F v M

I am concerned with the welfare of L, who is two. F is L’s father and M is L’s mother. For the sake of ease, I shall simply refer to them as the father and the mother. This was listed to be a ‘rolled up’ fact-finding and final hearing dealing with the substantive Children Act, Family Law Act and enforcement proceedings but, as I will come on to, it was not possible to conclude the proceedings and this hearing has effectively been used a fact-finding hearing in the Children Act proceedings and a final hearing in the Family Law Act proceedings. The evidence was heard over three days, with the mother giving evidence for almost the entirety of day two and the father giving evidence for almost the entirety of day three. I then directed written submissions to be filed and listed the case for a further short hearing on 22 July 2025 for the parties to develop their written submissions and to hear the parties’ respective positions on interim contact and further case management directions.

The father is a litigant in person. Given the allegations made by the mother, Practice Direction 3A and 3AA apply, and the Court previously determined that the father should not be permitted to cross-examine the mother directly. The father was supposed to be assisted by a Qualified Legal Representative (QLR) at this hearing but unfortunately, the appointed QLR became very unwell the night before the hearing and was unable to attend. It had looked like the case may therefore have to be adjourned but the father indicated on the morning of day one that he had had a conference with the QLR prior to the hearing and had already formulated a lot of the questions that he wanted to put to the mother. It was therefore agreed that he could put all of his questions in writing on the afternoon of day one, with a view to the mother’s evidence commencing on day two and me asking those questions of her. Both parties were content with this approach, and I am quite satisfied that this allowed for both parties to have a fair hearing, and for the hearing to be effective.

It is clear to me that the father is an intelligent and articulate man. The questions he wanted to put to the mother, whilst very lengthy and at times repetitive, were mostly relevant to the issues in the case that had to be determined. Towards the end of those questions, the father indicated that he did not require the final few questions to be asked as he felt that his case had, by that point, been fully put to the mother and some of the final few questions were not particularly relevant to the issues to be determined in any event. The father then filed his written submissions that, again, were largely relevant to the issues that the court has to determine and set out his case clearly.

The mother has been represented by counsel, Ms Houdijk. I am grateful to Ms Houdijk for the clear and careful manner in which her client’s case has been put.

Given the allegations made in this case, special measures have been in place by way of a screen in court and arrangements have been made to ensure that the parties do not come into contact with one another in the public areas of the court building. Both parties were offered and took breaks during their evidence.

The parties began their relationship in June 2020. They lived together with L at the home of the paternal grandmother and her partner, Mr E, until their separation on 20 October 2023. Since then, L has remained in the care of his mother, who lives with the maternal grandparents. The father has continued to live with his mother and Mr E.

Following the separation, the father did have contact with L from Tuesday morning to Thursday morning each week as L did not go to day care on a Tuesday and a Wednesday. This continued to take place until January 2024. Around January/February 2024, the overnight stays were stopped after the mother raised concerns that the father was not physically present for a lot of the contact time because he was at work and that the paternal grandmother was, in fact, looking after L. The mother raised concern that this was disruptive for L.

The father initiated these proceedings by filing a C100 application on 13 February 2024, seeking a child arrangements order. He also submitted a C1A form. The mother made an FL401 application for a Non-Molestation Order (NMO) on 27 February 2024, which was dealt with by undertakings given on 20 March 2024 but on 5 March 2025, the mother made a further application for a non-molestation order, which was made without notice on 10 March 2025. That order remains in place. In November 2024, the father issued a second C100 application that was listed for a FHDRA in January 2025 – there is a degree of contention about this application (see below) but it is worth noting that it was dismissed at the FHDRA.

Both parties have made extensive allegations against each other. The father’s allegations are as follows:

It is right to note that towards the end of his oral evidence, the father indicated that he was no longer pursuing his findings against the mother and wanted to withdraw his enforcement application, but it was unclear to me if that was his genuine position. It did, however, become clear from the father’s written submissions that he was very much still pursuing findings against the mother.

The mother’s allegations are as follows:

There have been a number of referrals to the Local Authority, which are set out within the Local Authority’s section 7 report as follows:

On 9 June 2024, the Local Authority completed a Child & Family Assessment. No concerns were identified about the mother’s care of L or his safety in her care, and the assessment concluded that the concerns raised by the father about the mother were unsubstantiated and likely to be malicious. The mother was advised to seek advice on obtaining a “Stalking Protection Order” against the father and the case was progressed to a MARAC referral. Concern was raised that the father was struggling to “move on” from the relationship breakdown and continues to harass, threaten and manipulate the mother through her family members, and that he lacks insight into the impact of his behaviours. The assessment further highlighted concerns about L becoming further exposed or embroiled in conflict between the parents. It was recommended that the father could engage with ‘Spotlight’ to assist him in understanding the impact of his behaviour on the mother and L but this would not be possible while proceedings are ongoing. It was suggested that once proceedings end, the father could potentially engage with the Respect Programme. It was recommended that the father should engage in the Incredible Years parenting course and that both parents could, separately, engage with ‘mellow parenting’. In respect of the mother, it was recommended that she should engage with the Freedom Program.

