A v B & Anor

The court is concerned with private law proceedings commenced by the father in November 2023. This hearing was listed as a composite hearing following an order made by Mrs Justice Judd. Following a pre-trial review before me in March 2025, the agreed way forward was that I would determine limited factual allegations over the first two days and then give the parties the third day to reflect upon my findings. The welfare hearing would then proceed on the fourth day. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to conduct the hearing as planned and judgment was given on the fourth day with the welfare aspect being adjourned. This judgment is limited to the fact-finding hearing.

The child in question is a girl aged nearly five who I shall refer to as C. The father is represented by Mr Alba, the mother by Mr Douglas and O by Ms Henstock-Turner through her guardian Ms McAuley. I am grateful to them all for their assistance.

Following the father’s application for a child arrangements order, the mother was ordered to file a witness statement setting out the allegations she made against the father which she said were relevant in respect of any court order.

The mother’s first statement was filed in March 2024. It was some 28 pages in length with many pages of exhibits. It is from this statement that I have taken the background accepting that much of it is disputed by the father.

In short, the parties met in 2014 when they both worked for the same firm of solicitors. However, within a few months the mother wanted to move to be closer to her mother who was unwell. The father moved too. Sadly, the mother’s mother subsequently died. The mother says she already had concerns about the father’s behaviour which continued at this difficult time.

She describes the father isolating her from her family and friends. She refers to an injury to her arm which the father would deliberately aggravate. However, despite the difficulties in the relationship, the couple got engaged and subsequently married. The mother then required surgery to her arm and says the father was unsupportive particularly when she required care. She says the father was not supportive about her career.

Despite the ongoing difficulties in the relationship the couple decided to try for a baby. The mother became pregnant during Covid. She says the father was not supportive of her working from home. When she was heavily pregnant, she was involved in a road traffic accident and was admitted to hospital. C was born by way of Caesarean section shortly thereafter. The mother says the father controlled the epidural and did not administer enough pain relief. Following her discharge from hospital she says the father did not support her to look after herself or the baby and he still expected her to cook and look after him.

The mother says the father was demeaning about her physical appearance. She says she remained ill and despite this the father controlled her medication. She confided in a friend who suggested she left him. Matters were so bad the mother says she even considered taking her own life. The mother then decided to write to the father setting out her concerns and for a brief period says he changed. However, she says he quickly reverted to his previous behaviour save for a period of about a year when her brother stayed with them.

She also says the father was controlling in respect of their finances. The mother told the father she wanted to separate when she was due to go on holiday with her friends although they stayed together.

The mother describes occasions when the father was aggressive towards her. She describes an incident of rape. She says this happened on more than one occasion. In the meantime, the relationship was deteriorating and when they were visiting his parents the mother alleges that the father threw C across the room. The mother says the father was videoing her and said he had enough evidence to take C away from her. The mother fearing the father would make false allegations against her decided it was time to call the police. The relationship finally came to an end in October 2023.

The father has filed two statements in response. The first being a short statement and the second a longer statement (52 pages plus exhibits). He accepts he had some issues but denies all of the allegations. He says it was the mother who had issues and she was not a victim of domestic abuse. In particular, he says in August 2016 (an incident which he recorded on his telephone) the mother threatened to hit him. Further, she slapped him in the face in early 2023. He says the mother has made false allegations against him which have affected him and in particular his ability to work as a police officer (he has been suspended since October 2023). He says the mother has made false allegations in respect of him harming C which has impacted him seeing his daughter. He makes other complaints about not being able to see C since the parties separated. He also says the mother has behaved in an alienating manner which has resulted in him only seeing C in a supervised setting. In this respect, he makes allegations in respect of the mother’s use of her professional status as a solicitor to get her way and control the arrangements.

Both parties deny the allegations made by the other. Whilst contact has progressed, I remained of the view that a factual matrix was necessary to determine the way forward. Such is the animosity between the parties, that there was a real concern on my part that without such the matter would be back before the court at some future point potentially having to conduct some form of fact-finding hearing.

