Father v Mother

This is the perfected version of my judgment handed down at 10am on 28 July 2025. It follows the hearing of evidence and submissions over 6 days, 23-27 June and 2 July 2025. Written submissions were filed on 18 and 19 July 2025 respectively. Nothing in this judgment is to be taken as any form of precedent.

This case concerns one child, (“B”). B was born in late summer 2021 and is approaching his 4^th birthday. B lives with his mother (and maternal grandparents) in County X. He has supported and video contact with his father.

The applicant father is (“F”). F represented himself until shortly before the fact-finding hearing, he was represented by Mr Nicolson on a direct access basis. F again represents himself and filed his own submissions, reviewed by Mr Nicolson, who also assists F with sending correspondence. F is 44 years of age and lives in County Y. He denies the allegations made against him and seeks the findings set out in his schedule and statements for the fact-finding hearing.

The respondent mother is (“M”). She is 31 years of age. She is represented by Ms Chhina and assisted by an intermediary, save for day 5. M denies F’s allegations and seeks findings within her schedule and statements for the fact-finding hearing.

The parties met online in July 2020. M was 26 and F was 39. M and her older daughter (“A”) moved into F’s home in around November 2020. The parties separated in January 2022 when M, A and B left the home. A’s father is (“C”). He and M were briefly married when they were around 18 or 19. Mother’s partner (“D”) also featured in the evidence.

F applied for orders on 31 January 2022. The case was heard at the family court in County Y. The papers can be found within Section M of the trial bundle. A final hearing took place before the lay justices on 12 October 2023. Both parties were represented by counsel, with M’s counsel instructed by her current solicitor. The outcome was one of shared care, with B to live with F on alternate Thursdays until Tuesdays and with an equal split of holidays. The schedule to the order recorded that the parents share parental responsibility and shall consult with each other in advance. M raised allegations of domestic abuse. The justices did not consider a fact-finding hearing to be necessary or proportionate.

On 22 December 2023, M made an application under the Family Law Act 1996 for a non-molestation order. Those papers are also within the bundle. In her statement, M describes F as being controlling from August 2020. She alleged emotional abuse and issues with alcohol. On 9 January 2024, F gave an undertaking. No admissions were given or findings made.

On 16 January 2024, F filed a C79 seeking to enforce the final order. On 1 February 2024, M applied for the proceedings to be transferred to Bedford. That was granted by the lay justices in County Y on 13 March 2024.

M suspended contact between 16 May and 27 June 2024. District Judge Gleeson heard the case on 20 June 2024. By that time, there were 4 sets of proceedings before the court, including variation and enforcement. The judge refused M’s application to suspend the child arrangements order.

On 22 July 2024, the lay justices refused M’s application to suspend contact and for a fact-finding hearing to take place. A dispute resolution appointment took place on 25 September 2024. The court listed a further case management hearing on 4 November 2024 and a final hearing on 19 and 20 February 2025. At the case management hearing, the court was satisfied that a QLR was necessary to cross-examine M.

A pre-trial review took place before the lay justices on 16 January 2025. Due to B sustaining an injury only days before, M made an application to suspend contact. The court refused. The court’s facts and reasons record “we felt more evidence was needed before a decision could be made re this. We were aware that a social worker was talking to [B] and would take action if they felt there were urgent concerns”.

M lodged an appeal the following day. I suspended the child arrangements order pending determination of the appeal. I allowed the substantive appeal on 12 February 2025. I suspended the child arrangements order and directed that B live with M. Direct and indirect contact was provided for.

Several hearings have taken place since then. On 6 March 2025, I heard a more substantive hearing to consider interim contact. I have allowed expert evidence from Dr Rouse and determined that a fact-finding hearing was now necessary and proportionate. Both parties make serious allegations of domestic abuse and controlling and coercive behaviour. F alleges “parental alienation”, or alienating behaviours to give it its proper name.

M has made numerous C2 applications. In addition to expert evidence, I determined that her covert recordings were admissible, allowed an intermediary and granted special measures and participation directions. I refused her application for all contact to be supervised, to be able to record video contact and for F to disclose email/WhatsApp correspondence with his witnesses.

In March and again at the pre-trial review, I explained a solicitor’s role to F. At the pre-trial review, I warned him what is meant by DARVO, so that as a litigant in person he might avoid unwittingly assisting the case against him by virtue of his own pleadings.

M has diagnoses of PTSD and dyslexia. An intermediary report set out her difficulties and the need for participation directions. F filed a statement challenging the need for an intermediary and participation directions. His pleaded case is that M’s mental health is a risk to B but his opposition to participation directions was based upon a denial of the diagnoses. It has been difficult to reconcile the two. I directed the attendance of an intermediary on the papers and said that whether F should leave the courtroom for M’s evidence should be decided at court.

I heard submissions as a preliminary issue. In her closing submissions, Ms Chhina now relies upon F’s primary (and instructed) position. The submission was:

“M’s application is frivolous. It is unreasonable to expect people to clear the room whenever she feels threatened or nervous. It is a fact of life that we come across stressful situations every day. She has got to get to grips with life and understand she has to face certain circumstances which may be uncomfortable, but it is one of life’s realities she has to face up to. The fact that my client is in court is irrelevant. Part of my client’s case is that M has overreacted and is of a narcissistic nature. As such she lacks empathy as well as all the other characteristics of a narcissist. For those reasons, she is unaware how her applications have impacted my client, particularly her participation application”.

I ruled that F was to listen to M’s evidence by video from a conference room. He had his laptop with him. He did not have headphones, so I provided a pair. I was told that they did not work with a Mac and that F wanted to come into court because of the court’s Tannoy system. It was duly silenced, and F was able to remain in a conference room. I allowed Mr Nicholson any time needed and to be in continuous electronic communication with F. I also allowed him from 3pm on day 1 to take instructions before deciding whether or not to forego the remaining half-day of timetabled cross-examination, as was indicated. Mr Nicolson put further questions to M on day 2.

With the participation directions, time allowed and practical assistance, I am satisfied that both parties have been able to participate fully and in accordance with their Article 6 rights.

During cross-examination of the Maternal Grandmother (“MGM”), it was put to her that Ms Chhina had prompted her with the dates in her statement. During F’s oral evidence, he suggested that Ms Chhina was the author of M’s messages within AppClose (a parenting app). At the very least, these assertions are without any foundation. Where M has been late in filing documents, the court has addressed it. Ms Chhina is a professional and an officer of the court. I shall consider F’s conduct towards Ms Chhina within this judgment. Suffice to say at this stage, I do not consider her conduct to be at fault in any way.

During his oral evidence, F said that his counsel only had 2 days to prepare. I clarified that no application to adjourn had been made. None was being made then. F confirmed that he was not taking issue with Mr Nicolson.

At the end of day 5, Mr Nicolson made an application for unsupported and overnight contact. The application was made when F was part-heard and was refused.

On Friday 25 July 2025, Mr Nicolson forwarded a further statement from F. No permission to file a statement was sought. I made it clear that permission was not granted and it has not been considered as part of this judgment.

There is no dispute about the legal principles that I must apply. Ms Chhina set them out in her opening note and Mr Nicolson agreed with them. It is still for the court to properly consider and apply the legal principles.

In Re R (Children) [2018] EWCA Civ 198, the President set out the purpose of fact-finding in family cases:

“In family proceedings, the outcome of a fact-finding hearing will normally be a narrative account of what the court has determined (on the balance of probabilities) has happened in the lives of a number of people and, often, over a significant period of time. The primary purpose of the fact-finding process is to determine, as best as can be done, what has gone on in the past, so that that knowledge may inform the ultimate welfare evaluation where the court will choose which option is best for the child with the court’s eyes open to the risks as the factual determination may have established”.

The principles I must apply in terms of fact-finding can be summarised as follows:

Domestic abuse is defined in paragraph 2A of Practice Direction 12J. Coercive and controlling behaviour is defined in paragraph 3 as:

“Coercive behaviour” means 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” means 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.

The same provision defines harm as:

In Re H-N and Others (Children) (Domestic Abuse: Findings of Fact Hearings) [2021] EWCA Civ 448,the Court of Appeal give guidance on the conduct of fact-finding hearings, and held that, inter alia:

InRe L (Relocation: Second Appeal) [2017] EWCA Civ 2121, Peter Jackson LJ held:

“It is equally important to be clear that not all directive, assertive, stubborn or selfish behaviour will be ‘abuse’ in the context of proceedings concerning the welfare of a child; much will turn on the intention of the perpetrator of the alleged abuse and harmful impact of the alleged abuse and the harmful impact of the behaviour”.

In F v. M [2021] EWFC 4, Hayden J held that:

“Key to assessing abuse in the context of coercive control is recognising that the significance of individual acts may only be understood properly within the context of wider behaviour. I emphasise that it is the behaviour and not the repetition of individual acts which reveals the real objective of the perpetrator and thus the true nature of the abuse”.

In Re M [2021] EWHC 3225, Judd J addressed the issue of patterns of abuse and said:

“The reason it was so important for the judge to give very careful consideration to the question of vulnerability in this case is because a vulnerable person may not act in the same way as someone more independent or confident if they are exploited or abused in a relationship. Such an individual may be so anxious for the relationship to succeed that they accept treatment that others would not. They may be easy to exploit. They may not even realise what is happening to them and will cling to the dream of a happy family and relationship…".

Peter Jackson LJ in Re A (A Child: Finding of Fact) [2022] EWCA Civ 1652 stated that:

“Perpetration of domestic abuse is an expression of an aspect of a person's character within a relationship and the fact that a person is capable of being seriously abusive in one way inevitably increases the likelihood of them having been abusive in other ways.”

In Re B-B (Domestic Abuse: Fact-Finding) (Rev 1) [2022] EWHC 108, Cobb J (as he then was) accepted Counsel’s use of the term ‘gaslighting’ to describe insidious abuse designed to cause the other party to question their own mental well-being and sanity. Cobb J (as he then was) also addressed the issue of a vulnerable mother wishing to remain in a relationship with an abuser and the impact that domestic abuse might have on the victim’s ability to recall dates and the sequence of certain events.

In Re EF (Abduction: Hague Convention) (Slovakia) [2023] 505 Fam, Paul Bowen KC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) recognised that “a person’s controlling behaviour may even express itself in an abuser’s willingness to, and the manner in which they, conduct court proceedings against the abused party”.

In GK v PR [2021] EWFC 106, Peel J echoed the need for a holistic overview to determine fluid and nuanced patterns. The impact of vulnerabilities must be considered when assessing the quality of evidence. A court must be alive to the risk that incidents which may appear trivial are overlooked and not relied upon. Intentional conduct is not a prerequisite for a finding of abusive behaviour. The latter principle was held again by Sir Jonathan Cohen in Treharne v. Limb [2022] EWFC 27.

