A Mother v A Father

This is my Judgment at the end of a fact-finding hearing in the context of proceedings concerning the child of the parties. The child was born in May 2024 and is therefore now 8 months old.

The parties to the proceedings are the child’s mother, and her father. I am going to refer to the mother and the father as "the mother" and "the father" in my Judgment. I mean no disrespect to either of them in doing so. It is not just for convenience, but also a useful reminder of the context in which I am being asked to determine factual issues in dispute between them as to their conduct towards each other.

The child currently lives with her mother and spends time with her father at a contact centre on a supervised basis.

The mother has been represented at this hearing by counsel, Mr Frost. The father has represented himself at this hearing, but was assisted by a qualified legal representative, Mr Azam, who cross-examined the mother on his behalf.

A witness template had been provided for this fact-finding hearing which anticipated three witnesses, who had provided statements filed by the mother, giving live evidence, as well as the mother and the father. Ultimately, the father decided that he did not wish to put any questions to the mother's three witnesses: A, B or C, the child’s maternal grandmother. I have therefore only heard live evidence from the mother and from the father. I then heard submissions on behalf of the mother and from the father himself.

These proceedings started with an application by the mother, dated 9 August 2024, for a specific issue order allowing her to take the child on holiday to Europe in August 2024. Her application was made on the basis that the father had refused his consent. That refusal had come because she had not agreed that the child could spend time with him the weekend before the holiday. Her application contains the following passage:

That application was met by a cross application by the father for a child arrangements order providing for the child to live with both her parents. As the father puts it in his application: "This is to confirm the important role that both myself and her mother play inthe child’s life". In that application he seeks an order clearly defining the periods that the child is to live with each of her parents.

The father's application is not dated but within it the father sets out the basis of his opposition to the holiday, namely that he left the home he shared with the mother and the child in June 2024 and has not been able to see her since and that there should be no further delay of a further two weeks in the re-establishment of contact and that spending time with him should take priority over the holiday. He says he has proposed third parties to supervise his contact who have been rejected by the mother. He further says he has approached contact centres and has not been able to reach any agreement with the mother as to the way forward.

In the supplemental narrative which accompanies his application, the father says this:

The mother responded to the father's application with her own CIA form setting out some of her allegations of abusive behaviour by the father, including reference to an incident in November 2023 of the father chasing her around the home, screaming in her face, strangling her and kicking her. She was at the time three months pregnant with the child.

From September 2023 to April 2024, the mother refers to having found out that the father had been cheating on her with sex workers and other women that he had met on nights out and she refers to a regular pattern of his being unfaithful. During the same period, from September 2023, she refers to the father using cocaine excessively and frequently. She refers to him drinking wine, beer and vodka excessively and the adverse impact this would have on his behaviour. She also refers to, in October 2023, the father assuring her that he would be putting up his flat for sale in order to generate income with which the family home could be purchased and to finding out that in fact his property had only been on the market for a two-week period. Ultimately, it was not sold, and, within three months, the mother says the father had tried to arrange a loan of some £91,000 against the jointly purchased home.

An initial hearing took place before Her Honour Judge Kushner in August 2024. She directed the filing of statements to inform the decision as to whether a separate fact-finding hearing was required. She permitted the mother to take the child on holiday to Europe and made an interim order for supervised contact between the child and the father. That order refers to contact taking place at least once every week. It provides, importantly, for the mother to meet the costs involved. A CAFCASS safeguarding letter was directed and there was a further hearing in September 2024.

On 17 September 2024, Ms O'Bray of CAFCASS filed a long and detailed safeguarding letter. She had made enquiries with the police, and she recorded that there had been a number of incidents or logs concerning the father and complaints made by ex-partners. She was not able to find anything in respect of the mother. She also detailed the interview that she had conducted with each of the parties. Importantly, she recorded that the mother, whilst giving details of the abusive behaviour that had caused her upset and concern, also said that:

Ms O’Bray’ s recommendation was that the court should undertake a fact-finding exercise to inform a risk assessment as part of an overall section 7 Children Act welfare assessment. She highlighted two incidents and a pattern of controlling behaviour towards the mother, which she considered was particularly important for the court to determine.

At a first hearing and dispute resolution appointment in September 2024, His Honour Judge Newport made an order for contact to take place at [the Contact Centre] (or another centre local to the child if [the contact centre] did not have any availability) on two occasions per week or fewer occasions if that was more affordable for the father. He directed the first session to take place on 21 September and provided for the costs to be met by the father in the first instance. He also directed drug and alcohol testing of the father and drug testing of the mother. He listed this fact-finding hearing preceded by a pre-trial review and he permitted the filing of further statements by the parties and their witnesses. A separate police disclosure order was also made in respect of callouts and logs relating to the father and specifically relating to the incidents detailed in the CAFCASS safeguarding letter between the father and his ex-partners.

A further application had to be made by the mother for permission to take the child on holiday to Europe later in the year. That was granted by His Honour Judge Newport in October. The father had by then applied for a reversal of the Judge's previous order that he should meet the costs of his supervised contact at a centre. That application was also considered and was dismissed at the same hearing by His Honour Judge Newport.

On the question of who should pay generally for what in relation to the material that needed to be gathered to further the proceedings, His Honour Judge Newport varied previous directions for shared costs in respect of drug and alcohol testing and police disclosure. The mother had by then offered to meet the full cost of both the testing and the police disclosure and that was directed. I do not know the circumstances that led to that and whether in fact there had been something of an impasse in progressing both the testing and the disclosure. Directions were given for further evidence by way of Form E and supporting documents to be filed to enable the court to re-visit its decision on the funding of supervised contact after the conclusion of the fact-finding hearing.

At the pre-trial review in January this year, His Honour Judge Newport gave permission to both parties to rely on the police disclosure that had by then been provided, including material relating to third parties. The schedule to the order records the court's determination that such material can be relied on as similar fact evidence and that it is both relevant and in the interests of justice for that evidence to be admitted. The schedule also records that the father sought to pursue his own allegations against the mother of controlling and coercive behaviour.

Importantly and helpfully, His Honour Judge Newport then defined the allegations that were to form the subject of this fact-finding hearing and they are:

Successive orders have confirmed that Practice Direction 12J is engaged in this case by reason of the allegations of domestic abuse and I, likewise, confirm that Practice Direction 12J has of course continued to be engaged. Special measures have been put in place during this hearing by way of the provision of separate waiting or consultation rooms for the parties and screens in court and a curtain partially drawn around the witness area in order to ensure that the parties are not able to see one another when one is in the witness box.