Having set out the background, not all of the above allegations are ones that I am required to determine. The parties have agreed that the following are relevant:

Having set out the background, it is perhaps surprising that the mother has not wished to pursue the allegation of rape. I explored this with the parties at an earlier hearing and was told that the mother did not wish to give evidence about this allegation.

Prior to giving judgment, I provided the representatives with a document setting out the law and invited their comments. No changes were proposed.

The burden of proof lies upon the party seeking the finding, in this case, the mother for her allegations and the father for his.

The standard of proof is the balance of probability; Re B (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) [UKHL] 35, [2009] AC 11, as per Baroness Hale at paragraphs 70,71 and 72:

There is no room for a finding that an event ‘might have happened’. 

In principle the approach to fact finding in private family proceedings between parents should be the same as the approach in care proceedings. However, as Baroness Hale cautioned in Re B [2008] UKHL 35 at paragraph 29:

The court must survey the ‘wide canvas’ of evidence and the totality of the evidence; A County Council v A Mother and Others [2005] EWHC 31. 

The court must not evaluate and assess the available evidence in separate compartments. Rather, regard must be had to the relevance of each piece of evidence to other evidence and to exercise an overview of the totality of the evidence in order to come to the conclusion whether the case put forward has been made out on the balance of probabilities (Re T [2004] 2 FLR 838 at paragraph 33).

Findings of fact must be based on evidence, including inferences that can properly be drawn from the evidence and not on suspicion or speculation.

It is open to the court to make a positive finding that a respondent to an allegation is innocent as against a simple finding that the applicant’s allegations are not proved; D v B [2006] EWHC 2987 (Fam) para 19.

The fact that a respondent to allegations fails to establish an alternative case, does not absolve the applicant from their duty to prove their case Re X (Children) (No 3) [2015] EWHC 3651 (Fam).

In R (Children) [2018] EWCA Civ 198 McFarlane LJ stated that the purpose of the family tribunal is not to establish guilt or innocence but to establish the facts insofar as they are relevant to inform the welfare decisions regarding the children. The focus is very different to the process in the criminal court, which is concerned with the culpability and, if guilty, punishment for a specific criminal offence, whereas the family court considers the determination of facts across a wide canvas, relating to past events in order to evaluate which of a range of options for the future care of a child best meets the requirements of his or her welfare.

A fact-finding hearing must be conducted in accordance with Practice Direction 12J. The Practice Direction defines domestic abuse which includes controlling, coercive and threatening behaviour. Coercive behaviour and controlling behaviour are both separately defined. The Practice Direction also makes specific reference to domestic abuse being harmful to children.

Re LG (Reopeningof Fact-finding) [2017] EWHC 2626 (Fam) is relevant in relation to the scope of a fact-finding exercise where it was stated:

The Court of Appeal in Re H-N and Others (Domestic Abuse: Finding of Fact hearings) [2021] EWCA Civ 448 confirmed that there are many cases in which the allegations are not of violence, but of a pattern of behaviour which is now understood to be abusive. This has led to an increasing recognition of the need in many cases for the court to focus on a pattern of behaviour as opposed to a list of specific factual incidents, which are often set out in Scott Schedules.

In K v K [2022] EWCA Civ 468 it was confirmed that the court’s duty is limited to determining only those factual matters that are likely to be relevant to whether to make a child arrangements order, and if so, in what terms.

The law on parental alienation is set out in the case of S (Parental Alienation: Cult) [2020] EWCA Civ 568.

The CAFCASS definition of alienation is ‘When a child's resistance/hostility towards one parent is not justified and is the result of psychological manipulation by the other parent’.

As per HHJ Gordon-Saker in K v K (No 2) [2022] EWFC 171 at [16]:

In Re C (Parental Alienation: Instruction of Expert) [2023] EWHC 245 ‘Much like an allegation of domestic abuse; the decision about whether or not a parent has alienated a child is a question of fact for the court to resolve and not a diagnosis that can or should be offered by a psychologist. For these purposes, the ACP-UK wishes to emphasise that “parental alienation” is not a syndrome capable of being diagnosed, but a process of manipulation of children perpetrated by one parent against the other through, what are termed as, “alienating behaviours”. It is, fundamentally, a question of fact.’

