K v B & Ors

I am concerned with three children, who are A aged 5, IS aged 7 and I aged 8.

This is the father's application for a lives-with order and a prohibited steps order preventing the children's removal from the jurisdiction.

At the outset of the application the father had had no meaningful contact with the children since July 2023 when the parents finally separated after a brief reconciliation, following an initial separation in November 2022.

I note that there were non-molestation proceedings under BM24F05095, which were resolved by way of cross-undertakings on 14 March 2025.

Within those proceedings the mother alleged controlling behaviour, verbal abuse, threats to kill, an incident in 2021 where she was pushed, and a further incident culminating in a separation in November 2022 in relation to non-fatal strangulation and a push to the face. She alleges the father placed a tracker on her car. The police were contacted, but she did not press charges. The children have also disclosed domestic abuse to the school.

Father in his response document denies these allegations.

On 8 May 2024. within the private law children proceedings, it was determined at that stage that a finding of fact hearing was not necessary, in line with the CAFCASS officer's recommendations, and indirect contact was ordered. There was also a section 7 report directed which recommended indirect contact only, attendance at a Parenting Better for Children course, and a Freedom Programme.

By order of 22 August 2024 the matter was listed for a final hearing, despite the father's protestations as to the report's assumptions. Mother alleges that domestic abuse was a feature in the relationship. It was also recorded at that time that the mother had changed the children's school without consultation.

On 11 November 2024 a Children's Guardian was appointed, the issue being CAFCASS's assumption of the factual basis for recommendations based upon unproven allegations of domestic abuse. The matter was reserved to District Judge Hadley, who gave a written judgment.

He commented that the child's recollections of life at home were red flags, there is an assertion of parental alienation, and that further assessment was needed.

The matter first came before me on 5 February 2025.

Within my order it was agreed for there to be video calls between the children and the father, initially supervised by the Children's Guardian and thereafter the safeguarding teacher, and with progression to direct contact, supervised in the first instance by the Children's Guardian.

At that stage I determined that a finding of fact hearing was necessary, I also determined that no Re W hearing was needed, and going forward would also consider the issue of interim contact. The parties gave various cross-undertakings with the father's allegations against the mother being limited to that of alienating behaviour.

By order of 10 March 2025, video calls between the children and the father were arranged at three-weekly intervals, facilitated by the Children's Guardian at the school, with a view to progression to face-to-face contact at the discretion of the Children's Guardian.

At that stage the mother's substantive cross-allegation in relation to domestic abuse were substantially cut down.

I directed a report from the school with regards to the observations of the meeting between the children and the father on 12 February 2025, and the observations of video contact with the father on that occasion, and the subsequent telephone call with the mother.

By order of 15 April 2025, I directed a forensic analysis of the various phones in relation to messages which have been filed with the court in evidence, due to the fact that father denied that any incriminating messages emanated from him.

Witnesses were directed in relation to the maternal grandmother and the maternal aunt and the paternal aunt, with directions as to the Guardian's observations in relation to contact to be provided on a rolling basis.

By order of 20 May 2025, I made provision for the expert to provide answers to questions and to attend the final hearing.

The father does not accept the section 7 report author's recommendations. He feels that the section 7 report author placed excessive weight on disputed allegations of domestic abuse, and that the negative views of the father are perpetuated by the mother and her family, in relation to alienation and coaching. He also himself alleged that he too suffered verbal and physical abuse, and had been denigrated during the relationship, and makes a number of cross-allegations. He maintains that the mother has instilled in the children a false narrative, and the allegations she makes are fabricated, and used to exclude him from the children's lives.

He prays in aid the Children's Guardian's report of 31 January 2025, regarding the children having no positive memories of him, and that they appear to be manipulated, and what they say is rehearsed and scripted. He is concerned that the children know more about the proceedings than they ought to, and he is denigrated by them.

He reports the fact that a subsequent video contact on 12 February 2025 with A and I was positive despite mum's allegations that they were upset afterwards. He points to various texts in relation to the mother threatening that the children will not be seeing him. He says that she is abusive and goading. She invites him to come back to work things out, with there being no mention of domestic abuse. However, there is also mention from mother that the father reported to the child that he had threatened to kill the mother.

The mother agrees with the section 7 author's recommendations. She moved school because the previous school was too close to the father's relatives, and father had previously turned up at the school unannounced. She does not support any direct contact, and she denies coaching the children and alienation. I and IS raised issues in relation to her being hit to the school, of their own volition, which they have maintained consistently. She maintains that I witnessed the assault occasioned on the parties' separation in November 2022 when she fell back on a sofa, and fell on him, she did not instil this narrative in the child. She reports that after contact on 12 February 2025 IS was upset, and the children are aware of the court proceedings because of their involvement with CAFCASS, and they may have overheard her on the phone.

The section 7 report states that there have been no safeguarding concerns since April 2024. The mother says that she never witnessed the father actually smacking the children, but the mother-in-law did. Contact was stopped due to father's interrogation of her, and in him not spending quality time with the children. It appears that the parents accept the children are victims of parental conflict.

Father accepts that the mother did make an effort for the children to spend time with him.

The mother says that the children are scared of the father.

There are further allegations in relation to actions perpetrated towards the mother by the father's family which do not form part of today's finding of fact hearing.

In essence father seeks to have contact, but mother opposes it.

It is noted in the report that I describes father as a "monster" and says, "He's hurt our mum and strangled her". IS says the same. He does not want contact. A also says that, "Dad's strangled Mum and wants to kill her".

CAFCASS contends that father fails to accept the children's views, and that they are scared of him, because he has hurt them. It concludes that mother is a victim of domestic abuse and does not support even supervised contact. The children will not get anything positive from it.

The Children's Guardian's initial report states that it seems at some point the mother did wish to reconcile with the father. The father alleges alienation; mum maintains the children's refusal to have contact is due to the domestic abuse they have witnessed.

I maintains his initial stance; however, it is difficult to assess if his experiences are real or he has been provided with an inaccurate and wholly negative narrative that has been enhanced over time. It appears that he has been exposed to information with regard to the court proceedings, hence the use of the word "we".

IS maintains, like I, that "Dad hit" them and their mum, and left them, and they do not want to spend time with him. IS however is open to seeing his father at the CAFCASS offices; however, it appears he needs mother's permission to do so.

A says, "Dad hit Mum and strangled her, and hit her and slapped her. He banged her head on a wall and kicked her". The Guardian's view was this seemed to be rehearsed, but it could be due to multiple recounts. He further mentions a punch to his eye and says that his father gave him a black eye but there was no mark. However, A was open to a meeting with the father.

The Guardian's view is that there is a potential for a joint meeting and a joint narrative to be supplied by the parents, a parenting plan and a schedule of progression to Facetime contact, but without factual findings the progression of contact may prove difficult.

The Guardian's subsequent position statement sets out that mum renegued on an agreement to allow video calls between the father and the children via the school following a successful call facilitated by the Guardian on 12 February 2025. The mother subsequently made a complaint as to how this was conducted, and the school felt unable to facilitate it further.

Thereafter the Guardian recommends fortnightly video contact facilitated by the Guardian themselves.

The Guardian attempted to facilitate indirect contact sessions with the father following the hearing on 10 March 2025. There was a stark difference in the children's presentation on that occasion as compared with the previous contact. The children did not want to engage, despite the previous positive contact.

The Guardian has provided details as to the meetings that she has had with the children. I says he is worried about mum, and worried about dad, he does not feel safe at school. A wanted to speak to dad. IS and I do not, because he hits mum. IS does not want to see him. When told that the mother and the parents had agreed to this, his eyes widened, but said he did not want to, but agreed to listen, and not to come on camera. I said he does not want to see his father and says his siblings do not either. He gave A a black eye two years, and A told him this.