DARVO stands for Deflect/deny, Attack and Reverse the role of Victim and Offender. The term does not yet feature in any binding authority but was found by HHJ Middleton-Roy in Re GB (Parental Alienation: Factual Findings) [2024] EWFC 75(B).

When considering the proper way to assess whether a finding can be made about who caused the burn to B, I remind myself of the public law authorities regarding the pool of perpetrators, most recently considered by Henke J in Re A (Care Proceedings: Non-Accidental Injuries: Identifying the Perpetrator) [2025] EWFC 54. A court should identify a perpetrator where possible. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. There is no room for a finding based upon possibility or suspicion or finding a pool of one. The concept of a pool does not arise where the relevant allegation can be proved to the civil standard against an individual.

In Re C (Parental Alienation: Instruction of Expert) [2023] EWHC 345, the President adopted the ACP’s view and held that:

“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”.

“What is important, as with domestic abuse, is the particular behaviour that is found to have taken place within the individual family before the court, and the impact that that behaviour may have had on the relationship of a child with either or both of his/her parents. In this regard, the identification of ‘alienating behaviour’ should be the court’s focus, rather than any quest to determine whether the label ‘parental alienation’ can be applied”.

The Family Justice Council guidelines expand upon Re C in their paragraph 10. A court has to be satisfied that three elements are established before it could conclude that alienating behaviours have occurred. They are:

Courts are reminded that a child may withdraw from a relationship with a parent for a variety of reasons. A child may come to their own conclusions. They may show alignment with one parent or prefer to spend time with the other, absent a strong view. The 3 A’s can result in the 3 R’s without any alienating behaviour. A court must avoid ‘default’ findings.

M’s allegations are set out in a schedule at p19. They are appropriately clustered and focus largely upon controlling and coercive behaviour. In her submissions, Ms Chhina invites the court to consider the way in which F has conducted his case during the fact-finding hearing as part of a pattern of abusive behaviour.

F’s allegations are set out in a schedule at p41. They form a clustering of his original document at PTR. He pleads controlling and coercive behaviour and alienating behaviour. I give F full allowance for the fact that he was a LIP when his schedule was drafted. Nevertheless, allegations of “dismissing safety concerns” and “double standards” cannot amount to domestic abuse.

I must also decide upon [an unrelated application] and whether the existing non-molestation order should be extended until the next hearing.

I have an enormous trial bundle of 3,863 pages. It has been essential for us all to use the electronic bundle. I have heard oral evidence from E (the nurse), M, F and their respective witnesses. M called her mother and sister (“G”). F called his mother (“PGM”), sister-in-law (“J”) and friends K and L, O and S. F has formally withdrawn statements from his friends T and U. Their statements have been disregarded and shall be removed from the bundle.

Within the bundle are the papers from the previous Children Act proceedings and Family Law Act proceedings. I have disclosure from two local authorities, two police forces, school and GP. I have numerous audio and video files and transcripts of recordings. I have an expert report from Dr Rouse.

The content of statements, messages and emails are set out as written rather than being corrected.

E is a nurse at the surgery in County X. She has provided 2 witness statements, a letter and responded to questions in an e-mail. Her account also features in a doctor’s letter from B’s GP Surgery of 16 February 2025, only a month after B’s appointment. The account reads “She did not recall the child having to undress or of anything unusual in terms of any skin marks, injuries, change in behaviour or abnormal parental interactions during the time of the consultation”.

In her oral evidence, E told the court that B was sitting on F’s lap watching her computer. She described the setup, her table and her use of two screens. She said that she would have the child on a parent's lap and then she would administer the vaccines from behind. She did not remember whether or not B had sleeves on, but it was January. She asked for a coat or jumper to be removed. She could not recall any hesitation, l so did not believe there was any hesitation in that happening. She described how she administers a vaccination on the stated that when she does so, she has a clear view. She asks the child to cross their arms and then gets the parent to do a “crossover cuddle”. If she had seen anything, she would have commented.

E was a clear and independent witness. Her evidence clearly showed her often repeated process of where a child sits, what she asks of them and how she entertains them. She did not depart when challenged on B’s demeanour.

M has filed 11 witness statements. Some are relevant to interim matters and not for fact-finding. Her narrative statement dated 29 April 2025 forms the basis of her case. It has over 750 pages of exhibits, including M’s diary from 2022.

In her oral evidence, M said that contact in the contact centre had been positive. B refers to contact as “his meetings” and he looks forward to them. Sometimes after contact, he hits out at M or D. She said that the day before, B had said that “daddy is going to hit you, [D]”. M told B that F didn't mean it that way. M said that they are positive about F but it is the polar opposite when B comes back from contact. That feels horrible. M made contact with V (F’s ex-wife) for her own peace of mind and to make sure that things were not in her head, as she was often told by F. M did not leave F in 2021 because he made a threat to kill. On the 7 January 2022, F was unwell, and M saw the opportunity to leave. She was not allowed to take the pushchair or car seat. She has recorded video contact for her safety and because F will go to any length with allegations. She had not appealed previous decisions as other hearings might empower him. M denied all F’s allegations. She described them as “soul shattering” and show the lengths that he will go to. M feels that she has to “wrap [B] in cotton wool” as she would be interrogated about any mark. Her parenting of A was also questioned.

In cross-examination, M told Mr Nicolson that W is a family friend and a Guardsman. She acknowledged that contact being suspended would be upsetting for F but said that turning to drink is not the answer. She said that C was not abusive. He cheated on her during their marriage. M said she recorded things because J had told her to evidence everything. She wanted to make sure that it wasn't in her head. M told Mr Nicolson about her parents’ set up for their church. She has no intention of following her parents around the country. M asserted that F did threaten to kill her. He said, “for fuck’s sake [M], I didn't mean the physical act”. M thought that F was trying to kill her mentally rather than physically. Asked about golf, she said that F was shouting about crazy golf and that “I did it wrong”. She denied exaggerating any of her evidence. M said that B had not been christened because of F’s views. M told the court of F's drinking. She said that it could be between 4 and 12 cans of Budweiser every evening. M found V’s details on Facebook and contacted her. M was afraid of repercussions about doing so. M accepted that she did not give B’s passport to F but said that he had the details and would have been able to make bookings without the passport. M said B’s Red Book has been misplaced. F always checks B all over his body every single time. In re-examination, and taken to p2730, M said that she had not seen the GP records before proceedings.

I found M to be measured, clear and compelling witness. There was no sense of “winning” or any measure of exaggeration to her evidence. M was hesitant to criticise F’s conduct even when questions were focused towards it. That was particularly apparent when she was asked questions about welfare. Special measures and participation directions were plainly necessary.

MGM has filed one statement. In her oral evidence, she said that as M’s mother, she felt lost. She needed to do something to protect M. She has seen her at rock bottom. M’s confidence has gone. She is tearful and doesn’t believe in herself. M is in tears when she receives messages from F. M used to be confident, vibrant and would stand her ground. Nothing untoward happened on the morning of 9 January 2025. She and A left the house at 8.20am. There was no indication that anything had happened to B. MGM wrote her statement word for word. She did not use M’s diary. M would say that she could not deal with the amount that F was drinking. She herself had heard cans being opened in the night. She has seen messages on M’s phone. MGM described the burn as unresolved. She said if B fell over, there would be a “barrage of messages”. M would be fearful of doing anything. It is fine to be concerned but not to the extent of every little scratch and then pointing out when a question was not answered. MGM did not say to F that M was his problem now.

I found the MGM to be an honest and credible witness. There was no hostility or exaggeration in her evidence. Her evidence about M’s presentation was compelling and consistent with the video footage and content of messages that I have seen. She was also clear about detail such as hearing cans of drink being opened late at night.

G is M’s sister and has filed one statement. In her oral evidence, she confirmed her statement. She told Mr Nicolson that her paragraph 6 was to highlight that M isn’t one to drink much. She would ‘nurse’ one drink all night. I found G to be a forthright and clear witness. There was little challenge to her evidence. She spoke to her own statement and was not shifted in cross-examination.

PGM is the paternal grandmother. She has filed one statement. In her oral evidence, PGM told the court about F’s cooking and the excellent schools in County Y. She described M as being chatty about C and having her former mother-in-law on her side. She did not say why they broke up. PGM felt that M saw an opportunity in F. Once M was pregnant, she didn’t want F. PGM thought M was trying to get her onside. She felt manipulated and cajoled. She thought that M just wanted F for the baby and wanted to “boss F about and be in total control of her children”. PGM described the court’s decision not to allow F to see B in hospital as “cruel”. PGM thought that co-parenting means being involved in all decisions and being told about any event.

PGM told Ms Chhina that F asked her to “provide something”. She knew what it was for, but he did not say what she had to do. He looked through it as she had to sign it in his presence. He did not change anything. They did not discuss her evidence. PGM thought M would care for her son and F for her. She described M as a strict but good mum with A and “overall very good”. She is only aware of F’s alleged alcohol use from M and has not seen it herself. She finds a threat to kill hard to believe. PGM did not think that M liked F’s friends. She said he was drinking too much. PGM felt that M was trying to get her onside and more pity, “because she would win” and have the children to herself. PGM said that F had not been able to parent because M does not communicate. PGM did not know that M was keeping F updated at the hospital. F did not mention the burn until he said M was coming to pick B up. Prior to B’s birth, F probably did drink more that he should have. She described his drinking in January 2025 as a one-off and not his fault. She has no idea what a functioning alcoholic is. She did not know that her husband had confronted F about his drinking.

PGM’s evidence was clearly given through the prism of her perception of F having been wronged by M. She accepted that she was not present for much of the parties’ relationship which limits the weight that can be placed upon her evidence.

K is a friend of F’s and has filed one statement. In his statement, he says:

In his oral evidence, K said that M had a child with F and decided to leave with no regard of letting him know. He described that as a mirror image of C. He has asked F “various questions”. F has had alcohol testing and as far as he knows, it is not proven. K said he wrote his statement purely by himself. He had no template or guidance. He sent it in Notes (an app) and F would put it into a template. F did not ask for specific matters and to “put down everything that you want to”. He has not had sight of any documents. F told him that M had been tenacious when they first met. By "high and dry", he means having a child, leaving without good reason and doing everything within her power to leave him (F) financially strapped. He described hair strand testing as a “delaying tactic”. He didn’t think that M had been compliant with orders but did not know why. M’s new boyfriend has a red flag for domestic abuse and that is “a massive no-no in my book”. M should undertake a psychological assessment if she has nothing to hide. His views are based upon 2 meetings with M. He clarified 2-3 in re-examination and “it is what is happening over years between her and F”. K said, “it seems that there is a bias on F with tests”.