The court has also considered the CAFCASS Alienating Behaviours Thinking Tool.

The treatment of vulnerable witnesses is also relevant. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 is now in force. The court is required to consider special measures.

In considering the issue of any lies told by a witness, the court must take into account the fact that a person lying about A does not inexorably lead to the conclusion that they were also lying about B, C and D. There are many reasons why people may lie about a particular matter; for example, out of shame, humiliation, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear, distress, confusion and emotional pressure (R v Lucas [1981] QB 720) applied in family proceedings in Re H-C (Children) [2016] EWCA Civ 136)).

If the court determines that the Lucas direction is called for, or is invited to proceed on that basis, submissions should be made to identify (i) the deliberate lie(s) relied upon; (ii) the significant issue to which it/they relate(s); and (iii) on what basis it can be determined that the only explanation for the lie(s) is guilt (Re A, B, C (Children) [2021] EWCA Civ 451, Macur LJ).

Any judge appraising witnesses in the emotionally charged atmosphere of a contested family dispute should warn themselves to guard against an assessment solely by virtue of their behaviour in the witness box and to expressly indicate that they have done so (Re M (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1147).

The need for caution in how the court evaluates the credibility of a witness and the reliability of their evidence by reference to demeanour and the need for caution in the weight to be given to demeanour in the evaluation of evidence was also articulated by Leggatt LJ in Sri Lanka v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA 1391.

In reaching this decision, I have heard oral evidence from both parties and two witnesses from the contact centre, Ms T and Ms Z. I have also read the bundle of documents. The mother has exhibited the footage from the driver of the car who hit her when she was heavily pregnant. There is no doubt that it was a significant impact. The father has exhibited various audio and video clips to his statement. Initially it was only possible to access the first audio clip but the other clips were made available whilst the father gave his evidence. However, the mother says as a result of technical issues she has not been able to view all of the footage. A screen was provided to the mother throughout the hearing. Hourly breaks were also afforded to her.

For the avoidance of doubt, I have been careful not to simply look at the individual allegations but have considered the matter in the wider context and the broad canvas of evidence. However, I also observe that the case must be conducted in accordance with the overriding objective and where the parties can barely agree on anything the court is not required to address every matter upon which they disagree.

Before addressing the allegations, it is worth setting out my observations in respect of the witnesses. Credibility is important in this case. The father was at times a defensive witness and he accepted this was the case when he was cross-examined by Mr Douglas. Of course, he has a lot to lose if the allegations against him are made out. There were times when he simply did not answer the question. He was not defensive when cross-examined by Ms Henstock-Turner.

Ms T from the first contact centre gave her evidence in a calm and measured way and did her best to assist the court although her recollection appeared somewhat vague. However, she no longer works for the contact centre and had not been able to check the contact centre notes.

Ms Z had a clear recollection of events. She was an impressive witness who was fair and balanced with a clear grasp of the matters about which she was required to give evidence. Her evidence was of assistance to the court.

The mother was a confident witness but somewhat oppositional. As will be apparent, I had significant concerns in respect of much of her evidence which I will address in due course. Despite the efforts of Mr Douglas to portray the mother as a reasonable person with genuine explanations for her behaviour, this was not a view I was able to share. It was often the case that only when confronted with irrefutable evidence that she was prepared to make a concession. For much of the time she was quick to answer the question or provide evidence as to what she wanted to say before the question had been asked of her. She is plainly an intelligent woman but in my opinion she can be highly manipulative with an ability to draw upon only those parts of the evidence which support her case without any insight as to how she might be to blame. She was very keen to portray herself as the one who was right and others were wrong. When professionals have disagreed with her she has been quick to complain. In this respect she has described having been bullied by the judge (unusually referring to her by her first name). She said the same of counsel who previously represented her. This has also been the case in respect of threats to make the contact centre accountable for its actions in a court setting and wanting to complain about the police for not actioning matters as she would like.

Following the breakdown of a relationship, parties often have quite different interpretations as to how the relationship was at the time and events that have happened since. Sometimes it can be a question of perception and over time a party may become more convinced that that they are right and perhaps even more so once a relationship has ended.