Following a direction from the Court, a section 7 report was filed on 9 September 2024. The recommendations and conclusions of this report are as follows:

The court has ordered that L should have video contact with the father twice weekly, facilitated by the paternal grandmother. However, disputes have arisen over the environment in which these calls take place. The father has complained that calls conducted in the garden are distracting for Land not conducive to meaningful contact. He says that the mother needs to do more to promote contact and ensure that L engages. The mother has raised concern that the father has not consistently been available for contact, that he has often been in an inappropriate environment for contact to take place, such as in his car or at work, and that he has not been able to fully engage with Las a result.

The father seeks findings on his allegations, although at a previous hearing, I removed allegation one from his schedule on the basis that it was not relevant. The father’s case, it seems to me, is that the mother has broadly frustrated and denied his relationship with L, and that, certainly in the past, she has placed L at risk of harm in her care. He seeks an immediate order to spend time with L as frequently as the court deems to be in the best interests of L’s welfare. He does not see a necessity for supervision but would accept this initially.

The mother seeks findings on her allegations. She says that she was the victim if abusive behaviour from the father during the relationship and since the relationship ended and is concerned about the risk he poses to her and to L. At the outset of the hearing, I was told that the mother would agree to the father having supervised contact with Lin a contact centre so long as this was funded by the father. This mother has previously indicated her agreement to such an arrangement at previous hearing, but the parties have not been able to reach agreement and it has never been ordered by the court.

L’s welfare is my paramount consideration at all times. When making welfare decisions for L, I must consider the welfare checklist in s.1(4) of the Children Act 1989. I also have regard to the ‘no order’ principle and the principle that any delay in making decisions for children is generally prejudicial to their welfare.

In this case, I am tasked with determining a number of disputed allegations made by both parents against the other. This hearing was listed as a ‘rolled up’ final hearing, to include determination of the parties allegations and then to include decisions in respect of L’s welfare and what orders, if any, should be made.

In respect of the fact-finding aspect of this hearing, both in respect of the Children Act proceedings (including the father’s enforcement application) and the Family Law Act proceedings, a very useful summary of the key principles that apply are set out by Cobb J at paragraph 26 of BY v BX [2022] EWHC 108 (Fam) which are as follows:

PD12J, of course, sets out a definition of domestic abuse and also of coercive and controlling behaviour, which the Court is obliged to consider when allegations of domestic abuse are made. The definition is as follows:

PD12J also makes it clear that if the court is to order any contact between a perpetrator of domestic abuse and a child, the Court must be satisfied that such contact is safe for the child and the victim of that domestic abuse.

There is a significant amount of written evidence within the court bundle, including numerous statements from the parents, some police disclosure, the CAFCASS safeguarding letter, and a section 7 report and some other disclosure from the Local Authority. In addition, I was provided by the father with an exhibits bundle containing all of the evidence that he relied upon in support of his allegations, along with what he has said in his witness statements.

I will comment on the content of the oral evidence when I come to deal with my findings but before doing so, I wish to comment on my impressions of the oral evidence.

On day one, I heard from the author of the s.7 report, SW who was the social worker previously allocated to the case when the s.7 report was directed. The Local Authority have since closed their file and are no longer involved. When cross-examined, SW accepted that it would usually be better for a child to have contact with both parents if safe to do so but rejected the father’s suggestion that there were no safeguarding concerns for L, as set out in the child & family assessment completed last year. When asked about the possibility of moving from video calls to direct contact, SW felt there were still some “grey areas” that needed to be addressed, which are also set out in the child & family assessment. SW accepted that the father’s completion of the Solihull online parenting course was a positive step but did not think this was the same as completing the work recommended in the Local Authority’s assessment. SW was clear that if and when direct contact does commence, it would need to be supervised initially. SW had observed a video contact between Land the father and was not concerned about how the mother managed L during the call and confirmed that the Local Authority do not hold concerns about the mother capacity to care for Land to keep him safe. SW was clear that, based on the Local Authority’s assessment, they do not consider the mother to be a perpetrator of domestic abuse but were concerned that she may have been the victim of such abuse, while acknowledging that no findings had been made. SW explained that the Local Authority had initially offered to supervise some direct contact between Land the father at a contact centre, which the father had declined, and that after reviewing the previous order again, SW offered to observe one of the video call contact sessions. SW was however clear that the father did initially reject the offer of some supervised direct contact.