Having gone through the chronology of the proceedings and how these allegations came to be made and set out, I now turn briefly to the background of the parties' relationship.

The father is aged [x]and the mother is aged [x]. The parents each have a child from a previous relationship. Those children are not the subject of these proceedings, but I make reference to them for completeness and factual clarity. The father has a son, who is [x] years old and who spends time with him on alternate weekends and, I understand, one weekday evening per week. The mother has a son, who is now [x] years old.

The parties' relationship was of relatively short duration. They met in late 2022. They made an offer on a property in Spring 2023. They became engaged in the Summer of 2023. In September of that same year, the mother discovered that she was pregnant with the child. The parties' purchase of a property in Hertfordshire was completed in October 2023.

The father moved out of that cottage in November 2023 but otherwise continued to live with the mother until February 2024 when, following an incident in February (to which I will return), it seems the father then again moved out of the property. He started what I understand remains his current employment in [spring] 2024 and he moved back into the property in April 2024, shortly before the child was born.

The parties' final separation - the last time that the father left the home - was in June 2024. On the mother's version of events, that was on [x]June. There is reference by the father to his having left on [x] June.

The father first had supervised contact with the child at aContact Centre in August of last year. Contact has continued on a regular and supervised basis since then.

The father urges me to bear in mind the nature of that contact and that it has been a positive experience for the child and that he has behaved, he says, very well during all those contact sessions. I have not read any of the contact recordings, but I certainly have not been told by the mother that she is concerned about the father's behaviour during contact or about the child’s reaction to her father.

I am going to turn now to the legal principles that I am required to apply in my determination of the factual issues in this case. This fact finding hearing is about domestic abuse in the context of the welfare of the parties' daughter,It is not about looking at the parties' conduct towards each other in isolation. It is a consideration of their conduct so that there can be a proper evaluation going forward of the child’s welfare and what her relationship with her father should look like, in terms of how frequently she is able to spend time with him and what the arrangements for that contact are, whether there needs to be any steps taken by the father or by the mother in terms of the behaviour I find on each of the parties' side of things.

I start with a consideration of what domestic abuse means. In Practice Direction 12J, there is a clearly set out definition. For the purposes of the Practice Direction, it is in fact the same meaning that is set out elsewhere in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021:

Within the definition of economic abuse, any behaviour that has a substantial adverse effect on the ability of a party to acquire, use or maintain money or other property, or obtain goods or services is relevant and comes within the definition.

There are other definitions within Practice Direction 12J. In this case, a particularly relevant definition is that of controlling behaviour which is said to mean an act, or a pattern of acts designed to make a person subordinate and/or dependent by isolating them from sources of support, exploiting their resources and capacities for personal gain, depriving them of the means needed for independence, resistance and escape, and regulating their everyday behaviour. In terms of coercive behaviour, that is said to mean an act or a pattern of acts of assault, threats, humiliation and intimidation or other abuse that is used to harm, punish or frighten the victim.

The mother bears the burden of proving the allegations that she makes against the father. She must prove those facts on a balance of probabilities. That means she needs to establish that it is more likely than not that the matters she alleges happened. The father bears the burden of proving the facts that he alleges against the mother and that places the same burden on him to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that it is more likely than not that the behaviour he alleges happened.

The court is only able to find either that a fact happened or that it did not happen. There is no possibility of a halfway finding or a possibility finding that it might have happened and to quote from the Judgment of Lord Hoffmann in Re B [2008] UKHL 35:

In making my decision, I must ensure that I survey all the evidence and that I look at a wide evidential canvas. I must not consider one piece of evidence in isolation from all the other pieces of evidence, and I must consider the evidence, each piece of it, in the context of all the other evidence. To quote Lady Justice Butler-Sloss (the President of the Family Division, as she was at that point) in Re T [2004] EWCA Civ 558:

Evidence comes in many forms; it can be live, it can be written, it can be direct, electronic, photographic, circumstantial, factual or expert. There are, of course, some items of evidence in that list which are not of direct relevance or application in this case. Hearsay evidence is also admissible.

This is a case in which I have written material before me, both in the form of police disclosure and allegations made against the father by ex-partners. I also have written evidence provided by three witnesses. That is not in the category, in my view, of hearsay evidence. It is right that those witnesses have not given live evidence, but that is only because the father has chosen not to challenge their evidence by way of putting any questions to them.

I have to assess the credibility and reliability of the mother and the father. I must be careful not to attach too much weight to their demeanor or any failure of their memory. Lady Justice King in Re A (A Child) [2020] EWCA Civ 1230 provided this guidance:

I bear in mind and effectively give myself a warning in accordance with the case of R v Lucas [1981] QB 720. A lie by a witness about a particular matter, of and by itself, must not lead to a conclusion that the witness has lied about absolutely everything, and I remind myself that a witness may lie for many reasons, for example out of shame, humiliation, panic, fear, distress or even confusion.

More recently, the Court of Appeal has provided guidance on the issue of lies in Re A, B and C (Children) [2021] EWCA Civ 451 and I quote from the judgment of Lady Justice Macur:

The final set of principles that I need to refer to arise out of two authorities that, in particular, set out the approach the court should take when determining allegations of coercive and controlling behaviour. I refer firstly to Re HN &Ors (Children) (Domestic abuse: Finding of fact hearings) [2021 EWCA Civ 448. The Court of Appeal in that case considered the impact on a fact-finding process in the context of allegations of domestic abuse of allegations which form part of a wider pattern of behaviour and how it might be possible to manage a fact finding process where there is, perhaps, a very wide range of allegations which are said to be a part of that pattern.

The Court of Appeal endorsed an approach that had previously been taken in Re L (Relocation: Second Appeal) [2017] EWCA Civ 2121, where it was said by Lord Justice peter Jackson that:

In Re HN, concern was raised about the extent to which patterns of behaviour can be or should be required to be reduced to specific allegations and, in particular, set out in schedule form and I quote again from that authority:

Secondly, I refer to an earlier High Court decision, F v M [2021] EWFC 4, in which Mr Justice Hayden considered a course of conduct that was in the nature of persistent and serious controlling behaviour and said this about how such allegations and patterns of behaviour should be dealt with:

There is one other authority that, at this stage, I am going to make reference to and that is in relation to the police material that cites complaints made against the father by ex-partners and the role of that material in my fact-finding exercise. There has already been a decision by His Honour Judge Newport that the material contained in the police disclosure is relevant to my factual enquiry and that it would be against the interests of justice for that evidence to be excluded. It is plainly relevant, and it is admitted. Whilst his order refers to similar fact evidence, I am going to refer, as Mr Frost has done at this hearing, to propensity evidence.

