By Michael Phillips | Originally published on Father & Co.
For the past two years, I have not had court-ordered parenting time with my son.
That fact alone should alarm anyone who believes court orders are meant to protect children. But this Christmas, the reason for that deprivation was put plainly, in writing — and it exposes a deeper failure inside the Montgomery County family court system.
The Order Still Exists
In March 2021, the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland entered a custody order that includes a detailed holiday schedule. The order has never been vacated, stayed, or modified. It clearly provides for Christmas parenting time, with specific dates and exchange times.
On paper, my parenting time exists.
In reality, it has been denied for approximately two years.
Two Years of Denials — and a Court That Did Nothing
For nearly two years, my ex-wife has denied parenting time required by that order. These denials were not sporadic or informal. They were repeated, documented, and raised with the court.
Beginning in March 2024 and continuing through October 2024, I filed multiple enforcement and contempt motions, each tied to current, specific violations. Each filing relied on the same unmodified order. Each filing sought enforcement — not a custody change.
The court did not meaningfully act.
No enforcement followed.
No compliance was compelled.
The denials continued.
When a court repeatedly declines to enforce its own orders, something predictable happens: non-compliance becomes normalized.
Christmas 2025: When Non-Enforcement Becomes Permission
This Christmas, I again requested confirmation of the holiday exchange required by the order. I did not ask for a modification or special accommodation. I asked for compliance.
The response I received did not deny the existence of the order. Instead, it stated that my Christmas parenting time would not be honored because of personal “comfort” concerns. In its place, I was offered supervised “meet-ups” in public places — possibly on Christmas Eve or the day after Christmas.
Those conditions do not appear anywhere in the court order.
They were not imposed by a judge.
They were asserted unilaterally.
Christmas parenting time was effectively converted into an optional, supervised visit — contingent on approval — despite a standing court order that says otherwise.
The Harm Is Not Abstract
When parenting time disappears for two years, the harm is not theoretical.
Children depend on consistency, predictability, and secure relationships. Court-ordered holiday schedules exist because holidays matter. They anchor memory, identity, and a sense of belonging.
When Christmas passes without enforcement — after years of similar denials — a child learns that a parent’s presence is conditional, and that court protections can be ignored without consequence.
That lesson does not fade when the decorations come down.
This Is a Systemic Failure, Not a Personal Dispute
This did not happen because I failed to act. I acted repeatedly. I documented. I filed. I followed the procedures parents are told to follow.
What failed was enforcement.
When a court allows total deprivation of parenting time to persist for two years — and then allows a holiday denial to be justified by personal preference rather than court authority — it sends a clear message: compliance is optional.
That message reshapes behavior. And the child absorbs the cost.
Why I Am Writing This Now
I am writing because silence did not restore my parenting time. Filing did not produce enforcement. Waiting did not protect my son’s relationship with me.
Christmas made the reality unavoidable: court orders that exist only on paper do not protect children.
This is not an attempt to relitigate custody or assign motives. It is a factual account of what happens when family courts decline to enforce their own orders — and a child loses a parent in the process.
If a parent can lose two years of parenting time, including Christmas, without enforcement, this is not a private failure.
It is a systemic one.
Children deserve better than optional court orders.
Part of the Stolen Holidays — Holiday Accountability Series
This article is part of Father & Co.’s Stolen Holidays series, an ongoing investigation into the loss of court-ordered holiday parenting time and the systemic failure to enforce custody orders during critical family milestones.
Across jurisdictions, holidays are frequently where enforcement breaks down first. Court-ordered schedules are replaced with conditional “compromises,” supervision demands, or informal meet-ups — often without judicial authorization. When courts decline to intervene, these substitutions become normalized, and children lose protected time with a parent during moments that shape memory, identity, and stability.
Stolen Holidays documents those failures, not to relitigate individual custody disputes, but to examine how non-enforcement quietly erodes parent-child relationships and undermines confidence in the family court system.
If you have experienced a holiday denial, conditional access, or non-enforcement of a court-ordered schedule, Father & Co. invites you to submit your story. Submissions are reviewed with care, identifying details may be withheld, and publication is focused on patterns, process, and accountability — not personal attacks.
Stories can be submitted at: Father & Co. — Submit a Tip
Children deserve more than court orders that disappear when holidays arrive.
Editor’s Note
This article reflects the author’s personal experience and describes communications received by the author. Identifying details about the child have been withheld. Nothing herein seeks to modify custody or pressure judicial outcomes; it documents enforcement failures and their impact on a parent-child relationship.