If they saw dad, he would be angry because he hit mum. He made IS fat with lots of sweets and chocolates. A will swear at him. He did not want the Children's Guardian to come back. At that point he then left.

Contact proceeded by way of telephone contact (facetime) with A and IS on 12 February 2025 which was positive. They also saw paternal grandmother, and were excited to see their old toys, and there were lots of smiles.

At the contact on 18 March 2025 A said that IS was reprimanded by his mum for speaking with his dad. It is reported that mum says she fully supports the children engaging in video contact with dad, albeit the Guardian is concerned about what A has shared in light of the change in IS's opinion about family time, after the positive session on 12 February 2025.

On 18 March 2025 A wanted to speak to his father, though asked the Guardian not to tell the mother. The Guardian quite rightly could not agree to this.

On 18 March 2025 A said he did not tell mum that he spoke to dad, because "Mum hates Dad". He saw what he did. "The last contact with Dad, Mum shouted at IS because she hates him, and if she knows I speak to Dad, she will punish him. Want to talk to Dad, but don't tell Mum because she will be angry. Only spoke to Dad to get the toys back. When we got home, Mum said nothing". It was observed that A appears confused.

The visit on 10 April 2025 recorded both children enjoyed the call although IS was a little guarded this time. IS says he only spoke to dad because he wanted his toys. He will stay in the room, but "Don't want to speak or see him". A does not want to speak to dad but then agrees to. I does not want to talk to dad, but mum says it is okay, "But just do not want to". Contact takes place with A, IS joins intermittently. A wants to spend time with dad, and says, "Why did you hit mum?" Dad says, "He Didn’t". IS whispers, "He's lying". A says contact is good, IS only talks to get his toys, but does not want to talk to him ever again.

In relation to the school report, it shows that I struggles with situations between the parents, and reports that the father attended at assembly on 19 April 2024. I said he does not see his dad as he hit mum.

I have read a report from Women's Aid dated 30 October 2024, it says that I is worried that his dad might break into the house, and smash mum's car window. He discloses that dad hits mum, and says dad pinched and slapped him. IS also says dad used to hit him, and is concerned that dad will take him, he has seen dad hit mum lots of times.

I have read a report from Y Council. Support was requested on 16 December 2022. There is a reference to a domestic abuse incident.

There is a further referral on 27 March 2023. Mother saw the father outside the hospital, but no offence took place.

I have read the safeguarding letter of 3 May 2024, it says that the father exhibits controlling behaviour, there are no safeguarding concerns with mum, it does not recommend a finding of fact hearing.

I have had the opportunity of also reading the notes from the school in relation to I. They are effectively in reverse order:

17 April 2024. After seeing dad in assembly, I was happy in class, embraced dad with a hug, and happy after being initially reluctant. But mum then says he was upset all night, but no negative emotion noted at the time.

15 April 2024, "Asked if happy to see dad at assembly, said okay and smiled", now denies this. Witnessed no concerns with his father and was happy throughout the afternoon.

12 April 2024, meeting at school, mum insisted I be present.

11 April 204, notes of assembly, "Did not see Dad for a year because he hit Mum". Mum raised no concerns re dad attending, then later says school siding with father.

25 October 2023, mum made a complaint to the police with regards to father tracking her car, told I he was going to kill mum, albeit this was not disclosed to the school.

24 April 2023, father driving around the block, and sounding his horn whilst mother talking at the school gate.

15 December 2022 I says, "Dad punched Mum last night". Mum says it happened two weeks previously.

9 December 2022, IS says, "Dad hits Mum", and they have moved.

Also, there is a note in relation to A, in which it states that there is no evidence of harassment; the father contacted the school to see how the children are.

I have also read a detailed report from the school dated 26 March 2025, in relation to the incident on 12 February 2025, stating:

"The children are not upset during contact. A wanted to speak to dad, IS did not want to but would remain in the room whilst A did. I did not want to see him". He said Dad gave A a black eye and hit his mum. A spoke to dad, IS joined in. The children said contact was good. There was a common theme in relation to them wanting their toys. The children were not upset post contact.

The school saw mum on 13 February 2025; she said that IS was upset and was forced to speak to the dad. She was told the children were not forced and had not been upset during or after contact.

The mother makes the following allegations, which are to be determined at this hearing:

1c. Emotional abuse, the father would be verbally abusive to the mum and threatening. This is denied.

2a. Harassment, the father would attend the children's school when he knew the mum would be there, and drive past, playing music loudly, and beeping his horn, and being abusive. The father denies this.

2c. The father would track mum's movements and follow her.

2e. The father monitored mother by putting phones in her room to record her. This is denied.

3a. Physical abuse, threats of physical violence. Father denies this.

3b. When A was 1 or 2 (between 2021 and 2022) the father assaulted mum by putting his hand on her neck in a threatening manner. This is denied.

3c. November 2022, the father strangled the mother with both hands, causing her to fall back on the sofa, when he then grabbed her clothes and hit her in the lip. Father denies this, says that mother started an argument but went to assault him, he merely pushed past her to get by and avoid being assaulted.

3f. The father threatened to kill the mother via the child. This is denied.

3g. The father grabbed the mother by the neck, causing her to fall backwards onto the bed, and hit her head on the wall, and then proceeded to kick her. Father denies this.

4i. Coercive controlling behaviour. Father would report mum to members of the maternal family in order to control her. Father accepts this, and that he sent a video to the sister to prove that his wife was having an affair.

4r. The father provided conditions for the mum in relation to what to wear, ability to work, when she would leave the property, and staying with his parents every weekend, and not asking to leave. Father did concede that he made suggestions to overcome their marital difficulties at the time.

Mum in support of her allegations filed a significantly lengthy statement of 54 pages, with 305 paragraphs. It includes 70 paragraphs of background history, containing numerous issues she had with her father-in-law. The majority of the statement concerns the father's family.

She says that from 2018 the father used to follow her around the house so much so that it became suffocating. Changes occurred when A was born in 2020, the father became more demanding in relation to her doing things for him. They used to squabble about this.

In relation to allegation 3a, she says that they were arguing, the father approached her and put one hand on her neck but put no pressure on it. She started screaming, and he then let go, she ran upstairs and started to cry.

It was reported to her that she had been told that the father cannot be left with the children, because he pinches and shouts at them. She has not seen this herself, but she has seen him shout at them.

She said that they started to argue a lot. He kept asking for sex and accused her of having an affair when she refused.

When she went to Pakistan in 2021, she alleged that the father called her on Facetime five or six times a day. They did not argue. The connection was bad, and they kept getting cut off.

They kept their finances separately; she earned her own money.

In relation to allegation 3c there was an argument in November 2022, the father was abusive, she went to leave with the children, and he blocked her way, and grabbed her throat with both hands, and she fell back on the sofa, and onto I. He then grabbed the front of her clothes and pushed her. His sister then separated them. Subsequently I and IS disclosed this to the school, and the school undertook some work with them.

Allegation 2a, she said the father would attend school every day in his car, playing his music loudly, being abusive and beeping his horn. He told everyone that she was having an affair, and she became isolated within the community.

Allegation 2c, she says that father came to her accommodation, and was upset, saying he made a mistake, and should not have hit her. When she was living in temporary accommodation, he followed her and was shouting at her. She contacted the police.

Allegation 1c, he threatened to harm her if she was with anyone else. She says he managed to get hold of her number and started phoning and texting her and swearing. He also turned up at her accommodation.