I found K to be an unreliable and unhelpful witness. K was unable to explain several of his comments in his statement or what he said earlier in his oral evidence. His evidence is largely a repeat of the complaints that F himself has with the court process and matters upon which K does not have first-hand knowledge. His account of F’s frustration with calls is inconsistent with F’s assertion that he is always available. I consider it highly unlikely that he would be able to produce a witness statement that incorporates F’s key points on his own. K’s comments about M’s legal team, and this court, are inappropriate and inaccurate.

L is K’s wife and also a friend of F’s. In her statement, she says:

In her oral evidence, L said she wrote her statement herself. What has happened to F is “more or less a carbon copy”. She met M several times when she was pregnant and again in the garden when B was a few months old. L did not have a template for her statement. She wrote it in Notes and F formatted it. She has not checked whether he has changed anything. She asked F if there was anything she could do to help his case. Her statement was sent back to her to sign. She has not seen court documents. L believes that F is being penalised before anything was investigated. She described the court’s decision allowing B to live with M and not stay with F, when there was no blame either way, as “weird”. L repeated her belief that M should not have received Legal Aid. She described M as being in a house with a man who is “on Claire’s Law for a reason”.

I found L to be unreliable and unhelpful. Unlike K, she was more willing to accept when she had made bold statements without perhaps knowing the full story. She too has replicated some of the complaints F has with the process, although notably a different batch of complaints to those set out by K. L lacks first-hand knowledge. Her comments about Legal Aid are untrue and inappropriate.

O is a friend of F’s and has filed one statement. In his oral evidence, O said he had met B and M a handful of times. It was not regular. Since Covid, he had socialised less frequently with F. O was asked by F to write a witness statement, if he felt comfortable enough. F told him to be honest. O located an email as he was speaking (no party objected). He said, “bullet points to cover – F’s character, personality, anything witnessed, behaviour, support for F’s parenting ability and emotional support for the child”. He was not asked to write about C and said he doesn’t know M well. He has not seen court papers. Without prompting, O said that his word ‘excluding’ sounds harsh. He referred to M and F splitting at a similar stage and that it could be a coincidence.

O was a balanced and helpful witness. He did not seek to criticise M and reflected upon what he had said in his own statement. His evidence about being given a template is credible. Without criticism of him, there is little in O’s evidence to assist the court.

S is a friend of F’s and known by his first name in the papers. He has filed one statement. He says:

In his oral evidence, S said he had met M maybe 10 times. There were a couple of conversations. He said “M doesn’t drive. She has never driven anywhere. That is pretty much public knowledge”. There were instances when he and F couldn’t go out because of “M making up issues of possible appointments”. Asked about M’s online profile, he said “if any more items of clothing are removed, it would violate the terms and conditions”. F showed him the images, which in S’s view say, “come and get me”. He said the photos of the children head and shoulder shots with water covering private areas. S said that F was following the same pattern as C and asked who the next one would be.

S said he had a template to work from “otherwise I wouldn’t be able to compile” (a statement). He has not seen court documents. He doesn’t know a great deal about proceedings. He sees F a couple of times a year, less now. They speak about once a month. He has noticed a complete reversal in F’s personality. He said that F had been accused of excessive drinking as he has proven it through the court system. S was unaware of hair strand test results. S said that F would use M’s pregnancy to excuse her behaviour. There was nothing wrong with her. S said that M’s profile was public. The pictures were fine; it was the lack of clothing that was suggestive. He clarified that to mean a bikini. He didn’t think that was appropriate for a mother. Such a profile “will have one outcome”. S was unaware of M’s job, or financial matters. He described the benefits system as being “very rewarding for single mothers”. He initially suggested that M had trapped F by becoming pregnant within 6 months although acknowledged that F had long wanted a child and that it could have been a joint decision.

Save for his evidence about being given a template, I reject S’s evidence. It was little more than a character assassination and one which lacked any basis. He lacked direct knowledge of many issues about which he spoke and made assertions that are not even made by F himself.

J is F’s sister-in-law, married to his brother. She has filed one statement and appears in several text message exchanges within M’s exhibits. J stated that she did not give her consent to M to adduce the messages and that she felt manipulated. She adds that M “would often make up stories or give misleading accounts about [F]”. She says that she was responding to what she thought was the truth at the time.

J attended court having been summonsed to do so. In her oral evidence, she said that F typed her statement. He went through it with her, and she said what she wanted to be included. They had a conversation, and he put it into writing. The conversation was verbatim. F informed J “quite a long time ago” that M had used her messages. She said they do not reflect the full context. She knew the date before she signed her statement. She had the messages archived on her phone. She assumed that the message at p1242 was one of them. She believed that M was saying. She could not recall stories. M was open with her and mums at school. She believed that F would not let M take the cot but thought she had a car seat. She described the situation as “all very hyped and dramatic”. She couldn’t understand why 2 adults can’t be civil. She described F as not being perfect and having made mistakes. J was not aware of M’s allegations. J was not close to V and could not recall her mentioning abuse. She is in an awkward position. She could not recall whether she had told M to record F or whether M had complained of gaslighting.

The key messages are:

I did not find J to be a credible witness. I find it unlikely that J would be able to guess the exact messages M had produced without being told. I also reject her point about timing – the messages were only filed 2 months earlier. Her evidence about knowing which messages it would be is inconsistent with her assertion that the passage of time since the messages affected her memory of the context. It is more likely that J was a confidante to M, as she was to V, and now regrets it. I do not find her to be dishonest. Her oral evidence was an attempt to retrospectively support F’s case. Despite asserting a lack of context, she has not produced messages from her archive.

F has filed 17 statements. In his oral evidence, F said that he wants B to have a stable home environment. He is concerned for B’s welfare. He sees D as an unknown risk and questions M’s ability to “provide, co-parent and communicate”. F’s drinking would vary but is no means what is suggested. He would have a pint every half an hour when watching football. M would comment when he went out. He denied being a functioning alcoholic. He underwent testing in the first proceedings. F said that B would not be able to touch his heated towel rail or radiator. He described the allegation as “totally unfounded and ridiculous”. F described M’s recordings as “out of context, premeditated and set up”. He denied making a threat to kill. F told the court about his admissions to hospital. He described stress and the “controlling nature of her actions” as causes. He made a new allegation that M was controlling video contact by mouthing “love you, bye” when B was speaking to him. F told the court that he was extremely upset when contact was suspended and consumed far more alcohol than normal. He “has an awareness of some concerns” about M’s dating.

F told Ms Chhina that he and M met on Hinge. She was attractive and had a nice profile. F still doesn’t know why M left him. He did not allege domestic abuse at the time of his application as he wasn’t aware of domestic abuse at the time. Looking back, he has been subject to control and manipulation. F has researched alienating behaviours through single dad groups and various online platforms. He interprets the final order’s preamble to mean “if I felt that I had a question relevant to [B], I feel it is my PR to ask the question”. F opposes any form of religion and could not recall agreeing to B being christened. He denied using allegations of alienating behaviours to get M to back down in court. F was asked about his statement in the preamble to the order of 6 March 2025 where he said both parties were probably guilty of being controlling. He blamed stress and said “if you examine in micro detail, you will find that we both had elements of controlling behaviour. To what extent that is abusive is why we are here”.

Asked about M breastfeeding/Covid, F said “not all newborns have a mother, they might have 2 fathers”. He said that a 5-month-old baby has to be safe from Covid. He went on to describe M as putting herself first by doing what she wants to do. She introduced her partner more quickly than “professional guidance suggests”. B suffered due to a mini break in Canary Islands. F described the issue with W as a miscommunication, saying that ‘bearskin’ either means being naked or the hat a soldier wears. B said he was scared of W when reading Hamilton’s Hats. F accepted he had not mentioned B saying he was scared before. He said that M was controlling him by “assessing my behaviour and isolating me from contact with [B]”.

During his evidence, F suggested that M did not author the messages at p1850. He then suggested that Ms Chhina wrote them because of their formality. When challenged on the setting up of video contact, F said to Ms Chhina, “it is not for you to dictate a time to me”. F categorically denied any abuse of M. Asked about B in hospital, F said it was “well within my rights as a concerned father who is prevented from being beside [B]’s bed. It is a God given right”. F acknowledged being updated but said he called from a “position of care and consideration” as “there wasn’t enough detail”. He agreed it would have been stressful for M but described it as being “doubly stressful from my situation as I wasn’t there”. F accepted that when B was 10 days old it wasn’t unreasonable to have to ask if he could go to the pub. He added that asking was “one of many little things that add up to control”. F did not accept that M’s diary entries were correct. He has not listened to the recordings but has read the transcripts.

F accepted disagreeing at golf but denied shouting. He recalled A socialising with friends in County Z and the pizza they had from Domino’s. He adhered to Covid restrictions “for the safety of myself and family”. He denied pulling M’s top. Asked about A’s diet, he said “I personally believe that [A]’s diet could be significantly improved from eating fresh vegetables, meat and fruit. When they first moved in, I noticed that her diet could be improved. I introduced more fresh food than she was used to”. He denied drinking 4-5 cans a night, having an alcohol problem or being frightening. He denied implying that M was too stupid to write messages, describing the “structure was not in the usual way we would communicate”. He said that M left in October because of a problem with the heating. He couldn’t recall telling her to ‘fuck off’ in December 2021.

F accepted contacting police. He sent an email to the non-emergency address, seeking advice. He did not know where else to turn when false allegations are being made. He did not threaten to kill her. F cannot remember that far back. He denied being drunk. He said, “we all regret arguments” and would happily apologise to M. F accepted saying they could avoid court if they could meet and saying, ‘play nice’. He couldn’t recall saying M couldn’t take the car seat when she left. His parents bought the pushchair. F could not recall when messages on pages 1426, 1300, 1437, 1439, 1443 and 1444 were put to him. He said there was nothing wrong with avocado but the carbon emissions from transporting them are ridiculous.

F said that his observation about shoes was not an accusation. He couldn’t recall whether he went on to buy B shoes. He considered his footwear to be ill-fitting. He has worked in a shoe shop. F acknowledged that his emails in 2022 were potentially confusing. He told the court about a “child maintenance family agreement”. He contacted the CMS, and they told him that he is entitled to (deduct) expenses. F said that M went to School Z and discussed B going there without visiting other nurseries. The first he was aware was the offer letter. M has twice blocked him from speaking to B’s GP. He alleged that M controls the message or information that she provides. He expects parents to communicate in a timely manner and the Magistrates suggested within 24 hours. F did not recall seeing MGM or MGF’s cars on the drive. He would accept MGM’s evidence of seeing M sitting in the corner. F said that he is learning more about parental responsibility and everything he does is for B’s benefit and child focus.