I refer particularly to the decision in Rv P (Children) (Similar fact evidence) [2020] EWCA Civ 1088. Lord Justice Peter Jackson gave the following guidance and assistance. He firstly set out the considerations which are relevant to a decision about the admissibility of such evidence. The key passages are, firstly, contained in paragraph 21:

The Court of Appeal determined that the same analysis, given in a civil case, applies also to family proceedings and, again, quoting from Lord Justice Peter Jackson:

The further issue discussed is whether, in order to be probative of propensity, factual proof of the matters that are alleged in the other evidence is required. Lord Justice Peter Jackson poses the question: "To what extent do the facts relating to the other occasions have to be proved for propensity to be established?" In answering it he refers to R v Mitchell [2016] UKSC 55, where that question was considered by the Supreme Court and in which a clear distinction is drawn between on the one hand proof of a propensity and on the other proof of the underlying facts which are said to establish that a propensity exists and concludes as follows:

In short, there is no requirement that each of the matters alleged in this case by ex-partners against the father must be proved to the requisite standard. It is argued in this case on behalf of the mother that those allegations have certain similarities with the allegations made by the mother and the behaviour that she experienced. Relying on a number of factors and similarities, the question is posed as to why allegations were made of such similarity if they do not speak to or go directly to the character of the father in this case.

It may be that the parties consider that I have devoted too much of this Judgment to the applicable legal principles. For the father, who represents himself, I appreciate that this has been a particularly long and legally worded summary of the principles I have to apply but it is right that I should set them out in the way that I have so that he, in particular, is better able to understand why I have reached the conclusions which I will shortly set out.

I have been provided with a witness bundle that contains a number of statements. There are three statements each from the parties; there are two documents from the father that are referred to as position statements, but they are still signed, and they have a declaration of truth attached to them. I also have witness statements from A, B and C.

I have considered all of that written evidence alongside the oral evidence that I have heard. Even if I do not make specific reference to everything that I have read, it does not mean that I have not considered it carefully in my analysis.

I am going to consider specifically the four allegations made by the mother first and I am then going to consider the wider picture in terms of controlling or coercive behaviour and also the father's allegation that this was a pattern of behaviour perpetrated against him by the mother.

I am going to look, first of all, at the allegation made by the mother that in July 2023, as referred to in paragraphs 13 to 15 of her statement, there was an incident that started when the parties were out having drinks in London at [a bar] following lunch with friends. In her statement, the mother says that [in]July 2023, she and the father were out with some friends. They had had lunch, and they went to the [bar] to see one of her other friends, A. Gradually, she says, the more alcohol that the father consumed, the more rude, nasty and paranoid he became. The more she ignored the father, she says, the worse his behaviour became. She says he started to call her a cunt and a bitch in front of their friends, which was incredibly awkward for her. She did not know how to react. Her friend A, who has provided a statement unchallenged by the father and who works at the [bar], took her to one side and expressed his concern about the father's behaviour and about her going home on her own.

A’s statement refers to seeing the mother trying to enter card details into an Addison Lee account or website in order to book a taxi. The mother says they ordered a taxi and she left with the father. The whole way home, she says the father continued to make comments of a derogatory and insulting and abusive nature such as calling her a fucking bitch and saying to her that she was pathetic. She says she was made to feel as if it was her who was in the wrong, that somehow, she had brought on this behaviour. Importantly, she says she continued to ignore the father, and, when they got home, she went upstairs to get changed and go to bed. In her oral evidence, the mother explained that she heard some cupboards being open and shut and some rummaging going on downstairs, which made her think that possibly the father was making himself something more to drink. She was aware of him going outside to smoke. She remained upstairs.

The mother then describes the father coming upstairs, where she says he became increasingly angrier. She refers to all the efforts she made to try and contain the situation. She says, if she tried to calm the situation, he would continue. If she argued back, he would make even more hurtful comments. Nothing was working. She says that the father started to look scary and that she went into the bathroom of the home, and she refers to locking herself in the bathroom so that he would not be able to reach her. She says she kept telling him to leave the property. She further says this: "I felt terrified, isolated and fearful for my safety". Her son was not at the property at the time and she was relieved about that. She refers to the father then proceeding to kick and punch the bathroom door, to being scared and shocked. She said to the father that if he did not leave immediately, she would call the police.

In her oral evidence, the mother confirmed the accuracy of all that she had set out about this incident in her statement and also what she said in a further statement in response to the father's evidence. She was cross examined by Mr Azam, a qualified legal representative, about what happened that day to a limited extent.

What is particularly relevant and instructive is what the father himself says about that incident. The mother's version of events is that the father effectively punched a hole or a panel in the bathroom door - it might be the father who in fact uses the word "panel" - but what seems clear, even on his account, is that there was an escalating situation in which he was pursuing the mother within the home. He accepts he followed her to the bathroom. There can be no reason for her going in the bathroom and trying to shut the door with the father outside the bathroom other than that she wanted to be in that bathroom on her own. It was perhaps the only room in which she thought she could be alone and have privacy. It is clear, even in the father's own explanation of the incident, that in fact he did not allow her to do that.

This is what the father says about that night. He recalls a night out with two friends of his and the mother, he says, [in] July. He agrees they went to the [restaurant] for lunch and that they later went to the [bar]. He refers to the mother possibly having taken cocaine with a friend of hers and another male. He refers to being the one who wanted to leave at this point, but to the mother wanting to stay. He agrees that they got a cab home. He says he tried to talk to the mother but, importantly, that she ignored him, and he says that when they got home they slept in separate rooms. So, it is clear from even the father's own account, that this was not a situation in which there was any retaliation or any abuse of any sort, verbal or otherwise, by the mother towards him.

The father says he tried to talk to the mother in the morning about what had happened, but, again importantly, these are his words from his statement, "she refused to engage in the conversation". He says she walked into the bathroom and slammed the door behind her. He says he put his hand out to protect himself from being hit by the door and the palm of his

There are many aspects of that account by the father which are hard to reconcile or even understand. The father refers to the door being slammed shut by the mother. It is hard to understand how it could have been slammed if, in fact, he prevented the door from being closed by holding out his hand, and by doing so, pushed out a panel in the door. If he had intended to avoid being hit by the door, he could surely have stepped back and away from the bathroom.