In relation to allegation 3f, she says that IS disclosed that his father had told him that he would kill his mum one day. She says he hid a phone under the bed to record her.

In relation to allegation 2e, she says that I remembers his father throwing the mother on the sofa.

In relation to 3c, she says that the father grabbed her, and had one hand over her neck, and caused her to fall on the bed. When she fell, her head hit the wall, and he kicked her. She said this was witnessed by I.

In relation to allegation 2c she says her cousin told her that the father had put a tracker on her car, which was then removed.

The mother also provided a significant number, of exhibits, in relation to what she seeks to establish. Not all of this of course forms part of the factual matrix which I am required to determine.

Of particular note is exhibit RB14. This basically provides evidence whereby the father admits to hitting the mother, causing physical injury to her lip and chest. He threatens to give her another beating, there is mutual abuse of one another, and he threatens to disgrace her and drag her down. He mentions disclosure by IS to the school.

There is repeated reference to admitting to hitting her. Mum mentions being strangled, and to controlling behaviour.

The father's schedule is simple. He alleges that the children have been alienated from him by the mother and denies all the allegations. He denies following her around and being controlling. He denies physical assaults.

Allegation 3b was never mentioned in support of her application of a non-molestation order, or in previous statements, or to professionals. He denies ever hurting the children. He denies ever pressurising the mother to have sex.

In relation to 3c, (Incident - November 2022) he denies this, he said the mother went to assault him, he put his hands up to protect himself, and pushed past her to get away, she then left. He did not strangle her, and she was not pushed.

Allegation 2a, is denied. He says there is contradictory evidence within the non-molestation order proceedings whereby she said it only happened once, but now says it happened every day.

He denies putting a tracker on her phone or car or threatening or intimidating her or being abusive.

In relation to allegation 4r, he accepts he did lay down certain conditions when she was to move back in, but only to make a go of the relationship.

Allegation 1c, he denies threatening the mother via the children, and denies spying on her.

In relation to allegation 3g, he denied this and states that it has never been alleged before. He denies getting anyone to target her family's home or car or arranging anyone to harass her.

He accepts he did follow her in the car, and there are exhibits in relation to RB6, RB7, and RB5, and that he should not have done so, but he strenuously denies sending the texts at RB14. He provides his own video of the child. He says that each day the mother raises fresh allegations to prevent contact, and he exhibits a text that the children in fact do want to see him.

There is additional evidence from the maternal grandmother. She says that the mother accused the father and the mother-in-law of beating her, whilst on the phone. She could hear the screams. She came to the house, and she saw the mother had injuries, with a bleeding lip (allegation 3c)

She says the children said that dad always beats their mother and grabs her neck. On a further occasion she challenged the father about hitting her, and he apologised and did not deny it.

I have also read the statement from the maternal aunt in relation to allegation 3c. When on the phone the mother said the father had strangled her.

I have read the statement from the paternal aunt in relation to allegation 3c. She said she was present during the incident. She witnessed the mother shouting quite aggressively at the father. She then lunged towards him, and grabbed his arm, there was shouting and pushing. She believes that he was trying to get away from her grasp. She believed that he did that to put some distance between them, and in doing so mother moved towards him again, and she manoeuvred herself between them. She did not see the father push or strangle the mother, neither did she fall, and she had no visible injuries.

There is the evidence in relation to the phone analysis.

It reports that in relation to RB14, which displays messages dated 11 December, it is only those exhibits which depicts the WhatsApp messages. The contact saved under the name ‘“X”’ has no profile image or phone number, except a confidential number ending 946, which was created on the same day.

RB13 and RB15 do not depict the full conversations. The father's number is clearly displayed, but not as a saved contact. It states that none of the messages deleted on the father's device, marked RB14, show any communication with the mother or the number ending 946, but they do match RB13 and RB15.

It was unable to identify any WhatsApp messages on mum's phone depicted on RB14, but it identified exchanges between mother and an unnamed account that discloses using father's Apple ID and password to access and delete information from his phone.

The single screenshot of the WhatsApp message from the father does have his WhatsApp profile image, wherein he is wishing someone a safe flight.

The addendum report states that the expert is confident that the number ending 946 has been saved under the contact name ‘“X”’. There are no other contacts saved under ‘“X”’, and no other numbers of the father saved under his name.

The dated message sent to or received from the father was not sent or received by that number. Such contacts can be dated remotely, but would need mum's Apple ID, but there is no way to determine that this was the case.

It exhibits the messages with regard to the unsaved confidential number, in relation to the mother's sister. There are 141 messages sent or received from the number ending 946 between 25 November and 10 December. They are unable to clarify the date of the WhatsApp messages on 11 December 2024, being 11 December 2023 or indeed 2022.

There is a screenshot of a message from dad wishing someone a good flight. There is no information to suggest that the father has a second device. They are unable to identify any communication from the father's device.

The police disclosure records as follows:

On 5 March 2024 the mother disclosed that she saw the father in the car drive past her home slowly. He had no reason to be there.

On 1 July 2023 and 5 July 2023, she alleges the father has found out her temporary hotel address. She alleges he followed her in the car, as well as sitting outside her home, and trying to unscrew the Ring doorbell. He said that he wanted to see the children and change the camera.

On 2 November 2022 she says that the father followed her in his car after an argument. She disclosed he assaulted her by punching her to the mouth, and she left him. She did not report it to the police at the time.

At the outset of the hearing father's counsel alerted me to the fact that, as they would be submitting that the contact number 946 and the contact profile ‘“X”’ is in fact mum's own confidential number, they would be inviting me to consider that the mother is fabricating the messages, and that following on from that there may be an application in relation to costs and a finding with regard to potential contempt of court.

With regard to exhibits RB13 and RB15, the screenshots are out of sequence, and parts of the conversation are missing; he could not speculate as to why what was so.

He said he was unable to identify the RB14 WhatsApp communications on the father's device or the deleted material, albeit there may be conversations that the analysis cannot access. The number ending 946 and the contact profile ‘“X”’ is the same number associated with mum's handset, according to the forensic analysis, and he is confident about that.

RB14 messages from the contact profile ‘“X”’ come from the number 946.

The dates of the messages seem to be 11 December 2024 being a Wednesday, which he accepts was the correct date.

It was put to him that the handset contact name ‘“X”’ was created on 11 December 2024 at 10.37. He says the forensic analysis tools do not suggest in any way that that date and time is inaccurate.

It was put to him that the first WhatsApp message was 10.47 on 11 December 2024, ten minutes after the contact itself was created on 11 December 2024. It was put to him either the number 946 or the contact details have been changed. He said he cannot comment on that.

It is quite possible that the number was sent from 946 or any other phone number with that contact and he cannot rule out that the father did not send them. The father's number, however, was not saved under a contact name. The only contact saved under ‘“X”’ was the confidential number under 946.

It was put to him that he can identify some of the exhibits under RB13 and RB15 on father's phone, but not all of them, so either they have been deleted or sent from another device.

It was put to him that mum's device was restored from a back-up in November 2024, and the data had been overwritten. He was asked whether data being restored would provide incorrect data or corruption. He said no.

It was put to him that contacts can be created or dated remotely from a second device, via the mother's Apple ID, provided both devices are logged on, using one's username and password. It was put to him that the following options cannot be ruled out: That father sent these messages, someone interfered with the identity of the contact, or some messages were not recovered on father's device but are on mother's device, for example the ‘flight message’.