F told the court that he has an A-level in psychology. He asserted that M is a narcissist. He denied weaponizing anything, adding “if I have significant welfare risks for my son, I am entitled to raise them”. F said that he has “diligently researched and presented research and white papers as requested. [B] will be wholly better off with myself”. F believes that he was targeted for a baby as he could provide. The suggestion of being tricked was a bit strong. Both he and M wanted a child. He added “it mirrors 12-13 years ago. M wanted a baby, had a baby and left the father”. F accepted blocking B’s application to School Z and not making another application as “we must decide together”. F referred to B as his “mini-me”.

F denied that p1734 is “prime DARVO” (as was put by Ms Chhina). He said, “I put it back on M that she is doing it and purposefully accusing me” and “I say the same back at her throughout my statements”. He denied dictating to M when she could introduce a partner, saying he cares that B is not misled. He referred to B witnessing D smash a ketchup bottle. F denied stripping B upon return from contact. F referred to being 40 years old and having first aid training. F said there was no way it happened in his care. B didn’t leave F’s sight in his open plan downstairs. They had a microwave dinner. F stood by his comments at p892, of a cover up by M and her mental health difficulties. F disagreed with E. He disputed that his opposition to the instruction of Dr Rouse was because he wanted to cover what happened. He said (with reference to M), “we don’t know who did it, it could be any member of the household”.

Given the length of F’s evidence, I allowed Mr Nicolson considerable time for re-examination. F said that he helped J with her statement as she has dyslexia. He cut and pasted L’s statement from Notes. In January, F collected B at 3.20pm and drove straight to the GP surgery. The appointment was at 4.10pm. The 2024 burn was a “minor dab on the grill” and dealt with accordingly. He denied being obsessed with D or weaponizing M’s health. He said they were both stressed by proceedings. He described the audio recordings as “not nice, devious, callous and premeditated, intended to catch someone out or provoke them”. His concern about A’s diet was the frequency of her eating sausages. F said M had claimed that he smelt of alcohol as a means to cancel contact so she could attend a birthday lunch.

F gave his evidence in a calm and measured way, but he was also guarded, deflective and directing in his answers. His many repeated answers of “I do not recall”, given in response to a wide range of questions is inconsistent with his clear memory about factors that might support his case. He had a tendency to deflect away from difficult questions and would refer to context and either try to increase the significance of something (in his favour) or minimise (if ostensibly favourable to M). He evaded several questions with repeated and fixed answers about not being legally qualified, “50/50 PR” or apparently legitimate welfare concerns for B. F’s evidence was given almost entirely from his own perspective whilst trying to justify that perspective on the basis of B’s welfare. His answer about a “God-given right” is a prime example of that. He attempted to justify any criticism of him with answers in the collective, especially about stress and control. F was, generally, an unreliable witness. His fixed mindset and control were apparent from his oral evidence.

Although my analysis is written in linear form through necessity, it is intended to be read as a whole. I may not refer to all the evidence, but I have read it and considered it. There are too many messages to refer to them all.

F makes 91 allegations which could be clustered into 2 or possibly 3 headings. Evidence in respect of F’s schedule focused on his allegations numbered 1, 6, 8-11, 14-16, 31, 42, 45, 48, 57, 58 and 83. M makes 86 allegations although hers are properly clustered. The court will only consider findings that it is proportionate to consider. Schedules are to assist the marshalling of evidence and not evidence in themselves.

This is a fact-finding hearing, not a welfare hearing. Despite that, I heard and read a surprising amount of welfare-based evidence and submissions (from F). If F’s case was that his welfare concerns for B justify what would otherwise be abusive behaviour, I can see the relevance. But that is not his case.

Save for O, I formed a negative view of F’s witnesses. I do not accept that F did not tell all his witnesses the issues to raise. J, S and O were all clear about their brief from F. O even read his out. There is no credible reason why F would provide a template to some of his witnesses and not others. The oral evidence made clear that F’s witnesses are privy to a considerable amount of information about the case. Given their one-sided and skewed evidence, it is more likely that they have been told about the case rather than read anything. I was repeatedly surprised by the strength with which each gave their views, given their apparent limited involvement with M. O stood very much in contrast and was the only witness called by F who gave his evidence in moderation and accepted when he was not able to speak to a matter.

F and his witnesses place much weight on what they see as a striking similarity between M’s relationships with F and with C. None of them have met C and I do not see how they could form such strong and wholly negative views based upon the limited interactions each of the witnesses have had with M. They also place considerable weight on irrelevant matters, such M living at home in her 30s, being unable to drive and for moving home several times. Notably, F did not take issue with M not prioritising driving lessons when he asked her by text.

The theme of F’s witnesses’ evidence, and confirmed in the main by F, is that M took advantage of F. She wanted another child from a stable partner, left without reason to enjoy the wealth provided by the benefits system, and seeks to exclude F. The implications I would have to draw to reach a such a conclusion bear no resemblance to the evidence or the reality of this case. It is unlikely that M would buy tickets to a concert many months ahead for someone she was about to leave ‘high and dry’.

Where there is a factual dispute or dispute about the interpretation of texts or emails, I prefer M’s evidence. Her case is supported by surrounding and contemporaneous evidence. F’s is not.

There is weight to be placed upon M’s exchange of messages with V. M’s first message to V is dated 16 February 2022. As can be seen from the screenshot, they were not friends on Facebook. V confirms that there was an incident with a TV remote control. She also says that F would gaslight her and described him as a high functioning alcoholic, without M first suggesting either. V later states that “[J] is a good one” and “she was always such an ally with me”.

J’s messages to M come across very much in the same way. I do not accept J’s evidence that she has been manipulated by M. Her messages at p1242 onwards are telling. Her attempts to explain those messages in oral evidence lacked credibility, emphasised by her lengthy answer in support of F towards the end of her evidence.

F has undergone hair strand testing (HST) for alcohol use. A sample was collected on 31 March 2025 and covers a 2½ month period. F’s hair sample was slightly shorter than the usual 3cm. Despite that, Cansford Laboratories conclude that the EtG result is still consistent with chronic excessive alcohol consumption. EtPA was not detected. In response to written questions, Cansford clarified that EtG is the primary marker and a lack of EtPa does not affect their interpretation of the results. The declared use of hair gel and wax could potentially decrease the level of EtPa detected.

Central Bedfordshire Council prepared a Child & Family Assessment (“CFA”) on 20 March 2025. I set out my views of the report at an interim stage in these proceedings and need not repeat them.

F accepts using ChatGPT in his statements. There is no prohibition upon a party from doing so. The risks of doing so are clear from R (Ayinde) v. London Borough of Hackney and Ors [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin), a case in which the High Court was considering the citation of fake cases by regulated lawyers, Dame Victoria Sharp P said:

“Freely available generative artificial intelligence tools, trained on a large language model such as ChatGPT are not capable of conducting reliable legal research. Such tools can produce apparently coherent and plausible responses to prompts, but those coherent and plausible responses may turn out to be entirely incorrect. The responses may make confident assertions that are simply untrue. They may cite sources that do not exist. They may purport to quote passages from a genuine source that do not appear in that source”.

F’s statements in previous proceedings would have been drafted by his solicitor. Although mentioned briefly in his original C1A, there is little mention of controlling and coercive behaviour.

F’s 5^th statement dated 2 November 2024 is the first time that exhibits purporting to show guidance or research emerge. Exhibit 1 at p783 is the ‘guidance’ he referred to in court about when to introduce new partners. Exhibit FX1 to his 12^th statement dated 23 March 2025 is the next example of research, this time about PTSD. There is a curious reference to “UK law” and s31 Children Act 1989. The latter relates to the threshold criteria under Part IV – care proceedings. The conclusion reads “While PTSD does not automatically make a mother unfit to parent, it can create significant challenges that may affect the welfare of her children”. Notably, the references are to ‘mother’ and ‘her’ and not gender neutral. There are several more exhibits that amount to no more than ChatGPT answers to whatever F has asked it.

The pattern continues through several more statements. By the time of F’s 14^th statement (his main statement for fact-finding), AI generated material has become an integral part of the statement rather than an exhibit. Numerous authorities are cited with little context. Many of these authorities are well-known and applicable but there are some cases that are not relevant. ChatGPT features in F’s correspondence to M from January 2025 when he misquotes the law.

It is difficult to distinguish between what F says and what an algorithm tells F to say. Ultimately, when a witness signs a statement of truth, the contents of the statement are their evidence, and they must speak to it.

Unfortunately, I have found little assistance from F’s written submissions. Despite their length, he does not address the oral evidence at all. F also makes new and/or developing allegations that were not put to M or mentioned by him. Like any party, whether represented or not, F’s submissions should have been limited to issues, evidence and examination that was before the court.

F’s written submissions contain reference to matters that have already been determined, as if they are still live issues. I have already determined the admissibility of M’s covert recordings and that a fact-finding hearing is necessary and proportionate. There are also assertions that are incorrect or based upon purported evidence which is not before the court.

F’s written submissions also contain assertions that are contrary to F’s case or matters not put to M in cross-examination. F asserts “since the PTR and the Non-Molestation Order, Mother’s control and alienation has worsened, by trying to provoke, antagonise and get a reaction out of F”. F’s allegation about video contact did not emerge until his oral evidence and was not said in the context of trying to antagonise him. His case was about control. Perhaps more significant is the assertion that “F’s evidence suggests that Mother began laying the groundwork to portray F as an abuser long before the relationship broke down” and “it reflects F’s lived experience of being ensnared in a relationship where the partner was plotting to wield false allegations as tool to remove him once F had served her purpose…. If accepted, it is a chilling example of coercive behaviour, essentially using the threat of law as a means of abuse”. No suggestion of laying groundwork was made by F.

Like Ms Chhina, I do not criticise Mr Nicolson. He can only put matters upon which he has instructions at the time.

F’s exhibits have required significant and repeated cross-referencing to the full messages as they are partial within his exhibits. In summary, I do not find any of F’s allegations proved. His allegations are either not allegations at all, would not fall within the definition of domestic abuse even if proved, unsubstantiated and/or would require an interpretation or implication of evidence that is not made out on the evidence.

I will set out my findings on the allegations that were subject to examination first.

F asserts that M is coercive, controlling and manipulating. He also asserts that she has excluded him from key decisions, undermined his confidence and role as a father and exercised control over contact. None of those aspects are present in these messages. There is nothing amiss in exhibits FX17 and FX18 or the full messages at p3144. F wants to go to the pub; M would like a pizza. F accepted in his oral evidence that FX19 and him asking to go to the pub is reasonable, with a 10-day old baby at home. His subsequent assertion that it was part of control is not made out in this exhibit, especially when M’s previous message that day is considered.