I found SW to be a helpful and measured witness. She was able to speak clearly to the work undertaken by the Local Authority in this case and the outcome of their assessments. She gave helpful evidence in respect of the Local Authority’s assessment of the mother as being able to meet L’s needs and keep him safe, while highlighting the concerns identified in respect of the father, as set out in the Child & Family assessment and the section 7 report.

I heard from the mother on day two of this hearing and I will deal with the content of her evidence, as far as it is relevant to the matters to be determined, when I come to my findings in a moment. The mother gave evidence for almost the entire day and was cross-examined using the questions prepared by the father and asked by me. I found the mother to be an impressive witness. She gave straightforward answers to the huge number of questions that were asked of her. Her evidence was concise and to the point. I did not gain the impression that she was in any way seeking to exaggerate or embellish her evidence. Her evidence was measured and considered, and I formed the view that she was a credible witness.

I heard from the father on day three. As with the mother, he gave evidence for most of the day and I will deal with the content of his evidence, as far as it is relevant to the matters to be determined, when I come to my findings in a moment.

I was very concerned by the father’s evidence. The overwhelming theme of his evidence, which is entirely in line with actions that he has taken both prior to and during these proceedings, was to undermine the mother as a parent, to criticise her at almost every opportunity and, in my judgement, to punish her. I was left with the distinct impression that the father will say anything to undermine the mother and to present her as unfit parent, who poses a risk to L. It seems to me that the father continues to hold a great deal of resentment towards the mother and although he denies this, his actions and some parts of his oral evidence very much suggest otherwise. It is clear to me that the father squarely blames the mother for him not having contact with L and there was almost no acknowledgment at all that his own conduct may be a factor. I am concerned about whether the father, who holds such a fixed negative view of the mother, would be able to manage or control his negative views in front of L, and I am therefore concerned that L is very likely to be exposed to the father’s feelings of animosity and negativity towards the mother. I found the content of the father’s evidence to be almost entirely in line with the conclusions reached by the Local Authority in their Child & Family assessment completed in June 2024.

This is a case where both parties have made allegations against the other party. I will deal with my findings in a moment but in respect of the mother’s allegations, it became clear to me as the evidence came out that what she is alleging is a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour towards her from the father, both during and after the relationship ended. This behaviour, the mother says, involved sexual coercion, verbal abuse, denigrating language and financial control. It is therefore, in my judgment, right to look at these allegations as part of a pattern of behaviour rather than in isolation as individual allegations.

The father’s allegations are broadly focused around two distinct themes; firstly, that the mother is an unfit parent who poses a risk to L, and secondly, that the mother has intentionally controlled, denied and obstructed the father’s relationship with L. The father’s statement dated 30 May 2025 (pages A5 to A8 of the bundle) sets out the details of his allegations. He has filed a separate statement in support of his enforcement application, which sets out the significant number of breaches he says the mother has committed in respect of him having video calls with L.

The father’s allegations are then set out in his schedule of allegations. There is a composite schedule dealing with both parties’ allegations and the other party’s response to them.

It should be noted that towards the end of the father’s oral evidence, he indicated that he was no longer pursuing his allegations against the mother and was not inviting the court to make those findings. Having then received his written submissions however, it is clear to me that the father does continue to seek findings against the mother.

The father’s first allegation relates to the mother’s pet dogs, who the father says have attacked other animals. At the pre-trial review (PTR), I removed this allegation from the schedule on the basis that I did not consider it was necessary and proportionate to consider it in the context of ultimately making welfare decisions for L. Nevertheless, the father asked questions to the social worker, SW, about the dogs and despite my direction at the PTR, questions were still put to the mother about it.

SW was clear that she had met the dogs herself and had observed L interacting with them without any concerns. She said that L appeared comfortable around the dogs. The mother echoed this view in her evidence and was clear that she had no concerns about the dogs posing any risk to L. She clarified that the dogs had attacked some foxes that had entered their home previously but considered this to be very far removed from a suggestion that this somehow means the dogs pose a risk to L. It is also clear from the Child & Family assessment and the section 7 report that the Local Authority were not concerned about the dogs. At C127, there is a photograph of L with the dogs sent by the maternal aunt to the father, to which he replies “amazing”, suggesting he was not concerned.

As I made clear at the PTR, I do not consider this allegation to be relevant to the issue of L’s welfare and the issue of domestic abuse. Very many people have dogs as pets, including people who have young children. It is the responsibility of any parent who has a pet to ensure that their child is safe when around that pet. There is no evidence at all that the mother cannot or is not doing this.

The father’s next allegation was that he was the victim of domestic abuse as a result of the mother showing manipulative and controlling behaviour, which continued after the relationship ended by using L as a ‘weapon’. The father alleges that the mother sought to control his relationship with L by dictating when contact could take place, putting conditions on contact and ultimately stopping it completely.