As part of my analysis, I do not overlook that the mother had a troubled childhood. Soon after the parties started their relationship, her mother received a diagnosis that meant she required significant care from her family. I have already referred to the mother wanting to move back to be closer to her family and her mother’s death (2018) which must have had a significant impact on her. This was in addition to the physical pain the mother was suffering because of her left arm which subsequently required surgery. On top of this, the mother was involved in a road traffic accident in May 2020 which undoubtedly impacted upon her ability to look after herself and C.

The father also seemed to have some problems but to a lesser extent. He attended counselling sessions over the years. He said he lacked confidence in his new role at work and thought counselling would help. He had some further sessions some years later because the mother felt he had unresolved issues which included a family bereavement. In fact, he did not think this was the case but still agreed to some further sessions. There was also a death at work which the mother felt affected him but he did not think this was so. He did not accept he had mental health issues although in fairness to Mr Douglas this was not the question that was put to the father. On reflection the father felt he could have been more patient with the mother. Certainly, his comment about other mothers recovering from a Caesarean section more quickly was insensitive and did not take into account that the mother had been involved in an accident when heavily pregnant. However, it is also apparent from the evidence that life with the mother was far from easy. The statement that he provided in respect of the mother’s road traffic accident was in my view an accurate representation of what life was like after May 2020. It was also plain that they had some tempestuous times prior to this and I address the video footage taken in 2016 and 2018 in due course.

I turn to address the allegations. First, it is notable that the mother has decided not to pursue a serious sexual allegation of rape which she says was part of the father’s coercive and controlling behaviour. She says this was discussed at court hearings and she formed the view it did not need to be pursued. One can perhaps understand the position and I do not know what was said at hearings before my involvement but even if it was not to be pursued, it remained relevant in respect of the father’s allegation that she has made untrue allegations against him. Having explored that at an earlier hearing, the mother was clear that she would not give evidence in respect of this allegation. She was asked about the sexual allegation by Ms Henstock-Turner. The mother’s response was that it was neither necessary nor proportionate in terms of the court making welfare decisions about C which she thought would lead to further delay. However, she was also clear that she is pursuing the sexual allegation through the criminal court and intends to give evidence in due course. It was important she said for ‘justice to be done’. However, so for as C is concerned, she said that the parties had moved on and having heard now that the father seeks a shared care arrangement, this is something she supports. This seemed to me to be a difficult position to reconcile given her clear evidence of the father’s continuing abusive behaviour and her clearly negative views about him as expressed to the guardian prior to the preparation of her report in March 2025. Her evidence was also clear that the father’s behaviour is continuing albeit apparently to a lesser degree. I found her evidence hard to understand particularly looking forward and considering the potential of a conviction against the father.

As for the mother’s allegation that the father’s has behaved in a coercive and controlling way towards her, I have considered the evidence with care. Domestic abuse is wholly unacceptable and indefensible. Coercive and controlling behaviour is domestic abuse. Coercive behaviour is defined within PD 12J as ‘an act or a pattern of acts of assault, threats, humiliation and intimidation or other abuse that is used to harm, punish or frighten the victim’. Controlling behaviour is defined as ‘an act or pattern of acts designed to make a person subordinate and/or dependent by isolating them from sources of support, exploiting their resources and capacities for personal gain, depriving them of the means needed for independence, resistance and escape and regulating their everyday behaviour’.

If the mother’s evidence is accepted, she was subjected to controlling behaviour and belittling comments on a daily basis and was living in fear of the father resulting in her doing everything he requested of her. She said on several occasions that she was ‘terrified’ of the father and referred to his ‘campaign of harassment’. She said she has received clear advice from domestic abuse organisations supporting her that she must report everything to the police. That she has done.

My overall impression of the father’s evidence is that he lacked sympathy and patience towards the mother. When the mother was involved in the road traffic accident, he was sympathetic for a time but this quickly evaporated. However, this must be seen in the context of him trying to establish a career and his perception that he was having to do everything in the home as well. I have already referred to the witness statement he provided in support of the mother’s claim for compensation following the road traffic accident which he says and I accept he prepared and then showed to the mother. I reject her evidence that she had not seen it.