The exhibits around the time that B is 7 months old and breastfeeding are not abusive. Some children might have 2 fathers as F said, but B is not one of them. FX29 is nothing more than a disagreement about contact arrangements. FX38 is the same. FX30 is a discussion about overnight contact. M was not comfortable with the idea due to F’s use of alcohol. In FX45, M wants to know why F had revoked his permission for B to be christened. FX42 is F requesting a copy of B’s birth certificate, which M later provided. M did not need to consult F before registering B with her local GP. The refusal by the surgery to provide F with information was due to the local authority. M gives F medical information as can be seen from their communications. M told the surgery that F is allowed to discuss matters with them.

M does not need to tell F about change in sleep locations. Where M has not replied to F, it is because of her distress. M did not want F to attend the hospital in February 2025. FX109 are messages about when M had not agreed to F retaining B for a further 2 nights without agreement, and in breach of order. M does not have to accede to F’s demands. The volume of communication I have in the bundle tells me that M communicated with F extensively. There is nothing abusive in M asking for B’s passport back. She cannot be criticised for the handover on 30 March 2024. FX132 refers to the video call on M’s birthday in the car. I see nothing wrong with this.

Allegation 1 is not proved. Allegation 45 is a repeat of part of this. It too is not proved.

It is common ground that M suspended contact. Although in breach of an order, I accept M’s reasons. I am also satisfied that F’s report to the local authority was malicious. His oral evidence differed from his written evidence about W. The book he was reading with B was about hats and I do not see how F interprets ‘bearskin’ to justify a report to the local authority. F’s account of the hearing before District Judge Gleeson is not reflected in the preamble. There is no evidence that M’s PTSD impairs her ability to care for B. F’s exhibit was a generic document from ChatGPT. M’s conduct was not controlling. This allegation is not proved.

These are all allegations of controlling and coercive behaviour and can be dealt with together. None amount to controlling or coercive behaviour. FX49 is M responding to F asking her a question which she initially avoided but he demanded an answer. It is not unreasonable for M to choose to collect B from the GP surgery as opposed to F bringing him home when she had agreed F could take him for his vaccine. M asked for B to return home by 2pm on Sunday after F kept him for additional time. That is very reasonable of her in the circumstances and is not controlling. None of these allegations are proved.

My order was sent late on 24 January 2025. Ms Chhina’s email to F is dated the following Monday. F accepted that he did not respond. M had tried to set up the video calls as quickly as possible. F’s response to Ms Chhina’s question made clear that his issue was being given the times rather than them coming from him. His words “you do not dictate to me” can have no other meaning and suggest his focus was on principle and not seeing B. There is no evidence that M has distracted B during video contact. This allegation is not proved.

Allegations 14 and 15 are not proper allegations. They are dismissed. Allegation 16 is irrelevant.

This is one example of F’s apparent understanding of parental responsibility being wrong and being used against M. She did not have any concerns surrounding B’s fluid intake. I found F’s evidence about it to be unclear. It is difficult to see why F took B to the GP. There is no controlling behaviour or “PTSD-related avoidance”, whatever that might be. This allegation is not proved.

There is no evidence of M coaching or influencing B. The evidence, which I accept, supports the contention that M is supportive of B’s relationship with F. That can be seen in the overt as well as covert evidence, her position and her oral evidence.

M’s diary at p1457 is relevant here. I do not accept F’s suggestion that M has somehow created these entries. M was not aware of litigation when she began to write it. It’s “intent and purpose” as F’s puts it in submissions of little relevance if the entries are likely to be accurate. The diary is consistent with the contemporaneous evidence and extraneous matters over which M has no control. M asked F to not smell of alcohol as he had done previously. This is welfare based, not controlling. It is supported by her earlier concerns about alcohol.

Double standards do not amount anything within the definitions of domestic abuse. I prefer M’s evidence to F’s. There is nothing untoward in M’s actions. This allegation is not proved.

M applied for CMS because F did not adhere to the ‘family agreement’ and despite 6 weeks passing, he had failed to make any payment to M. Applying for CMS is not abusive and does not control F financially. F was not paying the assessed liability.

F accepts using the internet to research into alienating behaviours. He uses the outdated term ‘parental alienation’. I shall deal with allegation 5 and the other allegations of alienating behaviours together.

There is no evidence of alienating behaviour or anything that might amount to it within the new definition. F quotes the law and principles of ‘parental alienation’ at length. In so doing, he highlights some of the dangers of ChatGPT. It is not always current and is generic, as shown in repeated use of the term ‘parental alienation’. The exhibits do not acknowledge the need for a court to be satisfied on the facts before reaching a conclusion of alienating behaviour.

B is audibly resistant to F at handovers but there is no evidence of resistance or reluctance by B to having a relationship with F. M gave clear evidence that B enjoys his ‘meetings’ with F and F has produced many photographs supporting that. M does not ignore orders and advice or prioritise her own wishes over B. F is likely to be a strict parent. His own evidence and involvement with A support that. Any resistance that B has at the door is likely to be a consequence of F’s actions. F demands that clothing be removed on handovers. B has witnessed the anxiety F causes on the doorstep. None of the allegations of alienating behaviour are proved.

All F’s allegations of controlling and coercive behaviour fail. I do not consider M to be threatening or commanding in any of her correspondence or messages. She was not unreasonable in her collection of B in January 2025. There is no evidence of her being volatile at handovers in any of the recordings. B’s audible distress at handover is because he does not want to go with F and is not related to anything allegedly done by M.

M did not unilaterally apply for B’s nursery place as alleged. The documentary evidence shows that she informed F that the school invited her to put B’s name down when she moved to County X and went to visit School Z with A. M immediately informed F of their offer in January 2024. He was part of the decision-making process and visited nurseries with B before the parties agreed to School Z Nursery. In respect of the school application, M had consulted F as is evident in communications between them. F told B on 25 January 2024 that they were going to see nurseries. F was controlling about this, not M. She had to submit the application to avoid B missing out on a school place in September 2025.

The original order was for split summer holidays. M initially considered ‘week on week off’ but felt that too many handovers would be harmful to B. She then stuck to the original order. This is not control. In general, M has followed court orders. Her not agreeing to F’s demands is not controlling behaviour. M was not in compliance of the order when she suspended contact in May 2024, for welfare reasons.

F makes a number of medical related allegations. None are proved. There is no evidence to suggest M has dismissed real medical issues. She has appropriately sought medical attention as and when required. There is no evidence that M ever endangered B’s wellbeing. It is unlikely that M prevented the GP from speaking to F. It was the local authority who acted. M called the GP surgery and informed them that F should have access to B’s medical records. There is no evidence to suggest M failed to list F as B’s father when registering him at the GP surgery. The communications show that M has always kept F informed of medical related issues.

There is no evidence that B was tired because he went on a mini break. He seems to have been happy at nursery the following morning. F’s evidence about A not being there is untrue, suggesting that his account from a distance is unreliable.

M has never been ordered to provide F with the type of information that he demands. Nor he to her. His understanding of the final child arrangements order and meaning of parental responsibility are inaccurate and lack credibility. M does not need to inform F of any holiday of less than 28 days or where B will sleep. Given the volume of communications, the suggestion that M doesn’t communicate or co-parent is unarguable.

There is no evidence to suggest that M gaslighted F or used threatening language. Not acceding to F’s requests is not controlling. She is even criticised where she did respect F’s wishes and not have B christened. F’s demands amount to an attempt to control M’s private life. Not allowing him to do so is not controlling or coercive on her part.

In summary, save for some subheadings which I shall set out, I find M’s allegations proved to the requisite standard. I have considered those allegations that it is appropriate and proportionate to consider. All her allegations were subject to examination.

This allegation is made in the context of the age difference between the parties and M’s vulnerability as a sole parent to A. F was aware that M was dyslexic. He professed love for M within a very short space of time.

It is clear from the totality of the evidence that F has been abusive, controlling and coercive of M. He has continued that abuse through his evidence, submissions and the manner in which he has instructed his case to be run. His communications show frequent and often unjustified criticism of M and these were expanded upon in no uncertain terms by F and his witnesses. Even when M’s actions were in B’s best interests, she was not spared from question and criticism.

F has misused the concepts of parental responsibility and co-parenting, coupled with the threat of proceedings, mentions of legal advice to control M. He has inappropriately used the umbrella or ‘catch-all’ of B’s welfare. I do not believe that F did not understand parental responsibility throughout proceedings in which he has represented. His evidence about the meaning of parental responsibility is inconsistent with his own early statement in these proceedings and the justices’ explanations.

F has weaponised M’s mental health. His case has vacillated from saying that M’s mental health is such that she is an unfit mother to opposing her application for an intermediary because he doesn’t accept that she has any conditions. His first ChatGPT exhibit appears to have set the tone for F’s views of PTSD until such time as it would justify the instruction of an intermediary. F has no insight into his behaviour or its impact upon M or B. He ought to have known. Correspondence between solicitors in June 2022, within previous proceedings, makes M’s feelings clear. She raised domestic abuse and its alleged consequences within several court documents.

I do not consider it proportionate to consider each subheading. Overall, I am satisfied that the allegation is proved.

F’s intensity at the beginning of the relationship is clear from the times and dates of their WhatsApp messages. Some allowance needs to be given for the fact that they met in between Covid lockdowns. F began to cause a sense of unease and subordination by August 2020. At crazy golf, G recalls a sense of unease and awkwardness. M said in oral evidence “I did it wrong”.

F has sought to isolate M from her support network. M told the local authority so on 27 January 2022, only days after she left F. She gave further detail in October 2022 and then again to police in October 2024. M described it as “[F]’s way or no way” and how he would use comments when discussing going places. G noted the feeling of distance in her evidence. MGM noted a distinct change in A not coming to her home, within the same time frame that F was critical of A’s diet and her seemingly getting her own way. His criticism was still present in his oral evidence. M’s texts in December 2020 and January 2021 suggest she is caught in between them and pleads with F. His message dated 3 February 2021 is an example. A was crying her eyes out and feeling “pretty shit” within 3 months of moving in. She wanted to move back to the maternal grandparents (“MGP”). F criticised her for being clumsy, at age 8.

F’s alcohol use has featured throughout both sets of proceedings. Both M and V complain about his drinking. His first test in previous proceedings was positive. In the audio recordings, F accepted drinking 4-5 cans a night. The audio evidence records his view that it has minimal impact and that his father had confronted him about his use of alcohol. F asked M on 10 September 2021, “can you fit beer in the compartment of the pram?”. F’s evidence and PGM’s evidence was inconsistent and minimised the issue.