The father relies upon very many WhatsApp/text messages in support of these allegations. There are in his own exhibit bundle from Ex5C to Ex24. It is not necessary to repeat the content of each message. The messages are between various family members, including the mother and paternal grandmother, and the father and maternal Aunt, who was communicating with the father on behalf of the mother.

The mother accepts that she did change the arrangements for the father’s contact between the relationship ending, when contact was initially taking place from Tuesday to Thursday each week, to it stopping completely. By this time, the mother’s sister was communicating with the father about this. In her evidence, the mother was clear that her main concern was that the father was not in fact spending time with or looking after L when he was supposed to be with him, and that the paternal grandmother was largely responsible for looking after L. The mother said she was concerned that the father was working a lot and was often getting home very late, which interfered with L’s routine, and so she wanted him to take more responsibility by, for example, leaving work earlier to spend time with L, and prioritising that time over his business. In her oral evidence, the mother was clear that she felt L’s needs should have come first. The mother also expressed concern that when the father had asked to see L at the mother’s home, he actually wanted to see her because he was still focused on their relationship. She rejected the suggestion that she wanted to punish the father or was acting out of spite.

The mother also raised concern about the father not engaging with L when they all lived together, when she says that the father was often distracted by being on his phone or painting his Warhammer figurines, and so it follows that the mother was concerned about the father’s ability to engage with L during contact time.

The mother says that in addition to these concerns, the father has started making reports to the Local Authority suggesting that L was at risk of harm in her care, which also caused her concerns as she felt these allegations were baseless and were being made maliciously.

Somewhat surprisingly, the mother was also asked whether she would be willing to accept a reduction in the child maintenance payments so that the father had additional funds to pay for a contact centre. The mother said that would be a matter for the father, but I would observe that it is difficult to see how reducing the child maintenance payments and leaving the mother with less funds to look after L could be regarded as being in his best interests. The mother accepted the father has, to date, provided some financial support for L but also said that she has had to rely on family for support too.

The father does not accept the mother’s concerns and felt she was to control his relationship with L. He said that he had a business to run and could not simply close his shop early through fear of losing money and damaging the reputation of the business. In short, he felt the mother’s requests were unreasonable.

After considering the evidence of both parties and reading the messages relied upon by the father in support of this allegation, I am not satisfied at all that the mother was using L as a ‘weapon’ or was trying to control the father. It seems to me that the mother had genuine concerns about the father not engaging with L and not being physically present for a lot of the time when L was supposed to be spending time with him. This is explicitly set out within the messages. At no point does the mother say or suggest she wants to stop L seeing the father; in fact, the mother, through her sister, makes it very clear that she is willing to reinstate the overnight stays if the father can address the mother’s concerns. It seems to me that the mother was simply trying to ensure that the arrangements that were in place would a) be followed consistently and b) that the father was actually spending quality time with L during the agreed times that he was supposed to be with L. I therefore do not consider that the mother was behaving in a controlling or abusive way towards the father but was, in fact, simply prioritising L’s welfare as she felt was appropriate.

I am satisfied that the father’s reports to the Local Authority were a factor in the mother deciding to curtail that contact arrangements and this is not surprising given, as I will come on to, these were malicious allegations motivated by a desire on the part of the father to portray the mother as a bad parent and to involve the Local Authority in L’s life. In light of that, it is perhaps not surprising that the mother’s concerns about the father became heightened and that she decided it was no longer safe for L to spend time with the father in circumstances where he was actively taking steps to portray her as a risk to Land was making malicious allegations against her.

The father’s third allegation is that the mother has neglected L, allowed him to be exposed to dangerous activities and has committed child abuse, including raising her voice on one occasion in front of L. The basis for this allegation seems to arise from some photographs the father has provided of L with a roll of paper towels in his mouth while sitting on his mother’s lap, a photograph of L on a balcony where he is being held by his mother and L standing up in a kitchen sink while the mother took a photograph of him.

SW was clear that the Local Authority did not consider that the mother posed any risk to L. After receiving the referral from the father raising concerns, the Local Authority completed their initial Child & Family Assessment, managed the case under Early Help and closed the file. In her oral evidence, SW was clear that the Local Authority did not believe the father’s concerns had been substantiated.

When it was suggested to the father in cross examination that these were malicious/fabricated allegations, he said that that he did not accept the conclusions of SW (see below) because he does not regard social workers as professionals and made reference to Michael Jackson when talking about the photograph on the balcony, which bears no relevance to the photograph of L.

The mother’s evidence was that the photographs were simply examples of L doing harmless things. She maintains that she was with Lat all times, as can be seen in some of the photographs, and that he was never at risk. She denies ever raising her voice in the presence of L.