There can in my view be no explanation for the father following the mother into the bathroom other than that he did not want her to be in there on her own. I have seen a photograph of the bathroom door. The mother's evidence is that it was a solid door, and I have no reason to doubt that evidence and I will make some observations and findings about the overall credibility and presentation of the parties a little later on.

What the father presents or describes is a picture of the mother repeatedly moving into separate areas of the home and ignoring him. She was clearly ignoring him, even on his version of events. So, it is hard to understand his evidence that, following an attempt to slam the door on him and a panel coming out of the door, she became more aggressive at that point. The use of the phrase "more aggressive" must be a reference to the mother having been aggressive before that point and her aggression escalating. There is absolutely no detail given by the father of her having been aggressive at any point until that stage of the incident.

The father refers to the mother trying to stop him from leaving and returning to his house. He says he replaced the door the following week. I understand the mother says that it was replaced much earlier and that there was in fact only one day between the incident and the father bringing a new door to the property and getting a friend to replace it.

The father, whilst hurling an accusation of aggression at the mother, fails to detail that aggression in any way other than a reference to her trying to prevent him leaving. He says there was no point in talking because of how irate she was. Again, that makes absolutely no sense because he provides no evidence, no account of her being irate and in fact, even on his version of events, he says she was ignoring him. She went upstairs first. The father came upstairs. The mother went into the bathroom. The father followed her. It appears clear to me that that the mother was trying to avoid any confrontation. She took herself upstairs and then, when the incident started again, she went into the bathroom in order to get away from the father. It seems more likely to me that she did in fact shut, as she says, and lock that bathroom door and that it was in fact the father who kicked and punched it and that is how the door came to have a hole or significant break and damage to it.

The second specific allegation that I am going on to consider is that made by the mother of what occurred [in] September 2023, as set out in paragraphs 16 and 17 of her witness statement. The mother says the parties attended a wedding that day, that the father had been drinking all day and that she could tell from his behaviour that he had also been using cocaine. By that stage, the mother was in the early stages of her pregnancy with the child. She was extremely tired and uncomfortable because of the pregnancy, and she drove the parties back home. She says that the father started playing music very loudly. She tried to turn down the music and he started to become aggressive. She says he told her that she was acting like a bitch and said that he had treated her better than anyone that she had ever been with. The mother says that the father went on to say that he had had enough of her and expressed to her that she should effectively "get rid" of the baby that she was carrying.

The mother refers to being very upset and crying. The mothers son was not at home as he was staying with his father. She refers, again, in a way that has a striking similarity with her description of the incident [in] July 2023, to going upstairs. This time she refers to going to the bedroom and putting a chest of drawers in front of the door to stop the father from coming in. It is, in my view, telling that she felt the need to move a piece of furniture in front of that door to stop the father from coming in. It supports what she says about the July incident that even shutting and locking a door on that occasion did not prevent the father from breaking through and it seems to me consistent with the behaviour of someone who felt that they needed to take these further steps to prevent him being able to get in. She clearly had in mind the father's behaviour only a few months before and decided that taking the further step of putting a significant piece of furniture - a chest of drawers - in front of the door might be more successful at stopping the father from getting in.

There is a further similarity with the incident in July in that the picture that emerges is one of the mother trying to remove herself from the father's anger and the escalating situation and it is again, on her account, the father who comes after her and wants to come into the room. She says she stayed in that bedroom all night and did not come out, that she was terrified, felt isolated, worthless and trapped in her own home.

What the father says about that incident can be found in his final statement. He says that he and the mother attended the wedding and that it was a lovely day. He admits he had been drinking, but not excessively. He had driven and met some of the mother's friends before the wedding. He had continually checked on the mother's wellbeing and told her that they could leave at any time. They apparently stopped to, on his version of events, get some food on the way home. No cross words of any kind were exchanged, no name-calling as referred to in the mother's statement. They got home, ate the food that they had purchased and simply went to bed. He got up in the morning to walk the dog and he returned to shower and change for lunch.

The father attaches some messages from those two days to his statement. He attaches messages that are dated September 2023, which appear to be timed at 9 or 10am in the morning. There is an exchange of messages about what to take to the wedding, which suggests the parties arrived separately. These are all messages exchanged prior to the wedding (which on the invitation he has also exhibited is timed to commence at 4pm with the ceremony at 5pm). He relies on a picture he has also exhibited of the parties at the wedding, in which it might appear as though there were no difficulties and that the mother and father were happy and having a good time.

None of this material sheds any light whatsoever on what happened when the parties left the wedding. The mother refers to them having left early. The wedding was intended to continue until midnight. It does not support anything that the father asserts. In fact, he does not say anything about what happened afterwards other than that everything was fine and that they simply ate food and went to bed. There is nothing in the exhibited exchange of messages which suggests that what the mother says is untrue. Of course, the burden is not on the father to disprove what the mother says but it does not in any way cause me to doubt the veracity of what she says. The day probably did start off relatively happy, they did go to a wedding hoping to have a nice day, and it was a happy day until the point when the father drank to excess and started to become difficult. Important, again, is the fact that the mother does not say that on this occasion she wanted to go home because of his behaviour and, whilst concern about that might have been rumbling, it seems mainly to have been fueled by the fact that — as referred to in the messages and by the mother in her oral evidence — this was an extremely hot day, she was very tired, she was very uncomfortable in that stage of her pregnancy and wanted to leave and drove the parties home. The abuse that she complains of really started towards her in the car on the way home.

As to the father's case, it appears therefore to be that the mother has made up this incident in entirety. The mother has given a full account of his behaviour in the car and wanting to turn the music up loud, his behaviour in the home and what he said to her. There is a lot of detail provided by the mother including the father's statement that she has been treated by him better than anyone that she has been with before. If the father's case is that this has been made up, it would be an unusual and very detailed assertion to fabricate and it is hard to see what would be gained by making up such a statement. It is one that would have had, and clearly did have, quite a devastating effect on the mother. The father was asked about this in cross examination, and he said he could see how it might have had the effect of making the mother feel that she should in some way be grateful or beholden to him, that it was likely to be something that made her feel very upset indeed.

So I say, again, I am unsure whether the father's case is that this detailed account is entirely made up by the mother. He has not said so explicitly. If that is his case, he certainly presents no reason for that having been made up by the mother and why she should, at that stage of her pregnancy, say anything of that kind. There is no real suggestion by the father that this was in some way, at the stage of only being a few months pregnant, the mother trying to build up a case that could in fact somehow be used against him if and when their child was born and the father wanted to have a relationship with that child. The parties were very much together at that stage.