F was psychologically abusive of M. He would tell her that it was all in her head. M described being told that she was mental. Whether or not it was in her head was plainly an issue for M as she discussed it with V and told police in January 2022. F’s conduct since further supports M’s view. He has maintained an allegation that she is a narcissist based upon his AI research despite there being no actual evidence. F did not deny making negative comments about M or her allegation that he wanted her to use her maiden name when B was registered.

M tried to leave F in October 2021. Her account is corroborated by MGM, G and in her messages to J. I am satisfied that F threatened to kill M on 18 December 2021. Although the threat itself is not heard on the audio recording, the aftermath is. F’s comments about the ‘physical reality’ do not make sense without an initial threat. When M did leave, F prevented her from taking B’s necessary items. M’s diary records this and the cost of replacements. M told J what was happening. J accepted in evidence that F did so. On 7 January 2022, F texts M to ask if B has a safe cot.

I am satisfied that M has proved on a balance of probabilities that F was controlling and coercive of her and A during the relationship. F’s actions go from the awkward and uneasy to subtle control and manipulation. Covid gave him a vehicle to exercise that control and further isolate M. F’s oral evidence about his views of A’s diet was telling.

In her submissions, Ms Chhina says, “In aggregate, some of these incidents may appear, in isolation, to be examples of poor communication or relationship dysfunction. However, it is the cumulative pattern and persistent intent behind these acts, particularly the isolation, domination, emotional degradation, psychological manipulation, and threats, that distinguish F’s conduct as coercive and controlling. This pattern stripped M of her autonomy, eroded her mental and emotional wellbeing, and placed her in a continuous state of hypervigilance, fear, and dependence”. I agree.

I do not consider it proportionate to consider each subheading. Overall, I am satisfied that the allegation is proved.

F could not recall whether he had consented to B being christened. He plainly did so from his correspondence. He knew about how important the [church] is to M and her family. He gives no real reason for cancelling and in evidence said he opposed all religion. I accept that F opposes all forms of religion, and it is his right to do so. Religion is very much a matter for parental responsibility. However, F agreed to B being christened. He could not recall that in evidence despite it being apparent in correspondence. There was no good reason for doing so. Linked with his keen wish to have contact on Sundays, his actions were controlling.

F was undoubtedly persistent in wishing to meet with M. There are many such requests in the messages. F’s tone would move from the apparently conciliatory if M agreed to meet, to the subtle threat of court if she did not. He even disclosed purported legal advice via text at one point.

F accepted G’s evidence about his conversation with M about C, in A’s presence. M’s account is supported by her diary. M’s text conversation with J sets out not only her advice to call the police but also the impact of F’s actions upon M.

F’s demand to M to get B when A had Covid out of the house was hostile. It took no account of the fact that M was breastfeeding or that she had the care of A. Her diary extract from 18 January 2022 is compelling. M also noted F calling to apologise, which rather suggests that the diary is neither fake nor exaggerated. For the avoidance of doubt, M’s diary is more likely than not to be genuine. There was little exploration of its authenticity in evidence. Despite the strength of his closing submission, F himself was unsure about it when I directly asked him whether he was saying it was exaggerated, made up or wholly created retrospectively. None are likely.

F refused to hand B back at the door on 20 February 2022. He was plainly angry that she has involved the CMS. He insisted that she cancel the claim. M was audibly upset, and F was uncooperative. F has made repeated requests for M to play nice and act decently. F stood by his messages in court. The messages also show repeated mentions of him being nice himself. These are all subtle threats. There are further incidents of F’s anger at M involving the CMS and his attempts to get her to withdraw the claims. F gave lengthy evidence about the ‘family agreement’ and his displeasure at M’s departure from it was obvious. On 3 March 2022, F referred to “urgent action in your inbox regarding CMS” and refused to accept M’s response.

F attended on 20 March 2022. I am satisfied that he smelt of alcohol. F’s lack of denial does not prove the allegation. It is however consistent with F’s alcohol issues and M’s diary. M’s refusal does elicit a threat from F that would only make sense if M had made such a comment. M’s earlier concerns about F’s alcohol use are set out in her messages (F to M unless stated):

F has repeatedly demanded to know where B is, where he will be and imposed his involvement in M’s private life. As an example:

This message was sent before M met D and before F, on his own case, had cause to have any welfare concerns. In his oral evidence, F made repeated mentions of ‘professional guidance’ about introducing new partners. This was an intrusion into M’s own personal life and not matters for parental responsibility or welfare. It was done to control and intimidate M and hinder her from any new relationship.

Text messages show that from 10 January 2022, F asks M to chat or meet up. He suggests going to the [pub] to see his friend playing on 14 January, to town on 15 January and again on 17 January. The messages continue and can also be seen in M’s diary. These messages are within the same time frame as F expecting too much information about B and using his parental responsibility as a device to so. I set them out together for context:

M was questioning and at times resistant to F’s demands. She accepts that she did meet up on occasion as she felt doing so would avoid court. Despite M’s resistance and refusal to meet up, F continued to harass and pester M to meet up with him. In May 2022, F suggested a holiday together, despite accusing M of abducting B only months earlier. M told F that she finds his requests confusing. F would move from criticising her and being demeaning, to wanting to consistently meet up, talk, go out and even go away on holiday. In July 2022, F wrote in the communication book “This is communication book of which you aren’t communicating to my reasonable request to see [B] a bit more as I have free time”.

Later, despite being asked to communicate with M’s solicitor (in no uncertain terms), he continued to contact directly. I do not consider it coincidence that F was at A’s school. This was all uninvited and unwanted communication amounting to harassment. Some of it takes place when M is attending to B’s health needs.

There are several matters which F has raised which have no link to parental responsibility or welfare. These have kept M engaged in discussion with F and trapped her in a harmful dynamic. The effect of the messages shows that. F’s entry in the communication book on 12 October 2022 speaks volumes, “I have six questions around his welfare and day to day routine. I’d still like 5 minutes to talk these through as they can’t be answered in writing. For his benefit can we have a call or chat soon please”. The communication book is littered with requests from F to explain every mark and bruise, even when B has played football. F imposed his own 3-month rule for notice of changes to arrangements on 24 June 2023. On more than one occasion, F questions B’s speech in a way that implies criticism of M. F’s messages to M on 22 September 2024 onwards are controlling, inappropriate and misrepresent what happened in court. The correspondence is relentless.

On 18 December 2022 at 8.42pm, F emailed M. He doesn’t actually say that he loves her but does say he misses M and the children. He writes in the context of the film Love Actually, where love and honesty are expressed at Christmas time. This must have been confusing for M having been sent almost a year after their separation. It is part of a pattern of controlling and coercive behaviour.

F contacted M’s neighbour in September 2022. I found his oral evidence about this issue to be sinister. I can, to an extent, understand a ‘thank you’ card being sent. However, F’s card asks whether he has the correct neighbour and leaves his telephone number. It is more likely than not that he was checking out what M had told him.

On 9 October 2022, and despite being told that B was unwell, F turned up. He remained outside her property and sent short and demanding messages. They take no heed of what M says or her prioritising of B. In the Ring footage, B can be heard screaming. F was of the view that he had a right to be there. In evidence, he questioned why MGM should take B when he could be there. This incident post-dates the letters from Ms Chhina. F should have known better.

I take a step back and look at the totality of the evidence, conduct and consequence. There is a clear, consistent, and insidious pattern of controlling and coercive behaviour by F. I can see no reason other than it was designed to exert influence and dominance over M. It was not about B’s welfare. The telling factor is F’s disregard of explicit requests for communication to be routed through solicitors. He carried on regardless.

M was repeatedly placed in situations where she felt pressured, fearful, or emotionally distressed. She could not easily refuse F or put an end to communication due to their ongoing parental link, of which she was often reminded. F referred to 50/50 and his parental responsibility many times in court. The cumulative effect of F’s abusive actions resulted in M altering her conduct, withdrawing CMS claims and agreeing to demands. This was emotionally harmful to her.

F accepts emailing M on 13 October 2023 to demand over £4,000. This was the day after the final hearing. F knew that M was on benefits (as his witnesses mentioned several times) and would not have the means to pay. There is no evidence that the CMS gave F such advice. Mentioning them gives his threat an official veneer. Such was M’s concern that she telephoned the CMS. The telling lines are M saying “would you insist that if I owe him money, he has to write to me, cos I thought that would have come from you guys, given your involved”. The call handler says “Yeah, er, gosh, that is a strange one” and later “don’t be allowing him to manipulate you and make you feel like you have to pay him money of any sort”. This is abusive and manipulative.

It was followed only days later by F suggesting that he and M cohabit. Sensibly, M did not reply. F pursued the matter again days later. It is unlikely that B would have made up what M relayed to the nursery.

F’s views of religion and the [church] were clear from his evidence. His wish for video contact on a Sunday is unlikely to be a coincidence and more likely to be an attempt to prevent M from going to church.

It is notable that M applied for a non-molestation order in December 2023. F gave an undertaking. There are no admissions or findings in respect of his conduct. Despite the undertaking, contact has continued.

F’s report to the local authority is malicious. His explanation in evidence lacks credibility and he added potentially significant detail for the first time in the witness box. I consider it unlikely that B said that he was scared of W. Given the correspondence and the totality of my findings, F would have raised it with M. F’s opening message refers to it possibly being “significant or nothing”. He asks for a reply ASAP and sent a follow up message the following day. There is no mention of B being scared of W until F’s referral to the local authority some 5 days later. The consequence is that M had to explain to a social worker that their family friend has not been naked around B. B was in M’s care at this point. MGM gave compelling evidence of the impact on M. M began medication within weeks of this event. The police noted M’s presentation. M cancelled contact through solicitors but F still showed up the following day.

F’s communications have been oppressive, harassing, intrusive, demanding and controlling. F seeks for M to account for every mark to B and seems to ignore the possibility of the natural behaviour of a young child. F speaks down to M in messages and gives the sense of assessing her parenting based upon what he has read or purports to have some experience of (e.g. shoes). That disdain was apparent from his witnesses and F’s own conduct at handovers. His statements are graphic illustrations of what he thinks. Despite statements by M in which she sets out the impact on her, there has been no real let up. F’s submissions serve only to add to that.

F’s actions have questioned M’s parenting, finances, faith and friends. F does not observe boundaries or see M as an equal parent. It is more likely than not that F’s conduct during this period was deliberate, strategic, and designed to intimidate, harass and destabilise M. These acts are a pattern of controlling and coercive behaviour. This allegation is proved.

I do not need to consider each subheading. Overall, I am satisfied that this allegation is proved.

F’s C79 application is misplaced. There were no breaches of order when it was filed. Save for the suspension of contact in May 2024, any suggestion by F that M does not comply with orders is undermined by his comments in Ring footage on 3 July 2022. His suggestion of being happy to suit M implies positive co-parenting but his conduct did not live up to it.