It was put to him that there is no communication at all on father's device to mum despite father saying that there has been communication, and that therefore he either deleted them or was using a different device, unless there was a factory reset or a restore.

He said that it was unlikely that the backup would link a contact to an incorrect telephone number.

He was asked about the fact there was reference to ‘“X”’ in the contacts prior to the contact creation on 11 December 2024, namely 25 November 2024, to telephone number 946. He was asked how that sits in with the creation of a profile subsequently. He was given an example in relation to the contact on 25 November 2024, 18.47, a text to 946, the description is ‘“X”’ the only recipient, but there was no contact prior to then, he was asked why. He stated that this may well be the earliest date that the number was ever used.

In answer to the query as to the contacts appearing to be in existence prior to setting up the contact, he stated that if the number has changed, it would retrospectively change all the entries accordingly to reflect the subsequent contact being ‘“X”’.

It was put to him that if, in December 2024, the contact number is changed to show ‘“X”’ as the contact, all messages would show retrospectively as coming from ‘“X”’, if sent from that number. He said yes.

He was asked if in his opinion it more likely than not that it was mum's device that created the contact ‘“X”’ in December 2024. His response was, "I am sure of it", and that the message following the creation of the contact occurred ten minutes later.

He was taken through a number of the exhibits in relation to G82, which highlighted messages regarding an Apple ID and a password, which were messages recovered from deleted sections of the mother's device. It talks about "fucking ‘“X”’ over".

He denied all the allegations, he admits to speaking to his family about the relationship, but not as a method of control, their families were closely related. If there are problems, culturally they will try to mediate between family members.

They reconciled briefly after they initially separated due to, he says, the mother threatening that he would not see the children.

He did set up conditions for reconciliation, not as an attempt to control, but because he was being blackmailed, and he felt he needed to place some conditions to build up trust as the mother was cheating on him with his brother-in-law.

Leading up to the argument in November 2022 he says that the mother became distant from him, and not respectful and disrespected his parents when she came back from Pakistan the year before. She changed and became more argumentative.

He was asked why she was not respectful. He said, "She would snap at me over little things". He said it seemed like she was looking for a reason to leave.

He was challenged that he imposed conditions on her coming back. He said he did that to protect himself and to lay the foundations for the relationship.

He was taken through the various conditions: not to go to anyone's house or stay there for hours. He denies that this was controlling. He reiterated that this was all about re-establishing trust because he had been cheated upon.

He was challenged that he put a tracker, and followed her, on her car. He accepts that he followed her to the hotel. He accepts that he sent videos of her to her sisters, to prove that she was having an affair with a family member. He denies he did it to ruin her or malign her.

He was challenged with a number of texts, and words to the effect of, "Come here if you want to work it out". It was put to him that he was laying down conditions, that he was telling her straight.

He was challenged that he installed a doorbell to monitor her movements, even when they had separated. He denied that.

It was put to him that he drove past the school, and intimidated the mother, and she changed school because of it. He denied that.

The subsequent reconciliation failed due to his controlling behaviour. He denied that.

He was challenged that he expected the mother to give him money from work for food. He was provided a document in the bundle to prove that. He denied demanding money.

He denied being controlling and abusive, and verbally abusive and threatening.

He was challenged that he tracked her to her hotel, and that he was punishing her for her infidelity. He denied this.

It was put to him that he had followed her because of his obsession with her having an affair and was therefore intimidating her. He denied that.

It was put to him that the incident in November 2022 was not the first time that he had tried to strangle her. He said that this is not correct. It was alleged that he did so in 2021. He said that is not true.

It was put to him that the mother would leave, and he stopped her taking the children. He accepted that.

He accepted that they argued, but she was aggressive towards him. The arguments started between the mother and his mother, and they involved him.

He denies physically abusing her and strangling her.

He denies being violent or shouting at the children. It was put to him that he made threats towards her, and he was driven by his family criticism of not being tough enough on his wife.

He was challenged that one of the text messages refers to the fact that the mother says, "You hit me", yet there is no denial, and that he says in response, "You love holding onto things".

He was challenged that in one of the text messages he said that she did a lot and was asked what he meant by that. He said, "We went on Pilgrimage together, improved the house". It was put to him that the mother refers to cooking and cleaning for all the family, she had exerted an enormous amount of effort.

He was challenged about references to why she was mad at him. He was challenged that the subsequent messages became abusive, and that the mother has been blamed solely because she wants her freedom. He said that at that time they were in conflict, and there are a number of messages which were not there.

He was challenged about getting information about her movements, and that he has people who are looking out for her.

He was taken to RB14 and to the contested texts. It was put to him that these messages were not sent in December 2024, but December 2022. He denied that. He denies ever sending such messages. He denies harassing the mother at the school, it was put to him that there was evidence from the school which indicates to the contrary. He disputed that.

It reports him driving around the block and sounding the horn. He attended school upset and wanted to see the children. He said he was upset but not angry.

His attention was drawn to the fact that on 5 December I disclosed to the school that he had punched him. The mum corrected and said it was actually in November. Father believed that the mother is coaching the child. It was put to him that these are unprompted contemporaneous corroboration of what mum reports. It was put to him that IS also refers to dad hurting mum on 9 December, again unprompted and on a different day.

He was challenged about the text message that says, "I know they won't say nothing", in reference to the children. He was asked what that means. He indicated this was to do with the social services potentially being involved.

He was challenged about the texts referring to comments like "done shit", he was asked, "What shit have you done?" He said, "We had arguments".

He was asked why he felt that the wife was better off without him. He said, "Because we always ended up arguing".

He maintains that his wife was cheating on him.

It was put to him that so obsessive he was that he contacted Enterprise to see who was using the hire car.

There is a text saying, "You ain't wearing no English dresses", that effectively he put down conditions and in essence it was his way or the highway. He said that how his wife had changed put a lot of doubt in his mind, hence putting conditions in place.

He was challenged that the text messages show that he does not want to live with a wife who wants to wear what she likes, do what she likes, act how she wants, and be what she wants, and that in essence this sums up the father's attitude towards the mother, that he simply wants to control her.

That he has threatened to expose her adultery. He said he was upset at what she had done, but he denies it was a threat.

His attention was drawn to the alleged fabricated messages and the fact that many of the messages from the mother were also abusive. He was asked whether this was how she was with him. He said yes.

He was asked about attending I's assembly. I was happy for him and the paternal grandmother to attend; it was a positive interaction.

It was put to him that the suggestions of an affair caused most of the fallout in the marriage. He responded, "The messages passing between us was trying to set parameters going forwards, it was a difficult time, and it was not part of the norm".

His attention was drawn to the messages highlighted in yellow in the bundle. He believes that these messages sent were from the mother's sister and reference to the boyfriend is the brother-in-law who he believed the mother was having an affair with.

He explained the reference to ‘penguin’ being a belittling comment and derogatory, applying to his appearance and gait.

There is a text message in relation to what she was to wear. He said that she had changed so much. He did not like her wearing westernised clothes, but he said that that was just his opinion.

In relation to the November 2022 incident, they had an argument. He stopped her from leaving. It started with an argument between the mother and his mother. He was stuck in the middle, and told them both to sort it out, and the mother started on him. He asked her to stay and not leave, so they could sort it out, but he did not physically prevent her from leaving. He denies verbally abusing her. He did not place his hands around her neck, and she did not fall on the sofa, and he did not hit her.

I asked him where the children were during the incident of November 2022. He said that he was feeding IS, and the paternal grandmother was feeding the other child, and I was on his iPad.