I go on to consider what the mother says occurred [in] November 2023. This relates to an explicit intimate video, I am going to refer to it as such, that the father discovered on an iPad, involving the mother and an ex-partner. The mother sets out a lot of detail about this incident in paragraphs 18 to 26 of her statement. She says the parties had been out for lunch. They returned home and her son had come back from spending time with his father. She followed through with her son’s normal bedtime routine and got him to bed. She was looking forward, she says, to a nice evening or date night with the father where they would be able to spend the rest of the evening together and watch a film. She came downstairs once she had got her son to sleep. She says that she could tell instantly that there was something wrong, that the father was acting differently. It occurred to her that possibly he had been taking cocaine and she asked him about that. She says he confirmed that he had.

Once again, importantly and in a way that is consistent with her behaviour in other similar situations that she sets out, the mother says she was angry and upset but that she just went up to bed. She did not confront the father, she says, in any way other than asking him that question about whether he had taken cocaine.

The mother says she woke up at about 3am. She realised that the father was not up in the bedroom and went downstairs. She found that he was going through the iPad and that he

The father says he was concerned — but I am going to use the word "outraged" because, although not his word, that is very much the sense that I have from his evidence - that this should be material that was available on an iPad that was accessible to the mother’s son and he was concerned it might be also be accessible to his son, and he was very clear that this was unacceptable and that this material should not be in any way accessible to children. He is of course right about that and it should not be accessible.

The mother has no explanation as to why the video showed up on that particular iPad, but she suspects that the father had instigated that by searching and looking at messages that she had exchanged with others a long time ago. Importantly, again, what the mother says is that, despite the father sending himself that video and other images (to his mobile phone) and despite him saying that he was going to send the video to his friends and family, she still went upstairs to bed because there was no way - she understood that because she had been there before - that she was going to be able to defuse the situation.

The mother says that the father came up shortly after that, put his phone on charge and tried to have sex with her. She is clear that he stank of alcohol, he had been doing cocaine and had admitted that to her earlier anyway. As to what kind of intimacy there then was between the mother and the father, in my view, it matters not exactly what the nature of it was. It is accepted they were intimate and in my view it matters little whether it was full intercourse or whether in fact it was oral sex. The mother says she felt she had little choice but to go along with it. She felt humiliated, she felt guilty. I say that not because I am making a finding that this was a situation in which the father forced himself on the mother. I am not making such a finding at all, but this was clearly a very unhappy situation. The father, as anyone who views that kind of material would be, was clearly shocked and upset and there were no doubt a whole complex range of feelings that he had in wanting to achieve an intimate act with the mother that morning and a whole range of complicated feelings that she had about complying with that.

The father went downstairs again and the mother did try to obtain his telephone (which he had left charging in the bedroom) and her intention was to try and delete the video. What she says, and again it is important and it is consistent with the other two specific incidents that she has alleged, is that when the father came back up, she went first of all into her son’s bedroom. She felt that if she was in her son’s room, the father would not come in there and would not say anything to her. She was, she found, unfortunately very wrong about that. She was upstairs in her son’s room, terrified, she had not managed to delete the video, she was very worried that the father would notice that his phone had gone and come looking for her. He came in to her son’s room. She laid over her son, she says, in order to protect him from the father. She was worried about what he might do to her son.

The mother says that the father was by this point screaming in her face, asking for his phone and using awful language in doing so and saying things like, "Where is my fucking phone? You fucking cunt". He was shouting things at her, calling her a bitch and a "fucking lying cunt" in the presence of her son who was lying under the duvet and who, no doubt, by that time was awake and heard all of this. The mother refers to her son having been terrified and very upset. She knew then, she says, that she had to get out of her son’s bedroom in order to stop him from witnessing anything else. She asked her son to stay in his room and she ran out of the room shutting the door behind her and went downstairs.

Again, there is a further important similarity with the other two incidents I have already considered. Not only had the mother gone upstairs and gone into her son’s room in order to try and avoid any confrontation with the father but she then tried to go back downstairs and avoid him again. She was not allowed to do so. The father followed her downstairs. She tried to go into the toilet downstairs to lock herself in so that she could have some protection from him, but, she says, he caught up with her and pushed his way into the bathroom. She says she tried to shut and lock the door, however, the father managed to grab her around the neck and strangled her pushing her against the sink.

I pause, at this stage in the mother's written account, to say that in her oral evidence, she added what I determine to be compelling detail about what she had experienced. She did not simply describe what the father did or how it made her feel emotionally. What she also described, at the point at which the father had his hands around her neck and pushed her against the sink, was feeling the tap pushing into her back. That, in my view, is the kind of detail that describes a very real experience. She then describes how she tried to throw the phone that was in her hand down the toilet, she missed and it landed on the floor. She then managed to escape the father in the bathroom. She says that he grabbed her again and pushed her to the ground. Three months pregnant, she was lying on the ground and she says the father kicked her in the back.

The mother says that the next morning she messaged B, her best friend, to tell her what had happened and how scared she was and how she got her son ready for rugby and so on. I also add to that account what is set out in B’s statement, which, again, was a statement unchallenged by the father. I have an account by B of texts sent to her by the mother [in] November 2023 at 7:47am to say that the father had found an intimate video of her and an ex-partner and that initially she had apologised. She said she was confused about how he had found it. B said that the mother had told her that the father had said he had looked through messages in order to find the video and she was lost for words. She understood then that the father had turned very nasty and called her names such as "slag" and "bitch". She refers to the mother saying how terrified she was, genuinely believing that the father was going to circulate the video that he had found and she appears to have explained, quite candidly, to B how she took the father's phone in an attempt to try and delete the video and how she had run into her son’s room and how the incident then unfolded.

There are messages that are attached to B’s statement. They are dated November at 7:44am and the timing entirely corroborates what the mother says about messaging B at around 7am. It also entirely corroborates what B records in her statement as having been contacted by the mother at around 07:45am. These are the messages that the mother sent that morning to B:

Against that account by the mother, corroborated by those messages and the account by B of what she had been told by the mother, I turn to consider the father's first statement, in which he says that there has never been a time in the relationship with the mother when he has ever strangled or kicked her. He says he recalls seeing a pornographic video of the mother and her ex-partner on the mother’s son’s iPad when he was checking the battery and power. That was in November 2023. He says that the mother's messages were coming through on her son’s iPad and that she had not considered what he could access or tried to stop this from occurring. He says that the video he saw was extremely offensive. He was very concerned that the mother’s son could have seen it or that his son could have seen it while he was visiting and playing with the mother’s son. He says this caused a significant argument during which the mother took his phone and ran off to look through it and that he followed her to retrieve it. He says the mother was concerned that he had shared the video he had seen with his own phone for evidence against her, which is why she took his phone. He then says that there was a "worrying struggle" between him and the mother for him to retrieve his phone from her. He says he is "not proud" of the fact that they struggled and fought for him retrieve the phone and that he did, at one point and in an attempt to take it from her, put his arm up across her neck to hold her back from attacking him. He says at no point did the mother have any visible injuries, not then and not the following day when she went to see her parents and their relationship continued as it had thus far. Both apologised and made up. The father demonstrated in his oral evidence how he had held his hand up in order to exert some force and to protect her.