Generally, the focus of the father’s evidence was how they were both affected by the mother’s personal circumstances and her health issues. He was less accepting of how hard it must it have been for the mother. He also found it hard to accept the guardian’s view that he had failed to see how his behaviour might be relevant to C. Refences to the ‘other side’ were confrontational and unhelpful. His view was very much that he had been drawn into arguments started by the mother which then escalated. Videoing the mother is concerning.

However, those observations made, I reject the allegation that the father has made derogatory comments about the mother’s size; rather she was concerned about her weight and wanted support from him which he provided. The burger incident has been turned into something much more than it was and is not supported by the father’s niece, no matter how the mother might like to explain this away about her not wanting to get involved (the niece gave a statement to the police with a signed statement of truth). It was the mother who was concerned about her weight. I do not accept her evidence about the father controlling what she ate and how many calories she was allowed to consume or that he said he could find someone else.

I reject the allegation that the father poured the mother’s pain killing medication down the drain. This is also the case for threatening the mother that she would lose C because of her own background. More likely this was the mother’s worry. Further, I do not accept the father isolated the mother from her friends. Her allegation that the father did not support the mother breastfeeding is not one I accept. As for C being tongue-tied, the need for a private operation to resolve this is not clear and, again, I am not prepared to accept the mother’s evidence.

Whilst accepting that often allegations of this nature are not supported by evidence from others, there is nothing other than the mother’s word to support her allegation of coercive and controlling behaviour and I find her evidence to be unreliable.

I also reject the allegation that the father controlled the mother financially. The parties both had their own accounts and a joint account into which they each paid part of their salaries. I have seen the request by the father for a breakdown of how a sum for C was spent and the mother offered to send a receipt. However, it was for quite a large sum of money and does not cross the threshold for coercive and controlling behaviour. I also accept the father’s evidence that the mother drew up a spreadsheet. She appeared to be the one who controlled the finances. Her evidence that she had very little income may have been right for a time but on her own case she had savings and there was no adequate evidence to support the finding she invites me to make. Even when she provided an explanation about the sum she had spent on clothes, the father’s reaction of ‘whatever’ if anything showed a lack of interest rather than the control the mother suggests.

What is accepted by the father is that he took £600 out of the account the day the parties separated. The mother takes issue with this as there were bills to pay the next day and she was left short as a result of his actions. However, given that he was without a home, whilst I do not condone his actions, it might be to some extent understandable in the circumstances.

In short, whilst it is evident that both said unkind and hurtful things to one another and C has been exposed to this, there is no evidence of coercive and controlling behaviour on the part of the father.

I turn next to the mother’s allegation that the father said to C that she was only living with the mother for the moment. What the father said was ‘daddy lives in a different house, and you live with mummy for the moment.’ However, the contact centre, saw no need to intervene. I reject the mother’s evidence that C was emotionally harmed by the comment. The mother told me that C tends to think about things which was why she was not troubled at the time and then revisits them later. She described a very troubled young girl who was highly distressed. However, there is nothing from the contact centre to support this being the case. At the time C simply wandered off. The next week C happily went to her father. The school had no concerns. The mother says C’s teacher was not spoken to but in my opinion the headteacher who has spoken to the guardian would surely have known about C’s behaviour after this or other occasions if C had been tired and unsettled.

Notably, on the same day C was upset about not being allowed to take the Elsa doll home which her father had given her and in the context of the mother not wanting C to have any chocolate and saying in front of C that she had two fillings because of the ‘crap’ the father had given her before. The emotional impact on C following the father’s comment is not only not made out but was the mother fabricating an untruth in order to support her case.

The first part of the mother’s allegation is however made out.