She was asked about the incident in November 2022. It took place at 8.30 am. She says she and the mother would drop the children off to school, she lives at another address. She arrived at 8.35, and knocked on the paternal grandmother's door, she heard a commotion, mother was shouting and being argumentative, and gesticulating. Father was feeding the middle child.

The mother came towards the father and grabbed his arm and shook it, and then shewent into the middle of them, and the mother kept saying, "I want to leave". The father said, "You can, but the children need to go to school".

She told her to leave with the children, to defuse the situation. The mother grabbed her keys and phone, which was on the fireplace. She was by the kitchen door and escorted her to the door and the car.

She left together with the mother and saw her drive off. She reiterated the mother was at no stage on the phone, the phone was on the fireplace, not in her hand. The father did not swear at her, or block her leaving, nor grab her throat causing her to fall, or grab her clothes. She was in the middle between them, and he never hit her. She denies telling her not to call the police, she just told her to, "Calm down and we will sort it out later".

She was asked if she had seen mum's statement. She said yes. She was asked when she saw the statement. She said this year. She was asked, "Who showed it to you?" She said the father, but she did not read it properly.

She was challenged that the incident happened two and a half years ago, and did she discuss what she was going to say with the father. She said no. She denied being primed what to say, she was only saying what she saw. It was a memorable incident. She was challenged that she had been told to stick to the family's case. She said her son went inside, and she went in. School starts at 8.45, and the children were still having breakfast, she cannot say why they were late, or what the argument was about.

The door was unlocked, but she could hear an argument about mum wanting to leave. She did not enquire what it was about, she was in shock. She denies asking why the mother was causing arguments. She said, "I asked what was going on".

It was put to her that the father accepts he told her not to leave. She said he did not want the children to leave; there was lots of shouting. There were no threats to call the police. "I told the family to let her go to defuse the situation. She was aggressive, pulling the father's arm with both her arms. He brushed her off, and he got up, and she went towards him, and I stood in between them".

It was put to her that she did it because he was assaulting her. She said no. She said he did not push past her; she saw no violence. She was challenged that father in evidence differed about pushing past. She said he got up and put distance between them, but she did not see any pushing.

It was put to her whether she saw the mother move the father out of the way so she could leave. She said, "No, he did not block her way or assault her". The children were not crying other than the younger one, who was in the paternal grandmother's lap, and that was because he did not want to go to school.

She was challenged that she was presenting a false picture. She was challenged that there was no mention of the phone being on the fireplace in her statement. She was challenged that she had read father's account, and this influenced her own account. She denied that.

She was asked when she got in the middle of the parents, did the father inadvertently hit her, and she said no.

She says she cannot recall when she saw the mother's statement. She saw the mother every day to take the children to school; she has never seen such a commotion previously. She had never seen father being physically violent, nor the mother to him.

With regard to the confidential number and ‘“X”’, she denies manipulating those messages. She has nothing to hide and could have deleted them.

She says the children love their father, but do not talk about him. In 2023 she gave them the option of seeing him.

She has concerns about domestic abuse, and the father being a suitable role model. There was lots of shouting and physical chastisement and threats to kill.

She was asked if the children enjoy contact, she says she does not know, they miss their grandmother more than they do their father.

She was challenged that the text messages clearly show that they were sent in 2024 and not 2022. She did not accept that. She did not create the contact, and she did not send those messages.

It was put to her that the only messages in which the father makes admissions of abuse are the ones that she displays. She said he did not previously deny hitting her, in the texts. She believes that the father has hacked her phone and created the contact.

She was asked why, if the messages came from 2022, she did not exhibit them earlier. She said she did not look through all her messages.

It was put to her that these messages are hugely significant. She was challenged that these messages were drafted by her. She was asked, "Is it a complete coincidence that these texts all support your allegations that father hit her, and makes threats to ruin her life?”

She was challenged about the tone and language used in the texts. She used the term "slag" and "bitch", not used before in the other messages in RB13 and RB15, but only in exhibit RB14. Essentially it was put to her that RB14 stands alone as an evidential goldmine, and that she has fabricated it. She denies that.

It was put to her that the abusive messages are sent over several days.

In relation to contact she said the children can see their father if the court agrees, but they need to be safe with him.

She was asked about the fact she has two numbers, a business number and a personal WhatsApp number, on the same device. She was challenged about the date 11 December 2022, which is not a Wednesday, but 11 December 2024 is. She was confident that the messages were sent in 2022.

She was challenged that her handset shows the contact ‘“X”’ associated with her number, with the confidential number ending 946, and was created in November 2024. From the time of the messages sent and the creation of the contact was a matter of minutes. It would not be possible to change the number in such a short timeframe.

It was put to her that when an application to obtain forensic analysis was first put before the court, at no stage did she indicate that her phone had been hacked. She indicated she told her solicitors about this.

It was put to her did she not find it odd that the messages came through via a contact. She said it was in 2022 when she had saved the father’s details.

Her attention was brought to a text message with the sister; it was put to her that the sister was coaching her what to say with regard the person she was having an affair with. She says that the sister believed that she was having an affair due to what the father was saying. She believes the father had hacked into her sister's phone and sent videos to disgrace her. She was challenged in relation to this, in regard to having the father's passport, and ID. The only evidence before the court in relation to a potential hack was that from the mother.

She was challenged in relation to the text message of a potential coverup passing between her and her two sisters, as to logging on to the father’s Snapchat account. She said he was disgracing her with photos and videos.

It was put to her that she had threatened the father with not seeing the children, which is what she has achieved.

It was put to her that she offers reconciliation and then threatens that he will not be seeing the children, which postdates the alleged incident in November 2022. She says she is still scared of the father and always has been.

It was put to her that she talks about reconciliation, and then calls the father dumb which is not the tone of someone who is afraid. She said she was being pressurised by her own father.

She denies having an affair.

It was put to her again that her sister talks about "fucking ‘“X”’ over". It was put to her that there is no evidence of the father hacking her or recording her or putting a tracker on her car.

It was put to her that a number of the messages are abusive towards the father and that if she was so scared of him, why would she say such a thing?

She was challenged about the steps she has taken to avoid the father spending time with the children, the change of school, the non-molestation proceedings with regard to not contacting the school, and the subsequent specific issue order.

In relation to the Eid assembly, it was put to her that I interacted with the father, the photos showed positive interaction, the school records no issues, and these are independent observations, and yet, it was put, the mother maintains that after school the child was upset and refused to go the following day. She said the school told her to bring him in, and they will speak to him. She says the record says otherwise.

It was put to her that he did not attend school for three days. The reports indicate that I was upset because the mother was upset, and he feels he needs to protect her. The children effectively have been aligned with the mother. It was pointed to evidence that the mother decided not to send the children to school the next day. It was put to her that she insisted to the school that the children had witnessed domestic abuse, and she was concerned about them providing information to the father about her children. She was challenged as to why that should be the case. She is using domestic abuse as a pawn for them not to provide information to the father.

She was challenged that her accounts are embellished as the case has progressed since the non-molestation proceedings. She was challenged about the information she provided in relation to the father driving past the school. Originally, he was attending school and beeping the horn, she later refers to abusive comments. She then says it was a daily occurrence.

She was taken through a number of discrepancies in her evidence:

In relation to physical abuse, the incident of 2020 - 2021, this was not mentioned in the non-molestation proceedings. She was challenged in relation to the incident in November 2022 that she never made a call; the phone was on the fireplace. She denied this. She said that her mother had remained on the phone throughout.

In her evidence she said that she was grabbed by both hands, the non-molestation proceedings say she was strangled, she said this was the same thing. She was challenged that the police evidence says her clothes were grabbed but there was no reference to strangulation.