The mother has provided photographs of each side of her neck. Those were taken the following day. The father has asked to see the data that will confirm exactly when those photographs were taken and that data does bear out what the mother says. There is a red mark on one side of her neck and a corresponding mark on the other. The father does not give any explanation for that. When presented with the photographs and evidence, he simply said that, yes, he could see a mark but he could also see shadows in the picture. I do not understand what his case is, but, in my view, those photographs corroborate very clearly what the mother says the father did to her.

There is also important support and corroboration in C’s statement. Again, this is a statement that has gone unchallenged by the father. What C says is that she understands what happened because her daughter called her on the morning of [date] November 2023 and told her how things had escalated the night before. She told her mother that the father had invaded her privacy by looking at private messages on her iPad and found messages between herself and the mother and other family members and previous boyfriends. It seems clear, and it is entirely understandable if that is the case, that the mother did not give her own mother the detail of exactly what had been found by the father on the iPad, but it seems to have been made clear that these were intimate messages.

C says the mother described what occurred with the father, that he caught her with his phone and physically attacked her, intentionally strangling her and she says that the mother told her that the father had shouted at her in front of her son, calling her a lying pathetic cunt. C says she was extremely concerned because the mother told her that the father had put his hands around her neck and that he had been so forceful that it had caused bruising. She says the mother showed her the bruises on her neck. She describes them as being horrendous. The mother told C that they were extremely painful.

It is right that the mother reported this incident to the police. It is not something that appears then to have been followed through or any action taken against the father. It appears to be the only occasion on which, in fact, she did make a complaint to the police. That, in itself, is in my view supportive of the contention that this is a mother who has given a full and true account of everything that she has experienced in so far as she is able to do so. If she was, and as I repeat that I am not sure that this is the father's case, in the business of trying to make difficulties for the father, she would have pursued that complaint further or made other complaints. If she was in the business of trying to exaggerate or make up anything that had happened then that would have been her opportunity to do so, but she did not and in fact it is clear that the parties did thereafter reconcile and resume their life together.

So in respect of that incident as well, I find that the mother has been clear, consistent and detailed in her account. She has presented evidence, which is clearly corroborative from her own mother, C from her friend, B, and also the photographs that show the injuries to her neck.

A particularly troubling aspect of that incident was the way in which part of it took place in front of a child, and it seems clear to me that the father had no consideration whatsoever, no matter what was going on between him and the mother, of the impact of his words and behaviour on the mother’s son.

There are many references in the mother's evidence to the father making comments to her son such as the situation being the mother's fault, of the mother being a liar, of him leaving the mother. These comments are all clearly inappropriate and, again, show the father behaving in a way that has no regard whatsoever for the impact of his words on a young and vulnerable child.

I turn finally in this consideration of the four specific incidents to what the mother says occurred in February 2024, as set out in paragraphs 34 to 41 of her statement. This is an incident in which the mother says there was an issue about the father asking questions about her Instagram account. She says she had noticed on her phone a few days before this that her Instagram App had reloaded on her phone and the only profile that she could see, bizarrely, was one from about six years ago and, when she logged in, she saw lots of pictures of herself and a previous partner, her son’s father.

It appears then that, [in] February 2024, the father started asking the mother questions about her Instagram account, why she still had it and why she was looking at it. She was concerned that the father appeared to be getting angry. She says she got her son ready for school, she dropped him off, spent the day out with friends and family, picked her son up from school, took him to football and then returned home. I assume from that account that she returned back home with her son.

On arriving back home, the mother says she found the back door to the kitchen had been bolted shut. She says the father knew that this was the only way in, that she had a key to that particular door but, if it had been bolted from the inside, she would not be able to get in. She says there were painters and decorators working at the house at the time, but they had locked up on many occasions and they knew clearly not to bolt the back door. She tried to call the father; he did not answer his phone. She tried to call his friend and he informed her that he was out drinking with the father.

The mother says that she got back in through a window that she saw was open. She managed to climb through - she was five months pregnant at this time - and when the father came home at 8pm, her son was in the bath and this is one of those instances where she says the father made a comment to the mother’s son that he was leaving mummy. The mother says he was drunk again. She believes that he was also probably high on cocaine. She was no doubt worried about where this would lead and the father becoming increasingly aggressive, intimidating or violent.

The mother says she got her son out of the bath and importantly again, I pause there to say that she remained in that bathroom seeing to her son. The father does not challenge this. She did not in any way pursue the father for any discussion or argument. She says she got her son into his pyjamas, got him to bed and then went downstairs. The father was at the kitchen counter drinking wine and started calling her pathetic and a bitch.

The mother says the more that she ignored the father or failed to retaliate, the more he would start to pick her apart and wind her up. She said that he must go because things were escalating. He went out to have a cigarette. He came back in. He got into her face, she says, and continued to call her pathetic. He grabbed her tightly by her shoulders. She spat, she says, in his face. A detail she volunteers quite freely in her statement. She did not need to have volunteered that information. It is in my view a sign that she has tried to very clearly and accurately explain what happened, including those parts of her behaviour which clearly were unattractive and which she looks back on and regrets.

I also highlight there that, when asked about this in her cross examination by Mr Azam, it was suggested to the mother that she had in fact spat twice and she readily agreed that she had. Again, I take that as an indication of her willingness and wish to be as open, accurate and clear as possible.

Returning to the mother's statement, she says she spat in the father's face so that he would get out of the way and leave her alone but that he started laughing and saying, "Do you really think that you're going to hurt me?" He went back inside the house and went upstairs to the landing, picked up one of her vases and threw it out of the window.

Eventually, having threatened to call the police, he looked for his car keys. He could not find them. He started to accuse her of taking the keys and hiding them. Eventually, he found them and he left the house. The mother locked the door to stop him from coming in. That is, in my view, an action about as far removed as possible from those of someone wanting to pursue the father or carry on any argument with him.