Before I address the father’s allegations against the mother, I have considered the audio and video recordings he made of the mother. Of course, evidence of this nature is just part of the broad canvas. It has to be seen in context and there is inevitably a gap in the court’s knowledge as to what had been said before and after. Caution is required. Inevitably the party carrying out the recording will wish to come across in a positive light. I also take into account that the mother says she has not been able to view all of the recordings. Why this came out in her oral evidence and was not resolved or raised with me before, I do not know. It matters not. The mother accepts that she has said some wholly unacceptable things to the father for which she says she is ashamed and caused her to undergo counselling. She had little choice but to accept her behaviour was wholly inappropriate and if anything showed her to be highly capable of conflict and threatening behaviour. She comes across as the controlling one in the relationship and even though this was taken in 2016 her threats to ruin him appear to have been real. Nonetheless, the father ought not to have filmed the mother without her consent or being clear in respect of his actions. It is evidence gathering and not behaviour this court condones.

The doorbell footage can be addressed in short order. Such is commonplace in these times. I accept the father’s explanation as to why this was installed as he was working upstairs and could not hear the door. I was unclear as to what the mother was saying about the footage where she seems to be having an outburst after the father left the house, but in any event this footage does not advance matters.

The father says the threats by the mother to ruin him were a theme throughout their relationship. In this respect during an argument in January 2023 the father sent himself a text setting out a conversation he said he and the mother had after an argument. The father made a note of the text as soon as the mother left the room as he was so concerned. The text reads:

In her oral evidence, the mother accepted having said some of what he had recorded but not all. In my view the text was an accurate recording of what the mother said. She knew what she could do and it chimes with comments she had made in 2016. Indeed, in October 2023 the father was arrested as a result of allegations made by the mother and remains unable to work. However, as already stated, the sexual allegation is not something the mother has been prepared to give evidence about in these proceedings.

The mother has also raised concerns about the father using physical abuse towards C. The police confirmed the bed incident (October 2023) would not be actioned in May 2024 and the social worker had ruled it out as a concern even earlier. Yet, the mother was still raising concerns in the autumn of 2024. The court order dated 18 September 2024 refers to the mother wanting an admission from the father about this incident before contact could become unsupervised. I am not asked to make a finding about the bed incident but oddly, the mother allowed the father to take C to her gym class on his own after he had apparently been so aggressive towards her just a few days earlier. I also accept the father’s concern that the mother’s account grew over time from C being thrown onto the bed to across the room, to C being thrown across the room and by luck landing on the bed rather than hitting the wall.

Returning to apparent injuries sustained during contact, before C saw her father the mother photographed her but told me that C would simply think she was posing for a photograph. It matters not, this is a mother who is fixated on the idea that the father has harmed C.

To this extent the mother raised a concern whether the two scratches on C’s face had been caused by the father and was troubled that they were not noted in the contact report when C arrived at the centre. The same is the case in respect of the robot C was playing with (which the mother reported to the police). It appears that C was hit near to her ear by the robot by accident as she did not want to put her shoes on and leave her father. Sadly, the mother proceeds on the basis that something sinister had happened.

The mother was also unduly suspicious of the red mark to C’s neck and told the guardian that the contact centre had not explored this properly.

When the father wanted contact to progress at the hearing on 5 June, the mother contacted Early Years at 2.24pm telling them that on Saturday 1 June 2024 C returned from contact with an injury to her ear and C had apparently said ‘why is daddy allowed to hurt me’. Notably the mother was in court before Judge O’Neill later that afternoon.

The same can be said of the father’s bail conditions. When the mother was not happy about these, she threatened a formal investigation into the conduct of the case by the police. In support of her request, she was relying upon correspondence from the father’s solicitors which she considered to be harassment and also referred to C having returned from contact with injuries to her face. At page 527 the mother wanted to speak to someone more senior. The mother was not asked about the Detective Sergeant’s record but it states:

Overall, I am satisfied that this allegation is made out although it needs to be re-worded to say ‘impacting the father’s ability to progress the arrangements set out in the child arrangements order as a result of the mother raising issues just before court hearings. This is also the case in respect of the mother’s wish to extend the father’s bail conditions.’

The father accepts that he has been able to see C albeit this has been in a contact centre on a supervised basis. Contact did move into the community and in the last few weeks this has been at the father’s home and progressed to overnight.

However, the father’s allegation is based on supervised contact not being necessary and the mother having acted in an alienating manner since they separated. He makes specific allegations in this respect.