With regards to threats to kill, she relies upon what I says.

In relation to the incident in 2023 this was a significant incident, the last incident before the non-molestation proceedings, yet not mentioned in the accompanying witness statement. She denied making it up.

The police were contacted on 31 July, according to the police logs, in relation to a stalking incident, but not any allegation of assault. She says she was placed under pressure from her father but accepts she should have reported it.

The police evidence indicates also she only alleges that there has been violence used once, in November. There are no reports of threats to kill, there is no suggestion that the father hit the children. She was concerned, she said, about the involvement of social services. She was also concerned that the husband would be arrested, and there would be a backlash. Again, the police evidence says she was only assaulted once.

Her concern was drawn to Facetime contact, the contact between the two younger children was positive in February 2025 but IS did not go to school the next day, she said he had a stomach upset. She was challenged that she subsequently made a complaint to the school who thereafter were unable to facilitate contact any further, she said that this was because the father promised to bring their toys. She was challenged that A believes the mother hates the father. She said, "He knows he hit me", but she accepts she did not give the police the full information.

Her attention was drawn to messages from her sister about trying to do an ‘honour-based violence case’. She said she had no idea what that is or why she would say that.

She was challenged that Women's Aid are now working with the children on the basis of domestic abuse. The children have therefore adopted a belief that they have themselves also been victims. She said the children have been witness to it.

The Guardian explored the conversations with the sister about the mother going to the police with regards to honour-based violence, she was challenged that this is a concerning narrative presented to the police to influence the police's response.

She was challenged in relation to other comments, for example, making it more serious, alleging panic attacks, talking about "fucking ‘“X”’ over". She was challenged with the use of the abusive words. She accepts that this is part of her language, it was put to her father's language does not go to that level.

She was challenged again in relation to the date of 11 December 2024 in the WhatsApp messages. The mother maintains her stance that the messages were sent in 2022. She was challenged that the other message later on in the chain also refers to Wednesday 18 December, which in 2024 it is, but not so in 2022. The mother believes the dates can be changed. She was challenged that the expert says otherwise, because, as soon as one is connected to a Wi-Fi network, the dates will be corrected automatically. She maintains that the father has tried to hack her accounts.

She was challenged that she has tried to hack father's account, and why she did not contact the police about this, she says this was due to pressure from her father.

She was challenged that the father has expressed an opinion as to her not wearing English clothes, but does not say, "You must not". She said it made her nevertheless feel controlled.

She was asked how the children see the court process. It was put to her that the children use terminology such as "winning".

It was put to her that IS may be selective of what he tells her for fear of upsetting her. It was put to her that one of the children said, "Mum hates Dad". She said that is because the children know that he has hit her.

She accepts that A is desperate to speak to his dad. She was questioned as to whether or not she has properly promoted this.

With regards to therapy, she was asked whether or not she realises that children, in cases where there is domestic abuse, for them to have therapy with regards to domestic abuse only if it has been established. She says that the children are sharing information.

It was put to her that the school and referral were based upon the domestic abuse that the mother insisted had occurred. She said it had. In one of the sessions I says, "Can you help me with court?", so he is aware of the court process, even as long ago as May 2024.

She was asked did she make such a referral to Women's Aid to bolster her case, and make the children believe it will help court. She denied that.

She indicated that she only told the police so that matters were recorded rather than father prosecuted, due to pressure from her own father, and that the previous CAFCASS officer also discussed the court case with the children.

It was put to her that she overheard the mother on a telephone communication, and was asked whether she could hear every word, she asked how the first call ended. She said as she was calling the mother, she was not answering or speaking, so put the phone down. She phoned again, she could hear the mother crying, and saying she was hit, and there was a commotion, so told her to come home, which she did. When she came home, she was dishevelled, and there was blood coming out of her lip.

She was asked if she spoke to the father directly after that or on another occasion. She said this was when her other daughters told her that the mother had been beaten by the father. She phoned the father and asked him why he hit her, she shouted at him, and he said sorry.

She was asked when the incident happened. She said it was a couple of years ago, she believed in the morning when her children were to go to school. She made the first call, her daughter was at her home, she was inside the house, she calls all her daughters in the morning.

On that day the mother phoned her, her daughter said that they were fighting with her and then put the phone in the pocket and she listened., the family started to argue, she then put the phone in her pocket, so she could hear. She could hear a commotion and them telling her to get out. She did not speak but she could hear the others, and then she put the phone down.

It was put to her that the mother says she was on the phone to her before going into the house, she agreed. She was asked what she could hear when the phone was in the pocket. She said, "Her husband hitting her, and being told to get out of the house". She said, "How could you tell the father was hitting her?" She indicated that it was when she came to her afterwards.

She heard the paternal grandmother saying, "Let her go". She was asked what the father was saying, she said she could not hear him fully, but he may have said something about the children.

She was challenged in relation to the discrepancy in her witness evidence in relation to the husband not telling her to go. She said the phone got disconnected, and then she phoned her, "She told me she had been assaulted, and I told her to come home". She cannot recall how long it was before she came to the house, but she came with the children. The children did not say anything at that particular time, but they were upset.

She was challenged that IS says that "Dad always beats Mum up, and always grabs her neck, and that Mum does not tell you". She reiterated that the child did say that, that mum is beaten up all the time. She was challenged that the children did not say anything, she said not straightaway, but she was told afterwards when the children had calmed down. She was challenged that none of this happened, that she has been primed to say these things. She denied that and said that her daughter has told her everything when she had previously kept things to herself.

She was challenged about calling the father about a different incident, when told to do so by her other daughters, she was asked whether that incident was before or after this incident. She said it is before, but she cannot give a date.

She said she phoned the father probably about an hour after being told, both daughters had told her that the father had assaulted the mother, and she challenged him, he said sorry. She was challenged that this was not true, she denied it.

She said she went to her sister's, and called the mother, she could hear shouting and arguing and asked what was going on. She could hear the father shouting but could not make out what he was saying. The mother was struggling to get her words out, she said, "He just strangled me". She put the phone down and rang her mother.

She was asked if there was any pressure on her to give evidence. She said that she has received pressure from her husband not to give evidence today, because he was threatening a divorce.

In relation to the preparation of the statement, she said she was asked to set out what she had seen directly. She was asked when the incident took place, she said 2022. She said, "Me and my sister and the mother were on the phone", she said she heard an argument straightaway, she was not sure where the mother was, but she was at her in-laws' house, just trying to get her words out, "I asked her to find out what was going on".

She was asked about the Ring doorbell. The father said to her that he had ordered a Ring doorbell to keep an eye on the mother, to see who comes and goes. She knew he was alleging infidelity, she challenged him that they did not have money for a coffee table, and also why should he keep an eye on her, he should trust her.

She was challenged that the mother actually heard him say, "If Mum brings men to the house, I will see", but this was not in her statement. She said, "If Mum says he said that, then he did".

It was presented that there is a cultural background in this case of interfamily pressures, which provides the backdrop of the father's behaviour, that he denies all allegations in their entirety, and yet the uncontroversial text messages show apologies, and conditions for a reconciliation. Prior to November 2022, there is clear evidence that the father put expectations on the mother as a wife, including financial expectations with regard to financial abuse.

The paternal aunt's account of the incident in November 2022 should be rejected. The maternal grandmother overheard the commotion and saw the injuries. It was such a significant incident that the mother walked out with the children and did not attempt a reconciliation until six months later, a reconciliation on the father's terms.