I have already set out my findings in respect of F’s knowledge and involvement in looking for a nursery for B and the loss of his Red Book. Other matters alleged by F as part of his ongoing case are plainly wrong:

There is no evidence of alienating behaviours, as set out in my findings within F’s schedule. The repeated raising of ‘parental alienation’, especially based upon internet research and AI was designed to bully M. F’s own explanations about how the previous courts and their counsel dealt with the allegations support that. F portrays the outcome as some sort of transaction or bargaining chip.

I have already said that is more likely than not that F has weaponised M’s PTSD. I saw the end part of that in court. F maintained in evidence that M is a narcissist when she plainly is not. F referred to “research and white papers”. He maintained course despite statements, letters and ultimately warnings from the court. F did not agree when I asked him in evidence whether he thought his correspondence might be seen as overly formal or business-like.

In his submissions, F refers to M’s allegation of DARVO as being DARVO towards him. His full submission reads:

I accept Ms Chhina’s submission that F’s schedule, and indeed his case itself, amounts to DARVO. F has sought to recast himself as a victim of abuse by M, when the evidence very much points the other way. He even seemed to accept the suggestion in part during his oral evidence when he referred to “throwing it back” to M. His own schedule is a clear example of DARVO, a finding supported by F’s case about alienating behaviours and narcissism. Sadly, he added to the problem in the witness box by making new allegations that mirror M’s and furthered that again in his submissions. Parts of them could almost be a photocopy with ‘M’ and ‘F’ simply swapped over. F went on to claim alienating behaviours in the form of M’s conduct during the audio calls in his April 2025 statement. There is no evidence to suggest what F claims. The evidence suggests the contrary. There is also no evidence to link F’s health with anything said or done by M.

The allegations against Ms Chhina are misplaced and inappropriate. It is unlikely that Ms Chhina would be asked, and even less likely that she would actually compose messages for M, especially on New Year’s Day. Even if M asked for advice on how to respond, there would be nothing wrong with doing so as the ambit of professional advice could easily include advice on how to respond to F. F has continued these attacks despite my repeated warnings. He has done so to try to undermine Ms Chhina’s role in the case. There can be no other credible explanation for his ChatGPT “research” about the duties of solicitors. He knew from March that Ms Chhina would be representing M at trial.

I also consider F’s litigation conduct to be a continuation of controlling and coercive behaviour and abusive behaviour. It is more likely than not that he has tried to isolate M from her supporters, be they family, partner or solicitor. He has continued that approach through his instructed position at court. F’s position about an intermediary is set out earlier in this judgment. There was no basis for M’s profile photograph or M’s alleged lifestyle (“a sexual person”) to be raised.

I must keep Lucas in mind. I am satisfied that F has lied in his evidence. He has misled the court, professionals and agencies about health, education, finance, compliance and everyday parenting matters. Details have been twisted or left out of statements to portray them as true. There is a pattern of behaviour, aimed at undermining M in the eyes of professionals and ultimately, the court. F has repeatedly framed M’s health as a safeguarding risk and used it as justification for seeking to change residence. F’s views were vocally shared by his witnesses. He has tried to portray himself as the victim or aggrieved party.

M has given clear oral and written evidence about the impact upon her. She has been diagnosed with PTSD and prescribed a high dose of Sertraline. MGM gave a vivid description of the physical impact on M, supported by the accounts of G and the police documents. It is more likely than not that F’s abusive behaviour has caused M significant and enduring psychological, emotional, and physical harm. F is correct when he says that M’s PTSD could impact upon her capacity to parent effectively. He is the likely cause. I accept M’s evidence. Allegation 6 is proved.

I have already made findings in respect of handovers, supported by the Ring footage. It shows not only F’s conduct at handovers but the extent to which F demands the return of B’s clothes. Whether those clothes were purchased by F or not is not the issue. It is the impact on B of being stripped on the doorstep, especially during the colder months.

There was no proper basis for F seeking blood tests for B based upon his fluid intake. M told F that she did not have concerns about it. M was concerned about F’s insistence that he have blood tests. There is no evidence in the bundle of any medical concern or belief that B’s fluid intake was a problem. F does not demur from the suggestion that he checks B over. That is supported by communications. M raised it with F in December 2024 and reported F’s “full body checks” to the local authority. It is notable that social workers considered that B had fewer marks than expected for a child of his age. M and MGM both used the term “wrap [B] in cotton wool” and detailed the impact of repeated questioning.

I heard submissions from or on behalf of both parties regarding school earlier in proceedings. F accepted placing a block on B’s application to school without having made an alternative application. I acknowledge that he did not feel that he could, or that M should have done so, because of the parental responsibility position. Had I not removed the block, B could have been left without a primary school place or been given an unsuitable one.

I need say little more about F’s witnesses and the environment B would be exposed to. The risk to B of being exposed to such uninformed derogatory views of his mother was plain to see.

I am satisfied that this is proved on a balance of probabilities.

Factually, I accept M’s case about the first burn in July 2024. M accepted F’s explanation and, importantly, so did the lay justices. F does not dispute that B suffered a burn and says he came into contact with a hot grill. That should not have happened and was due to a lack of supervision. F failed to mention to M what really happened until she was told by B and asked F what had happened. Beyond that, I make no finding.

The burn in January 2025 remains relevant because the court has to consider whether a perpetrator can be identified and how each of the parties reacted to it.

Dr Rouse is a forensic pathologist. He has filed a report dated 24 March 2025 and responded to questions from both parties. Dr Rouse considers that the burn is a second-degree burn, likely caused by contact with a hot linear object or edge of same of roughly 100-160°C. He would expect a child to exhibit signs of immediate distress. The likely timeframe is “at most a few hours and less than 12 hours prior to that photograph”, that photograph was timed 9 January 2025 at 1940 hours. Dr Rouse believes the cause to be accidental as a linear shape implies a rapid on and off heat source. He adds “it would be difficult to envisage administration of a vaccine to that arm in the presence of such an injury, without the practitioner involved being aware of that injury to the forearm”.

F relies upon disclosure of the medical notes at p2730. The note by a GP from B’s surgery on 15 January 2025 reads “History – brought in by mum -burn mark right forearm – sustained 5d ago whilst with father [parents separated] apparently mum says that the injury was apparently sustained at nursery”. The GP noted extreme difficulty in examining B and that he was clinging to M.

Dr Rouse’s view is borne out by the evidence of E. There was an impression of ‘muscle memory’ in how she sets children up for their vaccinations. I accept her evidence that there was nothing that stood out about B. She was not challenged about her record of the appointment ending at 1622 hours.

F places considerable weight on the medical record (above). It is likely that is an error because there is no evidence to suggest that the burn was caused at nursery. If it was, it would mean that E and Fdid not see it when B had his vaccinations. Given E’s experience (and evidence) and how F routinely examines B, it would be remarkable if both missed such an injury right in front of them. I accept that B’s time at nursery falls within Dr Rouse’s timeline.

If F genuinely thought that M had caused the burn, he would have questioned her in his messages. He has been relentless in his questioning on many trivial issues. It is highly unlikely that he would have let a burn go unquestioned. I also consider it likely that F would have questioned the nursery if he thought it happened there. Likewise, had B been defensive or sheepish with him, he would have challenged M.

B’s response to M was said to be out of character. I accept M’s account at p942 of her conversation with B following an unsupervised contact session on 2 March 2025. B said, “my burn happened at nursery or mummy’s house but not in daddy’s back garden” and “it’s a secret in daddy’s garden, does daddy have a back door”. The difference between how the parties and B responded to the two burns is telling. B did not tell M what happened in 2025 but did in 2024. M says that she recognised that something was off when B failed to speak about the injury. B’s failure to voice how the injury occurred is uncharacteristic. B’s comments to M only weeks later suggests some coaching by F.

I consider it unlikely that the burn occurred in M’s care for partly the same reason. It would mean stretching the 12-hour window nearer to its limit. It would also add the nursery to the above list of people who missed the injury, making it even more unlikely. It is also inconsistent with the credible and clear evidence of MGM. Therefore, I consider it more likely than not that B sustained the burn when in F’s care. F failed to seek medical treatment for B. The only credible explanation for B’s comments to M is that he is repeating a version of what F has suggested to him. F has sought to blame or imply fault to M, the maternal family and the nursery.

F is entitled to oppose an application for a Part 25. I make no adverse finding. As with any unexplained injury, there is a risk of local authority involvement. I do not make a finding that removal was a risk given the contents of the CFA.

Save for the above, I am satisfied that this allegation is proved.

That concludes my judgment in respect of fact-finding.

When Mr Nicolson emailed F’s submissions to me, he copied F in. Litigants should not be given judicial email addresses. Mr Nicolson assures me that he has warned F not to use my email address. I shall make that a direction that F is not to email me directly. Any email sent directly will not be read.

[Unrelated application].

Given my findings, I will extend the non-molestation order until the next hearing.

The Father has subjected the Mother to coercive and controlling behaviour by establishing a pattern of acts over an extended period of time designed to threaten, humiliate, intimidate, harm, frighten and/or punish the Mother, further resulting in subordination and isolation of the Mother. This conduct was characterised by the abusive behaviours found by the Court throughout the full judgment.

The Father continued his abuse through his evidence, submissions and the manner in which he has instructed his case to be run [125].

The Father has misused the concepts of Parental Responsibility and co-parenting, coupled with the threat of proceedings, mentions of legal advice to control the Mother [136]

The Father has weaponised the Mother’s mental health [137].

The Father has no insight into his behaviour or its impact upon the Mother or B, he ought to have known. [137].

Mother’s Allegation 2 - CCB during the relationship [July 2020 – Jan 2022]

The Father began to cause a sense of unease and subordination by August 2020 [139].

The Father has sought to isolate the Mother from her support network [140].

The Father’s evidence on his alcohol use during the relationship was inconsistent and minimised the issue [141].

The Father was psychologically abusive of the Mother, he would tell her that matters were all in her head and that she was mental [142].

The Mother tried to leave the Father in October 2021 [143].

The Father threatened to kill the Mother on 18 December 2021 when she tried to leave him [143].

When the Mother left on 7 January 2022, the Father did not permit her to take some of B’s belongings including his cot [143].

The Father was controlling and coercive of the Mother and A during the relationship. Covid gave him a vehicle to exercise that control and further isolate the Mother [144].

The effect of the Father’s abuse was to strip the Mother of her autonomy, eroded her mental and emotional wellbeing and placed her in a continuous state of hypervigilance, fear and dependence [145].

Mother’s Allegation 3 – CCB [Jan 2022 – October 2023]

The Father’s action to revoke approval for B’s christening post separation, linked with his keen wish to have contact on Sundays were all controlling to prevent the Mother attending church on a Sunday [147].