First, I am satisfied that the mother has acted in an alienating manner. The father started to see C in early November 2023 at a contact centre. It will be apparent from this judgment that there has been no basis for contact to be supervised or in a contact centre. However, the difficulty for all professionals involved in cases of this nature (including the court) is that once allegations had been made there is often a need to explore them.

In the mother’s favour, prior to November 2023 she had facilitated a What’s App video call which was in fact contrary to the father’s bail conditions. The first order provided for contact in a contact centre. Whilst there is no doubt that the father was able to see C not long after the parties separated, it was not without problems. For example, the mother provided a list of her conditions and rules. Within her conditions she provided for the father’s family not to be present and for C to be in ‘a state of full dress at all times’ although she was allowed to remove her shoes and socks. The paternal grandfather was subsequently able to attend contact sessions but this was not the case for some time and the mother was also clear that the father should not talk about his family. I reject the mother’s evidence that this was intended to be limited to the death of the maternal grandmother. Her written conditions are clear.

However, I also accept that Ms T told the court that the mother was polite although I do not lose sight of the issues raised in her witness statement. What has been clear from all four contact centres, is that C enjoys seeing her father and contact has always been good.

In addition to concerns about C, the mother had said that the father parked too close to her at the contact centre on the first occasion. Ms T told me that their cars were some distance away from each other and I understood it to be in respect of this session that she said there were bushes between them. I also note that whilst the father was supposed to get to the centre 15 minutes before the mother arrived, he had not been told this.

I reject the mother’s evidence that the father deliberately wanted a room overlooking the disabled car parking space where he knew she would park. Ms T did say this was inappropriate but I did not understand her evidence to be that this was happening. She certainly did not raise it with the father at the time. In my view, this is yet another example of the mother’s heightened response to matters and was not supported by Ms T.

The father accepts that he has been able to give C presents. The mother named various gifts which she says C plays with. Her objection related to C receiving a laptop, tablet or mobile – in fact anything battery operated as she feared the father would record her. Even taking into account the footage in 2016 and 2018, this was not a reasonable concern on the mother’s part or on the basis of any other evidence before me.

The easter egg incident was a further attempt by the mother to exert control. I have referred to this briefly elsewhere. The mother says that C had tooth decay and was not to have sweets and chocolates in the way she had. I have seen the dental report to confirm that C did have two fillings. The mother’s concern therefore sounds reasonable in respect of her not wanting C to have an Easter egg from the father. This was accepted by Ms T. However, I have already referred to the mother’s words in front of C about her having had two fillings because of the ‘crap’ the father had given her. Of equal concern were the mother’s comments in front of C about the doll C wanted to bring home stating ‘daddy knows about this’ which resulted in C being upset and crying. This was even so despite the contact centre worker trying to encourage the mother to allow C to keep it. Instead, the mother threatened C with her not being able to go to soft play which no doubt she was looking forward to as well as being threatened with time out. The mother’s explanation is that the father knew no boundaries and she was worried about what else he would send. In this respect she relies in part on the father harassing her by sending letters from his solicitor in these proceedings. She says he has been in her street too. These are not explanations I accept there being no satisfactory evidence to support such.

A similar situation arose in respect of gifts the following week when the father had prepared a special box for C to keep things in. The mother behaved in a similar way and accepted such in her oral evidence. However, very recently the mother told the guardian that if she had to have items from the father in the house, she would not be able to care for C. Her evidence is contradictory.

The teddy bear incident was one I also struggled to understand. The mother’s complaint was that she could not carry the bear to the car due to her injury. I asked her why she could not ask for help and she said it was not possible. The mother had an answer for everything which included how distressed she was not being able to carry the gift. I did not accept her evidence. It made no sense.

The mother says she accepts that contact is important but equally she says she is terrified of the father. C was not allowed to take drawings home and said ‘I know I can’t take it home.’ There was no sensible basis for the mother to say C could not take drawings home. She now says this was all part of the no gifts being allowed in her home and she realises this was not reasonable. She could say little else. However, worryingly, the mother told the guardian that C had seen the mother’s distress about items coming into the home and C said ‘is this because of Daddy mummy has he done this to you.’