What the mother says then happened is that the father spent about an hour climbing around on the furniture outside, that he picked up a broom and he started hitting it against her bedroom window. She says she did not react and just stayed inside the house, terrified and intimidated by this behaviour. This carried on, she says, for about 45 minutes until he stopped and she thinks he went to the home of the friend, with whom he had been drinking earlier. The mother says she then did not see or hear from the father until [date] February.

Again, the father's account or what he says might possibly be the reason for the mother saying these things about him, if not true, remains unclear to me.

I find that the mother's account of that incident, again, rings true. It has a level of compelling detail that lends support to the accuracy and veracity of her account. She was, as I have already referred to, very candid and open both in her written and oral evidence and in her acceptance that in fact there were two occasions on which she spat at the father within that same incident. I agree with the submissions made on behalf of the mother by Mr Frost that the mother did try to give me as much help as possible in describing what had happened on each occasion. She simply answered questions that were put to her. She gave simple answers and I say that with no disrespect. She gave straightforward answers. She did not seek, when the opportunity might have presented itself, to give a more florid account of anything that she had set out in her written statements. She did not, in any way, exaggerate or seek to embellish what she had provided in her written evidence.

The fact that these incidents occurred, particularly the two that I have gone through, in a way that exposed the mother’s son to the father's anger and abuse is very concerning. The fact that the latter three incidents were clearly ones during which the mother was pregnant is also, in my view, of significance. This was a pregnancy in which the father himself accepts the mother was concerned about the possibility of miscarriage, and there are messages between the parties which refer to her bleeding and it is clear that it was not an easy pregnancy. In those circumstances, the father's behaviour is all the more concerning and he did not speak of those issues or those concerns in any way as being his own concerns. He did not speak about the mother's troubles in that pregnancy as being anything that he was worried about. He did not, in his evidence, express any regret about any specific incident. He expressed no regret and indeed I am unclear how much he accepts that the mother’s son may have heard, but he certainly expressed no interest in the mother’s son’s position and the impact of these incidents on him.

In his final words to me - because, as is only right, I gave the father an opportunity to say whatever he wished to say by way of closing remarks - what he wanted me to think about in particular was something that he had prepared on his phone and which he read out to me. He said that he had never wanted it to be like this and all he had wanted was to have a happy family life with the mother. He said he was sorry for the way he had made the mother feel. He said he was sorry, but he had never put a child at risk, that the child had been deprived of a normal loving relationship with him and his family, that he had spent thousands of pounds pursuing this and that he would continue to do so because his focus is on the child. He said the mother knows that the child would be safe with him, so there was no point in all of these issues being raised. He did not want to say anything to me about any of the specific incidents or allegations, either made against him or that he makes against the mother.

I asked the father what he was sorry for and what, if anything, he regretted. He said that if he had made the mother feel in the way that she describes, then he was sorry if that was the case. So there was, neither in those closing comments, or in his evidence, any acceptance of the fact that his behaviour has had the effect on the mother of upsetting her, frightening her, causing her particular worries in her pregnancy, causing her stress, causing her to undergo a scan on an emergency basis on the day following the incident [in] November 2023.

The mother, by contrast, was able in my view to look back on her past behaviour and the way she had sometimes, for example, messaged the father in the kind of language that she had used and she very clearly did regret some of that. She did not seek to minimise it; she did not seek to deny it, or justify it, or defend it.

I find in respect of each of the four specific incidents that the mother's account is the one that I prefer. I have, in some instances, little detail from the father as to what he says occurred or what he did. I have from him explanations which are contradictory and which make little sense. I agree that in many ways his evidence was evasive and that he did not directly answer questions. I found his accounts to be lacking in any detail.

The mother, in my view, has not only established those particular four specific incidents as having occurred in the way that she describes, but if I go on to consider those as part of a wider picture of controlling and coercive behaviour, I find that they are part of that pattern of behaviour by the father. I particularly refer to what the mother says about the home that was purchased by the parties. She says she agreed to buy this property with the father on the basis that he had urged or persuaded her that there was a need for a larger property for them to be able to occupy together. She accepted the father's assurances that he was going to sell his property and contribute to the purchase. Ultimately, he did not do that. I am unsure exactly how it was purchased, but I understand the mother's evidence to be that it was without any contribution from the father either at that stage or afterwards.

The father told me that ultimately his property had been on the market, but then when the parties separated he had needed somewhere to live so he took off the market. It must have been, on that version of events, on the market for a long period of time. The mother has made enquiries and has found that it was actually on the market for only a very short period of time, which supports her contention that he had very little intention to dispose of it.

The mother then gives an account of the father having tried to arrange a loan secured on the property without her agreement. But what is interesting is that the mother presents an account of that without any particular outrage. In fact, she also explains it in a way in which almost suggests that she would have wanted to help the father if she could. The purchase of the property and the assurances given by the father that he did not make good, the attempted loan, the feeling by the mother that she would have helped him, all of that is part of the picture of the father's coercive and controlling behaviour.

The words used by the father against the mother, repeatedly calling her pathetic, referring to her being treated better by him than she has ever before been treated in a relationship, are, I find, comments made with the intention of insulting, offending and upsetting the mother and of making her somehow dependent on and subservient to him.

The father makes allegations himself about the mother's behaviour. He provides evidence of messages sent by the mother to him. He says these are proof that she, in fact, is the one who is abusive or has been abusive towards him. It is clear to me that in those messages that he relies on where the mother uses foul language, she is clearly reacting to what has gone on before and a particular situation.

The father provides as his Appendix 1 to his second statement, messages which he says again show the mother's abusive language and conduct. The date of July 2023 is of course the incident that the mother alleges as the time when she went into the bathroom and there was the hole that she says the father punched into the door. The mother sent a message to the father stating that the police had turned up at the property because the neighbours heard her screaming. The mother refers to the father as a ‘psycho’ and ‘abusive’ and states ‘I’m scared of you’.

The mother uses language at times which she has looked back on and wishes she had not used. She probably reads those messages and thinks that they are not from the person she would like to be. But it is clear to me that those are messages that reference the abuse that she has suffered from the father, her fear of the father and also reference the specific incidents that have occurred. They are, as I have already observed, reactive on the mother's part.

What these messages of course do not do is provide the full context in which they were exchanged. They are not an entire run of messages. They show the mother even apologising for the way at times that she has messaged the father. It is clear that, despite what has happened at that point in those messages, she wanted to be back with the father and for everything to be all right. That was not abusive behaviour on her part.