Father's alleged passivity while all this was going on does not fit in with the circumstances. Father's behaviour following the reconciliation did not change, and it failed, and a further assault took place. The installation of a Ring doorbell during the period of reconciliation is evidence of control, he does not have a Ring doorbell at the moment.

Prior to then the father followed her to a hotel and videoed her on the basis that he believed she was having an affair. He went to the length of contacting the hire company and making threats in relation to her reputational standing in the community and has continued to stalk her post-separation.

It is said that the father in relation to the forensic analysis of the phone came to court and handed his phone willingly over there and then. The only reason for this is that he came prepared, that he had set up another phone, and submits the mother had been set up by him tampering with the mother’s phone.

The mother denies alienating the children, they were frightened of witnessing domestic abuse. The disclosures they make in 2022 are unsolicited, well before court proceedings.

Whilst counsel for the mother accepts that some of the correspondence with the sister may be inappropriate, she was seeking help to get away, and there is a wealth of evidence of an abusive and controlling relationship.

A chronology and narrative which I have read by way of closing submission provides as follows:

In November 2022 the relationship ends.

On 26 March 2023 father finds out of an affair of the mother, and there are text messages

She first calls the police on 26 March 2023; there is reference to a boyfriend.

On 1 July 2023 there is reference to an invoice purchasing clothes for what is said to be her brother-in-law, and pictures of him wearing the same clothes on 3 July 2023.

On 31 July 2023 mother calls the police to report a history of domestic abuse.

On 29 August 2023 there are conversations in relation to presenting a false police account. Thereafter there is an application for a non-molestation order, and a change of school. After the assembly, the child is kept off school, and there is a referral to Women's Aid.

In essence father seeks a finding of parental alienation, and furthermore that mother has set up a contact named ‘“X”’ and fabricated various messages as set out in RB14. The question is asked why would the father do something as stupid during the litigation as send messages in December 2024? The mother says it was 2022, but it is submitted on behalf of the father that the evidence of the expert is clear. The tone of the messages are different and, if they were sent in 2022, would be prior to any knowledge of an affair.

It was put forward that the mother has attempted to frustrate contact. When the children enjoy contact, she self-reports that they are upset, and keeps them off school, and makes false allegations against the school and the Children's Guardian.

The children themselves ask Women's Aid can they help them in court. The maternal family hold the father in a negative light. The children themselves know far more about the court proceedings than they should. In essence all the allegations are refuted.

On behalf of the Children's Guardian, although it is contended that some of the messages are out of sync, it might be viewed that the language used by the father in relation to the question of clothes is an opinion, and that the court should approach much of the correspondence with the backdrop of the fact that the father believed the mother was having an affair, and that RB13 and RB15 is a snapshot of a moment in time when there were difficulties.

There are questions as to whether there is sufficient evidence to make a finding of physical abuse. The Guardian has concerns as to a number of actions taken by the mother, and the children being made privy to these proceedings, as well as the withdrawal of children after a successful contact. There is also the potential for fabrication of evidence, and conspiracy with regard to making complaints to the police, which draws into question the whole family dynamics, which is troubling going forward for these children in the future. If this is true, then there may need to be further assessments in relation to the dynamics of this family.

With regard to RB14, the expert is clear, the messages stem from screenshots, not from the body of a phone, and they emanate within ten minutes of creating a contact from mum's device on 11 December 2024.

Firstly, in relation to fact finding hearings, the standard of proof to be applied is the balance of probabilities test. The burden of proof lies on the party making the allegations. Neither the seriousness of the allegations nor the seriousness of the consequences makes a difference. The inherent probabilities are simply something to take into account in deciding where the truth lies.

All findings made must be established on the evidence available to the court, including inferences that may be properly drawn from the evidence, and not on suspicion or speculation. The court must take account of all the evidence taken as a whole. Evidence cannot be evaluated and assessed in separate compartments. It is necessary to have regard to the relevance of each piece of evidence in relation to other pieces of evidence, and to exercise an overview of the totality of the evidence in order to determine whether the appropriate standard of proof has been met. The evidence of the parents is of the utmost importance.

I remind myself that it is common for witnesses to sometimes tell lies in the course of a fact-finding hearing. However, the court must be astute to the fact that a witness may lie for many reasons concerning the future upbringing of a child. The fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that they have lied about everything.

I also do not have to deal with each and every inconsistency or conflict of evidence specifically, or give lengthy reasons for conclusions, because sometimes it can be difficult to articulate exactly why one witness is preferred to another. I have to simply do my best to put into words the impression which I may have been left with at the end of the hearing. Discrepancies in evidence are to be expected and are part and parcel of litigation.

I am also not bound by the cases put forward by the parties, but can adopt an alternative solution of my own, where the evidence justifies it, but I should be cautious when doing so.

In relation to alienation, there are two distinct concepts: Parental alienation to mean a child is resistant to a relationship with a parent for no particularly valid reason, generally with the encouragement of the other parent; and using intractable hostility to mean a refusal to allow contact with a parent even when the child may welcome it.

Parental alienation is often never a standalone issue and usually involves counter-allegations.

Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division, in a speech to the Families Need Fathers Conference in 2018, entitled, "Restoring Confidence in Family Justice" said the following:

Or as set out in the case Re S (parental alienation, court) [2020] EWCA 568:

Signs of alienation may include portraying the other parent in an unduly negative light to the child, suggesting that the other parent does not love the child, providing unnecessary reassurance to the child about time with the other parent, contacting the child excessively when with the other parent, and making unfounded allegations or insinuations, particularly of sexual abuse.

I refer to Re S & T (care proceedings following a private law dispute) [2021] EWFC B54:

And in the case of Re S (transfer of residence) [2010] EWHC B19:

It is recognised by CAFCASS as arising when a child's resistance or hostility towards one parent is not justified and is as a result of psychological manipulation from the other parent.

To that may be added that manipulation of the child by the other parent may not be malicious or even deliberate, it is the process that matters, not the motive, as set out in Re A (children, parental alienation) [2019] EWHC 356. In other words, a child's wishes and feelings are tainted by a false narrative.

In the case of Re C (parental alienation, instruction of experts) [2023] EWHC 345, it was said as follows:

I also refer to the consultation document Draft Guidance on Responding to allegations of Alienating Behaviour, August 2023, produced by the Family Justice Council. Within it it says:

When alienating behaviours are alleged, the court requires those making the allegations to identify the evidence on which they rely. To that extent the behaviour of a child is not evidence of the behaviour of an adult, so the behaviour of a child should not be used to evidence adult behaviours, and the fact that a child is resistant to spending time with a parent does not automatically mean that the child has been exposed to alienating behaviours from the other parent. Alignment and attachment issues can result in resistance, reluctance and refusal without alienating behaviours perpetrated by an adult.

The following questions, it is said, should be addressed:

First, is there evidence that the child is refusing, resistant or reluctant to engage with the parent? If not, how can it be obtained? That is the first element.

The second element is: is the child's reluctance, refusal and resistance not consequent on the actions of the non-resident parent towards the child of the resident parent? Children showing resistance or willingness to maintain or build a relationship with a parent who has been abusive towards them, and towards the other parent, may be found to have a justified response to that parent.

Thirdly. One parent has engaged in behaviours that have directly or indirectly impacted on the child, leading to the child's refusal, resistance or reluctance to engage in a relationship with another parent, i.e. evidence of manipulation?

The court must be cautious when invited to agree a default finding that a parent who fails to establish an allegation of domestic abuse or abuse of the child has therefore engaged in alienating behaviour. The absence of an alternative explanation does not lead automatically to an explanation in terms of alienation. Failed or false allegations of abuse against the non-resident parent will not constitute alienating behaviour, unless there is evidence that the subject child has been manipulated on behalf of those false/failed allegations into an unjustified resistance or reluctance to engage with the allegedly abusive parent.