The Father was persistent in wishing to meet with the Mother, his tone would move from conciliatory to the subtle threat of Court if the Mother did not agree to meet [148].

The Father’s demands to get B out of the house when A had Covid was hostile [150].

The Father refused to hand B back to the Mother at the door on 20 February 2022. [151]

The Father’s comments to the Mother of ‘play nicely’ and ‘act decently’ were all subtle threats [151].

The Father smelt of alcohol on 20 March 2022 when he attended the Mother’s home to collect B [152].

The Father’s messages to the Mother as identified in the judgment were an intrusion into the mother’s personal life and not matters for PR or welfare. It was done to control and intimidate the Mother and hinder her from any new relationship [154].

Despite the Mother’s resistance and refusal to meet up with the Father, he continued to harass and pester her to meet up with him [156].

In May 2022 the Father suggested a holiday together, despite accusing the Mother of abducting B only months earlier [156].

The Father would move from criticising the Mother, being demeaning to wanting to consistently meet up, talk, go out and even go away on holiday. [156].

Despite being asked to communicate with Mother’s solicitors, the Father continued to contact the Mother directly. The Father turned up at A’s school at pick up time on 7 July 2022. This was all uninvited and unwanted communication amounting to harassment, some of which took place whilst the Mother was attending to B’s health needs [157].

The Father raised several matters which had no link to PR or welfare. These communications have kept the Mother engaged in discussion with the Father and trapped in a harmful dynamic [158].

The Father’s email to the Mother on 18 December 2022 was confusing for the Mother and formed part of a pattern of the Father’s coercive and controlling behaviour [159].

The Father contacted the Mother’s neighbour in September 2022 to check out what the Mother had told him [160].

The Father’s conduct on 9 October 2022, whilst B was unwell, was demanding and the Father should have known better [161].

There is a clear, consistent and insidious pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour by the Father. It was designed to exert influence and dominance over the Mother. It was not about B’s welfare. [162].

The Mother was repeatedly placed in situations where she felt pressured, fearful or emotionally distressed. The cumulative effect of the Father’s abusive actions resulted in the Mother altering her conduct, withdrawing CMS claims and agreeing to demands. This was emotionally harmful to the Mother [163].

Mother’s Allegation 4 – CCB [October 2023 onwards]

The Father’s email to the Mother on 13.10.2023 was manipulative and abusive [164].

It is unlikely that B would have made up what the Mother relayed to the Nursery regarding him suggesting she should live with the Father [165].

The Father’s wish for video contact on Sunday was an attempt to prevent the Mother from going to the church [166].

Despite the Father’s undertakings to the Court in January 2024, he continued contacting the Mother [167].

The Father’s report to the Local Authority in May 2024 was malicious [168].

The Father’s communications to the Mother have been oppressive, harassing, intrusive, demanding and controlling [169].

The Father seeks for the Mother to account for every mark to B and seems to ignore the possibility of the natural behaviour of a young child [169].

The Father speaks down to the Mother in messages and gives the sense of assessing her parenting [169].

The Father’s disdain was apparent from his witnesses and the Father’s own conduct at handovers. [169].

The Father’s statements in the proceedings are graphic illustrations of what he thinks. Despite the Mother’s statements which set out the impact on her, there has been no real let up from the Father. His closing submissions serve only to add to that [169].

The Father does not observe boundaries or see the Mother as an equal parent. [170]

The Father’s conduct during this period was deliberate, strategic and designed to intimidate harass and destabilise the mother. This is all a pattern of the Father’s coercive and controlling behaviour. [170].

Mother’s Allegation 5 – Lawfare

The Father’s C79 was misplaced and there were no breaches of the order when it was filed [172].

Other matters alleged by the Father as part of his ongoing case are plainly wrong [173].

There is no evidence of alienating behaviours. The repeated use of ‘parental alienation’ was designed to bully the Mother. The Father portrays the ‘agreement’ of November 2024 for him to not pursue his allegations and the Mother shall not pursue hers as some sort of transaction or bargaining chip [174].

The Father has weaponised the Mother’s PTSD in the proceedings [175].

The Father has maintained in evidence that the Mother is a ‘narcissist’ when she plainly is not [175].

The Father maintained course in respect of the weaponization of the Mother’s PTSD despite statements, letters and ultimately warnings from the Court [175].

The Father’s schedule of allegations against the Mother and his case itself amounts to DARVO [177].

The Father has sought to recast himself as a victim of abuse by the Mother when the evidence very much points the other way [177].

In the witness box the Father made new allegations that mirror the Mother’s and furthered that again in his written closing submissions [177].

The allegations made by the Father against the Mother’s Solicitor are misplaced and inappropriate. The Father continued the attacks against the Mother’s Solicitor despite repeated warnings from the Court. The Father has done so to undermine the Mother’s Solicitor’s role in the case, in the knowledge that the Mother’s Solicitor would be representing her at trial [178].

The Father’s litigation conduct is a continuation of his coercive, controlling and abusive behaviour [179].

The Father has tried to isolate the Mother from her supporters, be they family, partner or Solicitor. [179].

There was no basis for the Mother’s profile photograph or the Mother’s alleged lifestyle “a sexual person” to have been raised during the trial [179].

The Father has lied in his evidence. He has misled the Court, professionals and agencies about health, education, finance, compliance and everyday parenting matters. [180].

The Father has left details out or twisted them in his statements to portray them as true [180].

The Father’s conduct is a pattern of behaviour aimed at undermining the Mother in the eyes of professionals and ultimately the Court. [180].

The Father has repeatedly framed the Mother’s mental health as a safeguarding risk and used it as justification for seeking to change residence whilst trying to portray himself as the victim or aggrieved party [180].

Mother’s Allegation 6 – the Impact on the Mother

The Father’s abusive behaviour has caused the Mother significant and enduring psychological, emotional and physical harm [181].

The Mother’s PTSD could impact upon her capacity to parent effectively, the Father is the likely cause of this [181].

Mother’s allegation 7 – Harm to B post separation to January 2025

There is no evidence of resistance or reluctance by B to having a relationship with the Father [125].

The Father is likely to be a strict parent [125].

Any resistance that B has at the door is likely to be a consequence of the Father’s actions [125].

The Father has demanded that clothing be removed on handovers and B has witnessed the anxiety the Father causes on the doorstep [125].

There was no proper basis for the Father seeking blood tests for B based upon his fluid intake [183].

The Father’s “full body checks” of B have had an impact including the Father’s conduct of repeated questioning of the Mother in respect of any marks on B [183].

Had the Court not removed the block on B’s school application, placed by the Father, B would have been left without a primary school place or been given an unsuitable one in September 2025 [184].

There is a risk of harm to B from being exposed to such uninformed derogatory views of his Mother [185].

Mother’s Allegation 8 – Harm to B in July 2024 and January 2025

The burn to B in July 2024, in the Father’s care should not have happened and was due to a lack of supervision. The Father failed to mention to the Mother what happened until she asked him [187].

The Father coached B following the January 2025 burn [194].

B sustained the burn when in the Father’s care in January 2025 [195].

The Father failed to seek medical treatment for B following the burn [195].

The only credible explanation for B’s comments to the Mother is that he is repeating a version of what the Father has suggested to him [195].

The Father has sought to blame or imply fault to the Mother, the maternal family and the nursery in respect of the January 2025 burn [195].

Ancillary findings

The Court do not consider the Mother’s Solicitor’s conduct to be at fault in any way [20].

The Paternal Grandmother’s evidence was clearly given through the prism of her perception of the Father having been wronged by the Mother [60].

K was an unreliable and unhelpful witness. It is highly unlikely that he would be able to produce a witness statement that incorporates the Father’s key points as his own. His comments about the Mother’s legal team and this Court are inappropriate and inaccurate [63].

L was an unreliable and unhelpful witness. Her comments about legal aid are untrue and inappropriate [66].

S’s evidence was little more than a character assassination and one which lacked any basis. [72].

J was not a credible witness. The Court finds it unlikely that she would be able to guess the exact messages the Mother had produced without being told. Her oral evidence was an attempt to retrospectively support the Father’s case [76].

The Father was guarded, deflective and directing in his oral evidence [87].

The Father’s evidence was given almost entirely from his own perspective whilst trying to justify that perspective on the basis of B’s welfare [87].

The Father attempted to justify any criticism of him with answers in the collective, especially about stress and control [87].

The Father was generally an unreliable witness. His fixed mindset and control were apparent from his oral evidence [87].

The Court does not accept that the Father did not tell all his witnesses the issues to raise [91].

The Father’s witnesses are privy to a considerable amount of information about the case. Given their one-sided and skewed evidence, it is more likely that they have been told about the case rather than read anything [91].

The Father and his witnesses placed much weight on irrelevant matters [92].

The Court places weight upon the Mother’s exchanges with the Father’s ex-wife V who said that the Father would gaslight her and described him as a high functioning alcoholic [95].

It is difficult to distinguish between what the Father says and what an algorithm tells the Father to say, ultimately the contents of the statements are the Father’s evidence [103].

The Court found little assistance from the Father’s written submissions. He made new and/or developing allegations that were not put to the Mother or mentioned by him [104].

The Father’s written submissions also contained assertions that are incorrect or based upon purported evidence which was not before the Court [105].

The Father’s written submissions also contained assertions that are contrary to the Father’s own case or matters not put to the Mother in cross-examination [106].

The Father’s allegations against the Mother are not found. They are either not allegations at all, would not fall within the definition of Domestic Abuse even if proved, unsubstantiated and/or would require an interpretation or implication of evidence that is not made out on the evidence [108].

The Mother did not need to consult the Father before registering B with her local GP. The refusal by the surgery to provide the Father with information was due to the local authority [111].

Where the Mother has not replied to the Father is it because of her distress [112].

The Court accepts the Mother’s reasons for suspending contact in May 2024 [114].

There is no evidence that the Mother’s PTSD impairs her ability to care for B [114].

There is no evidence of the Mother coaching or influencing B. The evidence supports the contention that the Mother is supportive of B’s relationship with the Father [119].

There is no evidence of alienating behaviours or anything that might amount to it [124].

B’s audible distress at handover is because he does not want to go with the Father and is not related to anything allegedly done by the Mother [126].

The Father was controlling about B’s school application not the Mother [127].

The Mother not agreeing to the Father’s demands is not controlling behaviour [128].

There is no evidence that the Mother has ever endangered B’s wellbeing [129].

The Father’s evidence about A not being on the Canary Island mini break is untrue [130].

The Mother has never been ordered to provide the Father with the type of information that he demands, nor he to her. [131].

The Father’s understanding of the final CAO and meaning of PR are inaccurate and lack credibility [131].