In my judgement, these are malicious allegations made by the father to portray the mother as someone who poses a risk to L. The evidence relied upon by the father has been exaggerated and the father has relied upon innocuous photographs and tried to suggest that they show something which they do not. For the avoidance of doubt, I accept the evidence of SW that the mother does not pose a risk to L. L playing with and putting some paper towels into his mouth while sitting on his mother’s lap is not an indication of neglectful or abusive parenting as the father has suggested. The photograph on the balcony clearly shows L being held securely by his mother and the photograph of L in the sink, which was taken by the mother, means she can only have been a few metres away at most and furthermore, it appears that L’s step-grandfather, Mr E, was present too. I further do not find that the mother has raised her voice in the presence of L on one occasion as suggested by the father. The only evidence in support of such an allegation comes from the father himself and having heard the evidence of both parents, I find the mother to be a far more credible witness. Put simply, I consider the father has raised all of these allegations in a misguided attempt to bolster his own case and to discredit the mother.

Allegation 4 is that the mother has manipulated the court system to obtain legal aid and, when the father was previously legally represented, inundated his solicitor with e-mails to increase his expenses. At pages Ex30 to Ex53 of his exhibits bundle, the father has provided his evidence in support of this allegation but put simply, the evidence provided by the father undermines his own allegation. Some of the criticisms made seem to be directed towards the mother’s solicitor rather than the mother herself (a theme that was continued in the father’s written submissions) and at other times, it is clear that the father was engaging in a substantial amount of correspondence himself. At pages Ex47 to Ex49 for example, there is evidence of the father sending e-mails to the mother solicitor almost every day between the end of March 2024 and May 2024.

It is also clear that the father made a concerted effort to get the mother’s legal aid certificate revoked by contacting the Legal Aid Agency and providing them with information about the mother bank details and savings which would have left her unrepresented in the proceedings. The father says that he did this because he was concerned that the mother was not entitled to legal aid and had essentially obtained this fraudulently.

The mother denies this allegation against her. She denies ever seeking to manipulate the court system or increase the father’s legal costs and says, in fact, it was the father who was doing this, with an example being his second C100 application filed in November 2024 to spend time with L, which led to a hearing being listed in January 2025 that was ultimately ineffective. My first observation is that the application was not necessary because the father had already made his application and these proceedings were underway, although the father, as litigant in person, said he had understood that he needed to issue a further application to seek contact with L because this is what had been communicated to him from the maternal family. My second observation is to note that on 17 January 2025, just prior to the listed hearing, the mother’s previous solicitors issued a C2 seeking an adjournment for the following reasons:

The father’s second C100 application was dismissed at the hearing on 20 January 2025. The recitals to the order made at that hearing (case number ZE24P01289)

While I entirely understand that the father is a litigant in person, it cannot be right that he criticises the mother’s litigation conduct when he, himself, has issued an unnecessary application and then failed to provide the mother’s solicitor with proper notice of a hearing. As set out above, the application was then quickly dismissed by the court in any event.

This allegation has not been proven by the father and in fact, has simply served to increase my concerns about the father’s conduct towards the mother, particularly his efforts to get her legal aid certificate revoked. As the Legal Aid Agency confirm in their e-mail to the father, they had fully assessed the mother’s application for legal aid and were satisfied that she was eligible for it and as I will come on to later in this judgement, I am concerned that this was, in fact, an attempt by the father to exert financial control over the mother. It would, in my view, be entirely wrong to characterise the mother as the person that has been driving this litigation or that she has somehow conducted herself incorrectly in relation to it.

The next allegation is in two parts. Firstly, that L was dropped off to the father smelling of smoke between October 2023 and January 2024. By this time, Land the mother were living with the maternal grandparents. It is common ground that they smoke inside their home, and this was one of the father’s previous complaints to the Local Authority. SW confirmed that this was investigated, and no concerns were raised by the Local Authority about it. The mother accepts that her parents do smoke indoors but denies that L has ever smelt of smoke. The father maintained his allegation and raised concern about L breathing-in second hand smoke.

As with some of the father’s allegations, my view is that this is another example of the father seeking to exaggerate something to bolster his case. It is well-established that it is not good for children to be exposed to second-hand smoke but for the father to suggest that this somehow means the mother poses a risk to L or is an inadequate parent is, in my judgement, another malicious and unwarranted accusation on the part of the father. There is no need to say anything further about it.

The second part of the allegation is that L was dropped off to his father with “immense” bruising to his face and this was explored during cross examination. The mother accepts L did have a bruise on one occasion after her stumbled while standing on the bed and hit his face on the bedframe. The mother said that she explained this to the father. The father said that he felt unable to comment on whether the mother was telling the truth but had concerns about how the bruising was sustained. He did not, however, take any further action at the time.

