranteeing that the child is heard.
- 5
Applying to modify the arrangement if it persists
Once repetition is proven, we ask the court to modify the custody and contact arrangement under the third special rule of article 776, always subject to the prior assessment of the child's best interest.
- 6
Assessing the criminal route only after the court's order
If the breach continues despite the personal order under warning, we assess a complaint under article 556 of the Código Penal, which requires serious disobedience to authority and not an isolated disagreement between parents.
The evidence that decides the case
- The current contact calendar, taken from the judgment or the approved agreement, with the exact dates falling to each parent.
- The messages sent on the day of each failed handover, with the time and place, and the reply received with the specific excuse.
- Reports made at police stations recording the failure to hand over, which date the breach without depending on the other party.
- The evidence of whoever accompanied you to the collection point, especially where handovers take place in a public place or a meeting point.
- School, medical or activity records that contradict the excuse given on specific dates, such as an illness that never produced a consultation.
- The record of your own compliance: punctual returns, maintenance up to date and holiday periods respected, because the third special rule of article 776 applies to both parents.
What closes the door
- Giving in Friday after Friday without leaving a trace. Article 776 requires repeated breach before the arrangement can be modified, and without a record of each date there is no repetition to prove, only two opposing accounts.
- Stopping maintenance in retaliation. These are independent obligations, and anyone who fails to pay for two consecutive or four non consecutive months falls within the offence of non payment of maintenance and loses their whole position.
- Turning up to collect the children outside the time or place set. It turns the other party's breach into an argument about yours, and the third special rule of article 776 also reaches the non resident parent.
- Filing a disobedience complaint before obtaining a personal order to comply under formal warning. The resulting decision to shelve the case is later used as proof that the breach was not serious.
- Waiting for the children to grow up and decide for themselves. A year without claiming reads as a consented interruption of the relationship and becomes the best argument for the parent in breach to seek reduced contact.
The law that applies
- Art. 776 LEC. Governs enforcement of the measures. Its second rule excludes the automatic substitution of strictly personal obligations by the monetary equivalent of article 709.3 and allows monthly coercive fines to be maintained beyond the one year limit. Its third rule provides that repeated breach of the contact arrangement, by the resident or the non resident parent, may lead to modification of the custody and contact arrangement in line with the child's best interest. BOE-A-2000-323
- Art. 158 CC. Empowers the court to order, of its own motion or at the request of the child, any relative or the public prosecutor, the appropriate provisions to avoid harmful disturbance where the holder of custody changes, the provisional suspension of parental responsibility, of custody or of the contact and communication arrangements, and in general whatever is appropriate to remove the child from danger, measures available in any civil or criminal proceedings or in a jurisdicción voluntaria case. BOE-A-1889-4763
- Art. 556 CP. Punishes with three months to one year in prison, or a fine of six to eighteen months, anyone who, not being covered by article 550, seriously resists or disobeys authority or its agents in the exercise of their functions, and with a fine of one to three months anyone who fails to show authority the respect due in the exercise of its functions. BOE-A-1995-25444
Each article checked against the consolidated text published in the BOE (the Spanish official gazette).
Frequently asked questions
Can I claim compensation for the weekends I lost?
That is not the answer the law gives. The second special rule of article 776 expressly excludes the automatic substitution by a monetary equivalent set out in paragraph three of article 709 where strictly personal obligations are breached. What it does allow is monthly coercive fines, maintained for as long as necessary beyond the one year limit, to compel actual compliance.
She says the children do not want to come. Does that excuse her?
Not on its own. The parent with custody keeps the duty to facilitate compliance with what was decided, and what is examined is what they did so the handover could take place. If the child's resistance is real and sustained, the problem stops being one of enforcement and becomes one of the content of the arrangement, where article 158 provisions or a review to make it workable have their place.
Can I obtain custody if she keeps blocking contact?
That is the consequence the third special rule of article 776 expressly provides: repeated failure to comply with the obligations arising from the contact arrangement, by either the resident or the non resident parent, may lead the court to modify the custody and contact arrangement, provided it accords with the prior assessment of the child's best interest. The key word is repeated, which is why everything depends on the record.
Should I go straight to a disobedience complaint?
It rarely works in that order. Article 556 of the Código Penal requires serious resistance or disobedience to authority, and without a personal order to comply under formal warning issued within the enforcement, a complaint is usually shelved. Enforcement comes first and produces that order; then, if the breach persists despite it, the criminal route rests on solid ground.
Can I stop paying maintenance while she stops me seeing them?
No. These are independent obligations and doing so destroys your position in the very enforcement you started. It also exposes you to the criminal response to non payment of maintenance, committed with two consecutive or four non consecutive unpaid months. The correct route is exactly the opposite: pay punctually with documented proof and enforce the breached arrangement.
This guide explains how the action works in general. It does not replace the study of your own case: deadlines depend on when things happened and on what you have done since.