In Appendix 16, provided by the father, the date is again not clear but what the mother says is: "It scares me, the idea of being with you in the house and you acting the way you do." At Appendix 17 she refers to it being like the father having bipolar, "one minute you can't do enough for me, next it's your dog and fumigation and bullshit, bullshit, bullshit". She does not want this. She refers to that whole pattern of behaviour from him as being pathetic. She refers to standing up for herself, she says:

There are messages about the father following a woman on Instagram. She says: "Is this girl your mate?" and the father says, "She's a Spurs fan. I just follow her because a fewof my Spurs mates do". That has its relevance in the allegation made by the mother that, as part of this pattern of controlling and coercive behaviour, the father has engaged in arrangements or relationships with other women or escorts. She has provided screenshots of a phone bill with a phone number that clearly matches what appears to be the number for a particular escort.

The father's case is that he has never been unfaithful and that, when they have been together, he has not gone to anyone else for a physical or intimate relationship. The evidence provided by the mother makes clear that, even [in] February 2024, there were calls or messages by the father to that particular number and it is about that time that the mother says the father disappeared between [dates] February 2024 and she assumed he had (to put it colloquially) gone on a bit of bender drinking and so on after the incident [in] February.

Not long after that, the father then went back to the mother, but he also appears in February to be sending her messages saying how much he wants to be with her. So it is hard to understand how or why - and he gives no explanation for it — the father had those communications with this escort during a time when, even though he might not have physically been under the same roof with the mother, he was still clearly professing his wish to be in a relationship with her and for things to be all right between them.

For completeness I should also reference the messages that the mother has provided, which in a different way corroborate what she says and in which the father seems to accept some of his behaviour and his consumption of alcohol and cocaine. I refer particularly to the father, [in] February 2024, saying in his messages "I shouldn't be going out and buying coke. I am not trying to justify it more put it into perspective that it was only £50, but I agree it's still not acceptable". There are assurances that he will not do coke again. [In] March 2024, he says: "I am sorry I've hurt you. I am hurting because of that too. I haven't fucked anyone. I've got a problem and I need to get it sorted with some help. I want to be with you while I do that, if that's something you can do".

The mother provides that message as being corroborative of the father not simply using cocaine occasionally, but of him using it excessively and using it in a way that suggests he was dependent on it. The father's response is "Obviously the main thing is to cut out the drink and drugs, which I am going to do now. I should have done it before as you've told me, but I haven't listened because I was a selfish prick I'm so sorry."

Importantly, following the November 2023 incident - and again, this is without the run of messages that led to it - what the mother says is:

In respect of the father's allegation of controlling and coercive behaviour by the mother, I do not find that the messages from the mother establish any such pattern of behaviour. I find that they are reactive messages; they are messages that refer directly to the abuse that the mother has suffered, to her being frightened, to her not wanting to be in the same space as the father and that puts them in a very different category to the allegations that she makes against him. They fall more within the range of instances of bad behaviour that do occur in relationships, particularly in extreme circumstances and the circumstances and situations in which they occurred in this case were certainly extreme and incredibly difficult for the mother.

I have made my findings in this case on the basis of the evidence presented to me in the proceedings in written and oral form.

In terms of the police material detailing allegations made by the father's ex-partners - I understand this is in fact by two of them, including the mother of the Father’s son - I am troubled by what seems to be a completely inconsistent account by the father of having had difficulties seeing his son, but on the other hand of his son’s mother never having caused any difficulties in his contact. In any event, what is clear is that the kind of allegations she and another ex-partner have made against the father have a number of similarities with what the mother says she experienced in what the father has said and done to her. The allegations go back to 2014, but more recent allegations were made in September 2018 and in 2022:

In terms of actions in addition to the above words:

Going further back, allegations are recorded by a previous ex-partner that the father threw an apple and slipper at her, threw a wooden letter "E" at her four years later and of a kick in 2018 to the middle of her back. That, of course, chimes entirely with what the mother says the father did to her in terms of kicking her back in November 2023.

This is a case in which even absent this material, I would have made the findings against the father that I have but this evidence is, in my view, clearly sufficient to establish a propensity on the father's part to behave in this abusive and intimidating way, both verbally and physically, in personal relationships. The similarities lie in the vile language used, the intimidation, in the physical abuse, in the abuse taking place in front of children, in the use of the same tactics of banging on windows and doors and the use of similar language that puts the other person down, such as calling them pathetic. The father's alleged behaviour towards his ex-partners establishes, in my view, evidence of his propensity to behave in a certain way towards partners/ex-partners and makes it even more likely, on a balance of probabilities, that the father has behaved as alleged towards the mother.

I should have also referred in my consideration of the mother's allegations of coercive and controlling behaviour to what the mother also says about the father and other relationships, but also, for example, his insistence on having things his own way. When there was an arrangement in June last year for him to come and collect his belongings from the property, it was made very clear to him that he could come between the hours of 10am and 1pm on the first occasion (and it was between 10am and 4pm on a further occasion in June).

On the first occasion, the father made clear that the proposed timing was not acceptable to him. It is suggested he knew that the particular times has been offered because there would be no one in the home and he would be able to collect his belongings. He therefore knew that if he wanted to see the mother and if he wanted, as he says, to see the child he would need to get there earlier and that is what he did. He went to the property at 9am.

I fully understand that the father wanted to see his daughter, but in doing so he showed a complete disregard for the mother and for the impact on the child of any words that might have been exchanged with the mother on the doorstep. In the event, what the mother says is that in fact he was abusive and he shouted in her presence and that is, in my view, significant.

On the second occasion the father was given the opportunity to go to the property, he again refused to go between the hours of 10am and 4pm and insisted on going at 9am. I do not quite know what, in the end, became of that.

I also accept that, around this time, the mother was trying to make arrangements for the father to see the child and she suggested meeting in [Hertfordshire]. I have no idea from the father why he did not take that up. He was asked about it, but he did not provide anything approaching a satisfactory explanation because it would at least have been an opportunity for him to spend some time with his daughter.

That concludes my analysis and assessment of the evidence and my findings. It is clear that there will need to be a welfare assessment which takes into account and considers the findings that I have made. There are findings which, when you come to draft the order Mr Frost, are probably not going to be that easy to drill down into a list. In summary, I find the mother has proved the four specific allegations in respect of the father's behaviour. She has also proved that the father has engaged in a pattern of controlling and coercive behaviour towards her, as I have detailed in this Judgment. The father has not proved his allegation, such as it was, that the mother has engaged in controlling and coercive behaviour towards him, and I do not make any findings of such behaviour against the mother.