Once again, I consider this to be a matter exaggerated by the father in an attempt to bolster his case. The father was told by the mother how the bruising was sustained and when the father saw the bruises, he appears to have done nothing further about it. He did not seek medical attention for L, did not call the Local Authority and did not call the police. In fact, he seems to have taken no action at all and in my judgement, this is most likely because he accepted the mother’s explanation at the time. I therefore do not find this aspect of the allegation to be proved and I accept that the bruise on L’s face was caused accidentally.

The father’s final allegation is that the mother has been dishonest on multiple occasions to the police, the Local Authority and to the Court, placing her in contempt of Court. My first observation is that there is no committal application before the Court but, in any event, the father’s case seems to be that the mother has lied because she made reports to the police that led to no further action being taken, particularly in respect of the incident when he was arrested for breaching an undertaking, the police seemingly being unaware initially that they had no power to arrest the father for this.

The mother denies this allegation and says that she has tried, throughout the proceedings, to follow the correct Court procedures. She says that she was told to contact the police if she had concerns, which is what she did, including when she was concerned that the father had breached the undertaking.

I make no finding in respect of this allegation against the mother and, in fact, have formed the very clear view that it is the father who has made misleading and malicious reports about the mother to the Local Authority, particularly where he has suggested that she poses a direct risk to L arising from the dogs, the second-hand smoke and inadequate supervision. As I will come on to, in my judgement, this all forms part of the coercive and controlling pattern of behaviour perpetrated by the father to the mother both during and after their relationship.

After hearing the evidence and considering the written evidence, I have formed the view that it is unhelpful to consider the mother’s allegations as distinct from one another. The mother, it seems to be, alleges a pattern of behaviour from the father that amounts to coercive and controlling behaviour, and so the allegations need to be considered in that context. Whilst there will still need to be reference to specific alleged behaviours, it is important to consider whether such behaviours form part of a pattern.

The mother says that throughout the relationship, the father would pressure her into having sex with him, would insult her if she did not agree and did not respect her boundaries (allegation 1 in the mother’s schedule). The mother provides the most detail about this in her statement dated 28 May 2025. The mother says that the father told her that the most important part of their relationship was having sex, that he would call her “boring” and “selfish” if she did not agree to participate in certain sexual activities that the father wanted her to and told her she had ruined one weekend away when she was on her period. The mother says that shortly after she gave birth to L, the father told her that he did not feel his intimacy needs were being met and in October 2023, which was around the time the parties were separating, said, in a text message, “are you sure its Saturday and we have been rowing. I think I deserve sex”.

The mother goes on to exhibit numerous screenshots of WhatsApp messages between the parties. It is not necessary to repeat the content of every message here but examples include the father saying the following:

In cross examination, the mother maintained her account as set out in her statement and as referenced in the exhibits referred to above.

The father, in his written evidence denies this allegation. His oral evidence on this aspect of the mother’s case was concerning. He admitted to monitoring the mother’s menstrual cycle but seemed to think this was reasonable because he was communicating with the mother about this and did not consider it to be controlling. In his response statement to the mother’s allegations, the father says:

“To my memory M was only interrupted once it was the hotel in Nottingham that M said she could not have sex that night but she said she was ‘all clear’ in the morning….. Secondly, As a habit so not to be surprised I kept track of the monthly cycle, as to purposely not book weekends away on those occasions, I knew she had lied that night to test me however knowing this, I was not disappointed I purposely passed her test.”

Later in his statement the father says:

“It is no secret that men have needs and a relationship without sex is called a friendship. I do not dispute that I was let down by M towards the end of our relationship and it is shown in her own evidence that I regularly asked her to show more intimacy in our relationship”

When asked, in his oral evidence, whether it a women’s job to satisfy a man sexually and care for a child, the father said that he thought it was a women’s job to be intimate with their partner and help raise a child. He also talked about the importance to him of intimacy in a relationship and said that without intimacy “you are just two people raising a child”. He has said that he thinks 90% of a relationship is about having sex.

My clear impression of the father’s evidence was that he felt entitled to a sexual relationship with the mother on his own terms. There is almost a complete disregard for the mother’s wishes and choices around sex, the fact that she had recently given birth and the fact that she was on her period. The father, in my judgment, was fixated on his sexual needs at the expense of the mother’s feelings and whenever she tried to voice her views, the father would insult her and/or tell her that he was ending the relationship. In my view, keeping track of the mother’s menstrual cycle to check that the mother was not lying to him about when she was on her period is controlling behaviour on the part of the father. Rather than considering the mother’s wishes and feelings around sex, the father was focused only on his own sexual needs and ensuring these were fulfilled. In his oral evidence, the father accepted that some of his comments were not very supportive of the mother, but I did not gain the impression that he had any insight or understanding into why his behaviour would be of concern or why it might be seen as coercive and abusive.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am quite satisfied that the father, both via WhatsApp message and verbally, would put pressure on the mother to have sex with him without any regard to her choices/boundaries, and if she did not agree, he would then insult and demean her.

