An Applicant v A Respondent

The Court is concerned with Daisy, a 7 year old girl. She is the daughter of the Applicant (“A”) who is represented by Ms Fineberg and of the Respondent, (“R”) who is represented by Ms Hibbert.

A applied for a prohibited steps order to prevent R from removing Daisy from her care: an order in standard terms was made on 27.3.25, which remains in force. R has applied for a child arrangements order seeking a lives with or time with order.

In the course of the proceedings A made allegations which, if true, amounted to domestic abuse. That engages PD12J and PD3AA. She has also made allegations about R’s conduct within the family home which, if true, may affect the outcome of R’s application.

DJ Bishop gave directions for the trial of the factual allegations, which has taken place on 11, 12 and 13 November 2025. In the end A did not make allegations of domestic abuse towards her as part of that process, but did make allegations about R’s conduct. Accordingly, Ms Hibbert did not cross examine on the allegation of coercive or controlling behaviour, because it was not included in the schedule of allegations that had been directed: it could and should have been, had findings been sought, given the order of DJ Bishop. I agree with Ms Hibbert that it would be procedurally unfair of me to make such findings now, in those circumstances. Given that A allowed significant contact between Daisy and R until six months after the parties separated, it is not immediately clear to me that even if such an allegation were true it alone would be a bar to future direct contact.

A and R married in 2022, but they had lived together since 2016. A had three older children: Abigail, Bella and Charlotte. Abigail and Bella are adults. They changed their surname by deed poll to match R’s surname. Charlotte chose to retain her biological father’s name. R has children from a previous relationship.

There are some general principles that apply when the Court is asked to determine whether a fact is true or not.

The parties entered and left the Courtroom separately, and a screen was erected so that they would not see one another. That is an entirely neutral step. I explained to the parties that it is designed to help them both attend and participate fully in the hearing. As R was for many years a father figure to Abigail and Bella, and they were making allegations about his conduct within the family home, the same special measures were taken when they gave their evidence.

On 20.3.24 Bella said that she found a Lynx Shower Gel (or similar Lynx product) bottle on a bathroom cabinet facing the toilet. It would have been at about eye level for someone sat on the toilet. Bella said that the bottle had been emptied, a hole cut in it and the top cut open, that a red iphone 8 had been hidden inside, with its camera to the hole. A sock had been used to position the phone within the bottle. If true, the clear implication is that there was either an act or acts of voyeurism, or an attempt to commit such acts. Bella said that she was shocked and left the bottle and camera where it was. It is said that Bella later told Abigail, but by then the camera and bottle Bella had seen had gone. There is no suggestion that A was told at this stage. She went away with friends on 22.3.24 . That day Abigail found a further bottle in R’s bedside drawer. She told Bella, Paul, her extended family and then the Police. Members of both A and R’s family attended the family home, and A alleges that R attempted to remove Daisy from the back of a car. The Police arrested R on suspicion of voyeurism. Following investigation, they concluded that without the device in question or any images they could not show a reasonable prospect of a conviction. On 23.3.24 A returned from her trip and the parties separated – A and her children moved out. In

There is also an allegation that in July 2024 R intended to take Daisy abroad without A’s permission, and another that in September 2024 R took part in drawing on Daisy’s body with colouring pens.

I heard evidence from A, Bella, Abigail and R. Ms Hibbert drew my attention to the case of Re P [2019] EWFC 27 (Fam). As MacDonald J said at paragraph 251,

“With respect to the evidence of, and impression the court forms of the parents, it is however important to bear in mind the observations of Macur LJ in Re M (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1147 at [11] and [12], noting that: “Any judge appraising witnesses in the emotionally charged atmosphere of a contested family dispute should warn themselves to guard against an assessment solely by virtue of their behaviour in the witness box and to expressly indicate that they have done so””.

At paragraph 577 he summarised 12 matters that a Court should consider when assessing the evidence of children. Bella was a child in March 2024, though she is an adult now. And Daisy was less than 6 when she made a remark on 10.9.24 which forms the basis of allegation 3.

Ms Hibbert also suggests that there is a relatively high risk, especially in relation to the allegation about the image Daisy said that she saw, of confirmation bias. Abigail already believed that R had installed a covert camera in the bathroom. Ms Hibbert cautions me that Abigail may have been sensitive to any hint of an image existing and have reinforced through confirmation bias what Daisy said, convincing herself and then others that Allegation 3 was true when there may be an entirely innocent explanation for Daisy having seen an image of Abigail that Daisy found amusing.

As well as the bundle of documents before me I have two very short video clips exhibited by Abigail to her evidence, and some Police material including arrest videos and Video Recorded Interviews – I was not invited to view the whole of the video recorded interviews but have viewed small excerpts from them.