Therefore whilst in December 2023 the mother says she was taking presents home for C, in 2024 the doll was not allowed into her home, this was also the case for clothes the father had bought and C told the guardian that when the mother cries C had asked ‘did daddy hurt you?’. The mother has clearly told C that the father has been abusive and there is no evidence of this being the case. The comments made by C are extremely concerning.

C clearly enjoys her time with the father. The notes could not be clearer. The mother now seems to accept this as being the case but her position can change and when the mother spoke to the guardian for the purpose of her analysis in March, the mother referred to C not enjoying contact and said she was clingier with her before and after. C was said to have a ‘frozen watchfulness’ and had to be physically ‘prised’ from the mother. There is no evidence of this being the case, the opposite is true. As I have already stated, the guardian spoke to the head teacher who had no concerns. I reject the mother’s evidence. There is clear evidence of alienating behaviours on the mother’s part even though the other contact centres have not raised concerns about the mother. The mother has not valued the father’s role in C’s life and her repeatedly referred to ‘my daughter’. She has plainly found it extremely difficult to support C having a full relationship with her father.

Ms Z’s evidence related to contact in Town A. Ms Z was hoping that other venues could be explored. Her evidence which I accept is that the mother was very difficult. The plan was to be reviewed after six sessions. There were two contact plans and the paternal grandfather attended towards the end.

In particular, Ms Z was concerned that the mother objected to contact taking place in a leisure centre which could have been agreed between the parents. The mother was clear that so far as she was concerned contact was to be supervised. This was to the extent that she queried how it could be supervised underwater but seemed to then justify this on the basis of her concerns about the father not being a strong swimmer. It is hard to see why the mother was so insistent upon contact being supervised to this extent even if there was a court order in place. She was completely unwilling to make progress and made her position clear to Ms Z. This was to the extent that on other occasions Ms Z had to go to the soft play and be in very close proximity to C and the father so that she could hear everything.

Ms Z was clear that the mother threatened the centre on the basis that they were not truthful as to how they supervised contact, and she was going to take them to court. It was not the case that the mother simply wanted the court to clarify what supervised contact meant. The mother’s own email was clear. In the context of all the evidence I have read and heard, I do not accept the mother’s evidence. Further, whilst Ms Z’s email was in part based on a conversation with V, I am satisfied that it was accurate.

When the final sessions of contact were to be reviewed Ms Z was clear and I accept that the mother was aware of the plan even though it was only emailed to her the night before the next session was to take place. It was most unfortunate that it was so late. However, the mother knew because there had been discussions and at there had been at least one email from V. The mother says there were errors in the dates and venues. Even if that is right, such were the concerns raised by V that Ms Z was concerned that C would not see her father the next day unless Ms Z supervised contact. By now Ms Z had told the supervisor that their services were not required. Ms Z cancelled her leave for this purpose. But for Ms Z, C would have missed out on seeing her father.

Ms Z’s evidence was also clear that throughout her dealings with the mother, she was very clear to her that she was a family law solicitor. This was not as the mother said in her oral evidence that she was asked her profession at the outset. I accept she was, but it was far more than that; she frequently revisited this saying she knew her rights and the law and she would tell law firms about the centre’s service and would take them to court. This was not in the context of the mother wanting clarification about the boundaries of contact but in respect of their professional behaviour. I accept Ms Z’s evidence. It matters not that I have not heard from V. I accept the evidence is hearsay but it is evidence to which I am entitled to take into account and do. Ms Z took V’s words verbatim namely ‘It was a very threatening conversation where I felt like she was trying to make me aware that she was more powerful than me’ and quoted these words to ensure that they were accurately before the court. Such were the concerns in respect of the mother that a decision was made to terminate contact. This represents an ongoing theme of the mother manipulating others to get her own way and falling out with them if she does not.

Save for the word ‘repeatedly’ ought to be removed from the allegation, as it was not the case with other contact centres, it is made out in full.

Those are my findings. I hope now that both parties will reflect carefully upon this judgment to enable me to make appropriate decisions in due course about C’s welfare.

That is my judgment.