The mother alleges that throughout the relationship, the father was verbally abusive towards her (allegation 3 in the mother’s schedule) and made derogatory and offensive comments to her (allegation 4 in the mother’s schedule). These matters are touched upon in all of the mother’s statements and specific examples are summarised in the schedule of allegations. As with the previous allegation, the mother has provided numerous screenshots of messages where the father, for example, he calls her “ignorant”, “stupid”, that she “is not cut out to run your own business”, that she is a “fucking maid” and tells her “don’t fuck with me”, which the father now denies was a threat. In a message to his step-father, the father refers to the mother as a “bitch”.

In his oral evidence, the father had to accept saying these things because the evidence is very clear but, worryingly, he seemed unable to recognise why these types of comments and actions might impact upon his relationship with Land why anyone might be concerned about the issue of risk. When asked about this, the father said that anything he had done or said to the mother should not affect his relationship with L because they are separate matters.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the father was abusive, threatening and said derogatory things to the mother via messages and on balance, I am quite satisfied, after hearing the mother’s evidence, that he made such comments to her verbally too. It seems to me that the father has a view that he is somehow superior to and more intelligent than the mother and that whenever she disagreed with him and/or they had an argument, these feelings would come to the surface and would manifest themselves through the father’s written and spoken words. In my view, the comment “don’t fuck with me” was clearly a threat to the mother that there would be consequences for her if she did not do as the father wanted her to. I am concerned that the father does not feel that such incidents and comments have any bearing on the issue of him spending time with L, given that L lives with the mother, and I am extremely concerned that the father is unlikely to be able to contain his negative feelings towards the mother, such is the strength of those feelings.

The mother, in her schedule of allegations (allegation 2 in the mother’s schedule) highlights that the father had shared information about these proceedings on Facebook. That is, of course, a concern because these are private law proceedings but of perhaps even more concern is the content of the post where the father suggests the mother is “screaming she is suffering post natal depression”. There is no evidence that the mother was suffering from post-natal depression but even if she was, it is completely inappropriate and humiliating for the father to put such comments on social media. In my view, this was just another attempt by the father to humiliate and control the mother by posting information about these private and confidential proceedings and his personal views on the mother’s mental health on social media for many other people to see. Having seen the post and having heard the evidence of the parents, I am quite satisfied that this was post made out of malice and anger on the part of the father, which is in line with many other actions he has taken.

In respect of the father allegedly breaching the undertaking he gave to the court in March 2024 by contacting the mother’s family or asking his family to contact the mother directly (Allegation 5 in the mother’s schedule), the father says that the undertaking permitted him to contact the mother to discuss child arrangements. This is, however, not what is recorded in the undertaking itself, which says, in both a recital to the order and the undertaking, that contact about child arrangements should go through the mother’s solicitor. The father says this was an error made by the mother’s solicitor when drafting the order and relies upon an excerpt from a transcript of the hearing where he says that it was clearly agreed that he could contact the mother directly. I have only seen the parts of the transcript provided by the father and so I do not know what the rest of it says. That hearing was before me but I cannot recall what was said given it was so long ago. In reality, however, it does not particularly matter because the recital to the order makes it very clear that discussions about child arrangements should go through the mother’s solicitor. In my view, the father is simply trying to find a justification for contacting the mother directly when he knew she had instructed a solicitor who was dealing with the Children Act proceedings. It was therefore quite clear that communication should go through the solicitor and not directly to the mother or other family members.

In light of my findings, I turn to the issue of controlling and coercive behaviour. It follows that I am entirely satisfied that both during the relationship and since it ended, the father has behaved in a coercive and controlling manner towards the mother. In addition to my findings that are set out above and which clearly show a pattern of such behaviour, the following behaviours, which were all put to the father in cross examination, also form part of that pattern:

I am therefore satisfied that the father continues to behave in a controlling and coercive manner towards the mother, in accordance with the definition provided within PD12J and I am concerned that he has also used these proceedings as an attempt to coerce and control the mother further as set out above.

There is already a non-molestation order in place until March 2026. Given the findings I have made, I am entirely satisfied that the mother requires the ongoing protection of such an order and that is it necessary and proportionate for that order to remain in place and to be further extended for 12 months from now so that it covers the period between now and the next hearing and also, I hope, between now and the conclusion of these proceedings. The order will therefore be extended until July 2026.