A did not really witness for herself most of the key incidents: she was not told when the hidden camera was said to have been found, and was away when the allegation of voyeurism was made to the Police. She has not seen the image that Daisy referred to on 10/9/24. She accepted that she allowed contact between Daisy and R – supervised at first but fairly quickly progressing, once his bail conditions had ended, to overnight and holiday time. She told me that she did not want to believe that the voyeurism allegation against her husband was true at the time, but accepted that a part of her always believed that it was. She paused to reflect, made appropriate concessions and resisted the temptation to fill in gaps if she didn’t remember. I felt, overall, that she was trying to tell me what she recalled. I am not surprised that she got confused as to the precise sequence of precisely who said precisely what and in what order on 10/9/24: she was dealing with a highly emotionally charged situation.

Bella was a clear but nervous witness. She accepted that she had considered moving to live with her maternal grandmother in the weeks before the events I am concerned with. She did not get on well with R: in fact, she disliked him. She did, as Ms Hibbert said, often say that she did not remember a detail, but I do not accept that this came across as a means of avoiding a difficult question: rather, it came across to me that Bella was not pretending to remember when she didn’t, and was not trying to explain inconsistencies away, as witnesses sometimes do. Before each of the witnesses gave their evidence I had explained that they should tell me what they believed to be true, and if they could not remember they should avoid the temptation to guess, but should say that they did not remember.

Bella accepted that there have been inconsistencies in her account over time. Counsel for R had purchased a 500ml bottle of Lynx Africa (some of the photos showed a 500ml Lynx bottle which was similar to but not the same as the one counsel had acquired) but Bella was unable to recall whether the bottle she had seen with a camera concealed inside it was the same size or not. The Police photos also show that a 700ml Lynx bottle adapted in the same way had been found in R’s bedroom when they searched it. When asked why she had not seized the bottle and camera when

Bella declined to speculate on some issues, for example as to why the Lynx bottle had re-appeared in the bathroom but by then filled with shower gel. She told me in her oral evidence that she checked to see whether the camera was recording and it wasn’t. When interviewed by the Police on 5.4.24 she did not say that she had checked whether the device was recording but she did say she put it back, so must therefore have picked it up and examined it. (Ms Hibbert suggests that this was the other way around, but the point remains effectively the same because it is about inconsistency of account). That was not the only inconsistency within her account.

Bella was clear that at no time prior to 20.3.24 had R ever made her feel uncomfortable in any sexualised way.

Abigail too accepted that there were some inconsistencies in her account, but in common with her mother and sister she too tended to reflect and try to recall when asked about some detail, and appeared genuinely to be trying to visualise or recall what she had seen or heard. She has raised a number of aspects of R’s conduct towards her before March 2024 which she was clear had not caused her any concern or discomfort at the time, but which looking back in the light of the voyeurism allegation now made her wonder whether they were entirely appropriate.

R was clear and calm and steadfast in his denials. He made some concessions, for example that he played a bottom slapping game with Abigail. He essentially did not disagree with the way that Abigail described his behaviour towards her before March 2024, and reflected that with the benefit of hindsight those matters probably were not appropriate. At the time, he needed his mobile phone to assist with the management of a health issue, but when the Police attended on 22.3.24 they were unable to find

R told me that he believed that Abigail and Bella had coached (whether deliberately or by allowing her to overhear discussions on the subject) Daisy to make an allegation about what she saw on an ipad. I have the messages exchanged between Abigail and A moments after Daisy’s remark during a facetime call between Daisy and Abigail. Bella and A could hear the call, but not see the screen. They all agreed that Daisy made some remark about having seen a picture of Abigail on the ipad whilst she had been on holiday with R (which would have been about 3 weeks earlier). They are not consistent as to precisely what Daisy said, but it caused each of them a degree of concern. They all agree that Abigail said ‘did you hear that’ or similar. Abigail and A’s messages a few moments later have the quality of two people rapidly trying to come to terms with what they had just heard. There is no evidence to corroborate R’s allegation of coaching or collusion.

R says that he has been framed when it comes to the voyeurism allegations. He places the blame for this mainly on Bella, but also he blames Abigail and/or Abigail’s boyfriend Paul. Whilst he says that neither Bella nor Paul liked him much, Abigail’s evidence to me was that less than a week before Bella says that she found the hidden camera, Abigail had a tattoo which related to members of her family including R, as a mark of her love for them all. Until Bella told Abigail about the hidden camera, Abigail was very fond of R. R accepted that he had offered no comment interviews when interviewed by Police both about the allegation of voyeurism in March and about Daisy’s report in September. When asked why he had not taken the opportunity to say that he thought that he had been framed by Bella and/or Abigail and/or Paul, he said that he had offered no comment interviews on the advice of his solicitor.

I thought that the evidence of Bella and Abigail was powerful and persuasive. If Bella was trying to frame R, she could simply have produced a camera and Lynx bottle and made her allegation, or photographed where it was. The way she described her confusion and fear on spotting the camera seemed to me to be completely genuine.