Crucially, it is when there is no known justification for the hostility or the rejection of a parent in combination with the evidence of psychological manipulation that it may determine that the child is in what is sometimes referred to as an alienating position in the family dynamic.

It is clear that the confidential number ending 946, saved under the contact ‘“X”’, is the same number associated with mother's handset, and the dates of those messages ties into the date being Wednesday, 11 December 2024.

It is also clear that the handset contact of ‘“X”’ was created on 11 December 2024 at 10.37 am, the first message emanating from that contact being 10.47 am, ten minutes later.

It is unlikely that any backup performed would link the contact to an incorrect phone number.

In relation to the reference to a telephone number ending 946 under the contact ‘“X”’ being referenced on 25 November 2024, at 18.47, prior to the profile creation on 11 December 2024, if the contact number profile is changed to that of ‘“X”’, it would retrospectively change all related messages to show them coming from ‘“X”’, if sent from that same number.

As the expert indicates, he says it was more likely than not that the contact was created on 11 December 2024, on mother's device, his comment was, "I am sure of it".

It is clear that when the mother came back from Pakistan in November 2021, she had for whatever reason changed, as is evident from the father's texts. Added to that is the father's views as to the mother's subsequent infidelity, which seems to have become all-consuming. It is clear that the father wished to preserve the marriage, in order to effect a reconciliation, and he sought to lay down conditions going forward. The bottom line was that there was a lack of trust which resulted in the father imposing such conditions.

However, they might be justified, on one perspective it can be considered as control. This sadly escalated as the marriage declined, it included following the mother on one occasion to a hotel and sending videos of the mother to a family member to prove the father's suspicions. He accepts that.

Although the father denies it, there is corroborative evidence from the school of an incident of him circling the block, and sounding his horn, and being emotional in wanting to see his children.

So, whilst I therefore find that within the father's behaviour there were elements of coercive and controlling behaviour, this is in the context of a marriage in decline, as opposed to a general trait.

I turn now to the incident in November 2022, where matters seem to have come to a head. There is some evidence in relation to this. In a text mother says, "You hit me", there is no response. There is no date specified either. There are of course disclosures from I on 15 December 2022 to the school and IS to the school on 9 December 2022. These are unprompted disclosures. Father alleges coaching.

The police evidence refers to only one incident of this nature.

However, I accept that there is a backdrop to all this on the basis that following mother's disclosure of domestic abuse to the school and a subsequent referral to Women's Aid, a narrative may have been created and embellished, such that both the mother and indeed the children have been victims of father's aggression.

Of course, on the civil burden of proof, the only thing I have to find, and it is a binary test, is whether it is more likely than not that the father did in fact hit the mother, and to what extent that assault took place.

Having considered the canvas of all of the evidence, I have determined that it is more likely than not that there was a physical assault of the father on the mother. However, this took place by way of father hitting the mother on one occasion only. I do not find that there was any formal strangulation, and neither do I find that the mother fell over the settee. I find that the mother incurred an injury to her lip. That is the only finding I make in relation to physical abuse.

In relation to the mother, and particularly the evidence in relation to Evidence Matters, mother denies manipulating the messages, provided at RB14, or creating the contact ‘“X”’. She does not accept the expert's clear evidence as to the date of those messages being 2024 but is insistent that they are from 2022. She denies again creating the contact ‘“X”’ on that date.

As counsel for the father states, if these messages come from the father, it is an evidential goldmine, too good to be true, game, set and match. I do not accept mother's evidence on this. There is a background of potential weaponising of the children via contact, and the content of conversations passing between the mother and her sister.

It is rather concerning that although she says the children love their father, they do not talk about him, and she is unsure whether they enjoy contact. She does not feel that the father's application to spend time with the children is motivated other than by getting back at her.

It is clear to me that mother's animosity towards the father has not been hidden from the children. They are clear that she hates him, and this in my view has coloured their views on their relationship with him.

The incident at 3b, (the alleged assault) is not mentioned in the statement in support of the non-molestation proceedings. Incident 3g is also not mentioned in the self-same statement, and the police logs are also silent, save for one incident of violence the mother refers to, and I find that that took place in November 2022, for which ultimately there was a short reconciliation thereafter.

In relation to threats to kill, (3f) reportedly made by I that dad had threatened to kill the mum, there is no subsequent disclosure of this by I to the school, neither did mum mention this to the police.

I found her evidence confusing at times. Initially she said that, when the mother put her phone in her pocket, she could not hear, then she could hear a commotion, she could hear and listened, she said she could hear father hitting her and pushing her, the paternal grandmother saying, "Get out of the house", and "Let her go".

Clearly her reporting of the mother being hit cannot be confirmed other than through the mother's subsequent report to her, and of course she could not hear fully what the father was saying.

The paternal aunt's evidence was clearer. I accept her evidence as to the conversation as to the Ring doorbell installation, but again this is against the backdrop of the father's suspicions as to the mother's infidelity, for which I believe there is a more than a flicker of truth about.

1c. I find that not proven.

2a. On one occasion the father attended the children's school and circled the block and beeped his horn. I do not find that he was abusive, but he was in a heightened state of emotion due to wanting to see his children.

I will block allegations 2c, 4i and 4r together. I find that there were elements of coercive and controlling behaviour, by the father to the mother, but this was in the context of a marriage in decline, as opposed to a general trait throughout the marriage. The father's belief that the mother was having an affair provided the impetus with regard to that, for which it appears to me his suspicions had some basis. However, there is only one incident in which I find whereby the father followed the mother, and he admits to that, and also to sharing a video with the sister. I do not find any other allegations in relation to the remaining matters proven.

2e. Is not proven.

3a. Not proven.

3d. Not proven.

3c. I do not accept the mother's version of events; however, I do find that during an altercation between the family and the mother the father hit her on the lip, causing the injury. He did not however strangle her, and this was the only incident of physical violence.

3f. Not proven.

3g. Not proven.

In relation to alienation, there was a positive contact on 12 February 2025 between A, IS and the father, as evidenced by the Children's Guardian and the school. Mum's subsequent account does not mirror those contemporaneous records. On 18 March 2025 A disclosed that IS was reprimanded by the mother for speaking to the father, he was shouted at and hit with a ruler, he says that mum hates dad. A wants to speak to dad, but told the Children's Guardian not to tell mum, as she will be angry and punish him. IS's demeanour with regard to contact subsequently changed, despite the previous positive contact following on from 12 February 2025. There is a report from the school on 17 April 2024 where I sees dad at the assembly. These are contemporaneous records, which are contraindicative when read alongside mum's recount.

I find it as a fact that mother has exhibited alienating behaviours and has not done enough to promote a positive relationship with the children and reassure them. On the contrary I find she has actually sought to put obstacles in the way of its progression, which has caused the children emotional harm and confusion by adopting the mother's narrative, and overriding their own wishes and feelings.

I also find that the mother has sought to present false evidence before the court by way of exhibit RB14 in order to further her case, which she persists in maintaining, notwithstanding the clear view of the expert witness.

I also find that there is clear evidence that battle lines have been drawn between family members on the mother's side, namely her and her sisters, conspiring to potentially embellish and falsify evidence.

I therefore order that a transcript of this judgment will be produced and sent to the Legal Aid Agency.

I am also considering whether to publish this judgment in full, in anonymised format, but I will wait for representations with regard to that, either now or at a later date.

That is my judgment, and the reasons for it.