At the outset of this hearing, I was told that the mother was now agreeable to direct contact between the father and L in a supervised contact centre once a month. The father sought contact at least every fortnight. Those positions were, however, advanced before the parties were aware of the findings that have been made.

I remind myself again of PD12J and that I must be satisfied, when ordering contact, that it is safe for the child concerned and for the victim of any domestic abuse that has been found to have occurred. Given my findings against the father, I am not satisfied that direct contact, even on a supervised basis, can be regarded as safe for L or the mother. The are two reasons for this. Firstly, given the content of the father’s evidence and his written submissions, I consider that there is a very high risk that he will use direct contact to undermine the mother as a parent and quite possibly to speak about her negatively in front of L. L is still very young, but he is, of course, getting older and will have more and more of an understanding about things that are said to him or in his presence. The father, in my view, is clever and manipulative and I am concerned that he will find a way to express his feelings about the mother and to undermine her. Secondly, I am concerned that supervised contact is not a long-term solution to a child spending time with a parent and that there needs to be an ‘exit strategy’ to move contact on. Given my findings and my concerns about the father, I struggle to see how contact could, in foreseeable future, become unsupervised or even become supervised by a family member. There would need to be a very significant shift in the father’s level of understanding and insight, which I have seen no evidence of as things stand. For those reasons, I am not satisfied that any order for direct contact is in the best interests of L’s welfare or that it would be safe for L or for the mother.

The father has applied for an enforcement order in relation to indirect contact where he says the mother has consistently breached the order that is in place. In his statement in support of his application, he lists many incidents where he says that the mother either stopped the contact from going ahead or encouraged L to bring the session to an end early, or allowed L to be distracted so that he did not engage fully. He provides full details in his statement in support of his enforcement application, which it is not necessary to repeat here.

The mother does not accept the allegations. She points out that the vast majority of sessions have gone ahead and blames the father for the ones that have been missed due to him not being available. She does not accept she has allowed L to be distracted during the calls and says, in fact, that it was often the father who was distracted by making calls from his car or from his place of work where he was distracted by other people. She rejects the father’s long list of allegations against her.

After hearing the evidence, I am not at all satisfied that the mother has been obstructing or frustrating the father’s contact with L. The father has not proven these allegations and during the extensive cross-examination of the mother, at no time did I gain the impression that she had ever sought to breach the order. In fact, what became apparent, was that despite the mother’s concerns about the quality of calls and the fact that the father might be using them to gather evidence to bolster his case, the mother has tried to facilitate the contact sessions in accordance with the order. I found the father’s evidence that the mother is intentionally breaching the order to be lacking in credibility and is simply not born out by the evidence. The father also needs to remember that L is only two years of age, and so engaging with him consistently over an extended period of time on a video call is always going to present challenges and unsurprisingly, the level of engagement from L seems to vary from call to call. There has been no real acknowledgment of this on the part of the father who seems to have used the video calls as another reason to find fault with the mother.

The father’s application for an enforcement order is therefore dismissed.

It is right to say that both parties accept there have been problems with the twice weekly video calls, although they give differing explanations for the difficulties. What is clear to me is that it is not in the best interests of L’s welfare to continue with the arrangements as they are. The father says that L is often too distracted and not engaging sufficiently and so it seems to me that an appropriate course of action is to reduce the sessions down to once a week on a Saturday morning. These sessions should still be facilitated by the paternal grandmother and, ideally, it would be better if a member of the maternal family could be with L to take the pressure away from the mother of having to be responsible for L during the calls. I am concerned that doing so places a lot of pressure on the mother given the findings I have made, and I am concerned that even having to be involved with the video puts her in a very difficult position given the father’s behaviour towards her. I would therefore hope the mother could perhaps ask the maternal grandmother or maternal aunt to assist with these calls so that she does not have to be involved and so that the father no longer has any reason to contact her under any circumstances.

I now consider that CAFCASS should prepare a section 7 report to assist the court in determining what final orders the court should make in respect of the father spending time with L. There is, of course, now an established factual matrix upon which CAFCASS can base their analysis and recommendations after meeting with the parents and undertaking any further enquiries that CAFCASS feel are required. Section 7 reports take 23 weeks to complete and so that will be filed by 4pm on 9 January 2026. I will then direct the parents to file and serve statements in response to the findings of the court and the section 7 report by 4pm on 23 January 2026 and I will then list a DRA hearing before me to consider the next steps and whether the case can then be concluded.

I also highlight now that I will be giving active consideration, at the conclusion of these proceedings, to the making of a s.91(14) order against the father and I invite CAFCASS to consider this as part of their s.7 report because I am concerned that the father is using these proceedings as a further form of abuse towards the mother and without a significant shift in his level of insight and understanding, I am concerned that he will continue to do so. A s.91(14) order may therefore provide some level of protection for the mother.