Abigail’s evidence was compelling, too. Having been told by Bella what she had seen and then finding Bella’s confusion when the bottle and camera had gone, to searching R’s drawer and finding another bottle modified to be able to fit a camera and containing a sock in the way Bella had described was, it seemed to me, compelling. I believed her when she said in her statement that “I knew at that moment that [R] had been using these contraptions to film us in the bathroom”. I do not doubt Abigail when she says that the rest of that day was incredibly stressful for her and something of a blur. Her mother was away, she felt very unsafe, she was concerned for the welfare of herself and three younger sisters, and she contacted all the family members and her boyfriend to ask them to come over. I accept her evidence that R fled the home for a while, shortly after it became apparent to him that he was being accused

Ms Hibbert argues that an iphone simply couldn’t have been secreted in the modified lynx bottle Bella said she saw so as to expose the camera to a hole in the bottle. She points out that the main camera is on the top left of an iphone 8, but the selfie camera is on the front top roughly a third of the way across the top from left to right. Without the actual phone and bottle I cannot tell whether her argument is correct, but it seems to me that the hole is quite large and it may well have been possible. Whilst Bella identified the bottle she saw as being the one seen at Page 575 of the bundle, she did not specify which bottle precisely she saw in her written statement. She was clear that the bottles were swapped around after she first saw a camera. I note that Abigail says that she found a different Lynx bottle in R’s drawer, which had been both modified and which had in it a sock in the way Bella had described. It is a larger bottle. I am not required to reach a conclusion on the basis that I am ‘certain that I am sure’, which is the criminal standard of proof, but on the basis that I am satisfied on the totality of the evidence that it is more likely than not that the facts alleged happened.

It was common ground among the witnesses that there were lots of devices within the family home over time; that R was good at fixing the devices; that old devices tended to be kept by him; that Abigail at least knew the passwords to the Respondent’s devices and also could access other devices using a family sharing app. Ms Hibbert suggests that shows that R would not be so stupid as to use a family device for voyeurism, because of the high risk of detection. It would, though, be a relatively simple matter to set an old device with a different password and link it to a different apple ID, and to either not connect it or to remove it from any form of sharing app.

Ms Hibbert argues that Bella must be lying about the bottle and camera she says that she saw, because a hole in the centre of the Lynx bottle would not allow the camera on the left of the iphone to capture any images. She points out that the Police spotted that issue as one of the factors they relied upon when deciding to NFA the voyeurism allegation in April 2024. As she rightly points out, there is no evidence before 20.3.24

I am unable to conclude that there was anything untoward in any of R’s conduct as described by Abigail in her statement towards Abigail before 20 March 2024, save that if any photographs were taken before then by means of a concealed camera that would have been obviously inappropriate conduct.

Ms Hibbert suggested that Daisy had a memory issue, pointing out for example that she had said to a social worker in June or July 2024 that she could not remember when she last saw her Daddy, when the evidence of A & R was that it would have been at most a few days earlier. I did not think that significant, as the answer from a 5 year old (which Daisy then was) would depend so much on the context and what she understood was being asked: a 5 year old who can’t remember exactly or who doesn’t have a strong sense of times or days of the week might say that, for example, without meaning they have any memory issues. It took nearly 3 months for the Police to interview Daisy after 10.9.24, and I am not surprised that her memory was by then incomplete.

There are quite a lot of inconsistencies between the accounts given by A, Bella and Abigail. Many of them have been helpfully summarised by Ms Hibbert in a document entitled “Schedule of Evidence” which she emailed to me and to Ms Fineberg shortly before closing submissions began. Those inconsistencies are sometimes between the different accounts one of them has given over time – to the Police, in their written evidence and in their oral evidence – and as between each other. That shows that there has not been a determined conspiracy between them, because if there had been no doubt they would have given highly consistent accounts.

Allegation 1 – 19-22.3.24 - The Applicant alleges that the Respondent was covertly collecting images and/or recordings of the family in the family bathroom using a modified lynx bottle, and a red iPhone 8. There is no evidence that any indecent images were actually captured between these dates. Given Bella’s belief that the device she found was not recording when she found it, I cannot properly find that R “was” covertly collecting images or recordings on the specified dates.

However, despite the inconsistencies in the evidence of Bella, Abigail and A, and the inconsistencies between them, I am satisfied that, broadly speaking, their evidence is more credible than the evidence of R. I prefer their evidence and conclude that R had concealed a red iphone 8 inside a modified Lynx bottle which he had placed on the top shelf of a bathroom cabinet in the family home. The only reason for him to have done so, given the precise location of the device when it was spotted by Bella, was to take images of people using the toilet bath or shower, all of which were in the bathroom. The only apparent explanation for doing so was to hope to gain images for the purposes of sexual gratification. I accept that he must have realised that he had been caught, and that he disposed of the red iphone, either before 22.3.24 or when he left the family home before the Police arrived.

Allegation 2 – 22.3.24 – The Respondent attempted to remove Daisy from the care of her maternal family whilst being arrested. The Respondent opened the maternal grandfather’s car door and attempted to reach across and grab Daisy. I have a clear preference for the evidence of Abigail to that of R, who would have been scared and stressed at the time of the allegation. There is no evidence that either Daisy or Abigail were physically hurt and I doubt that this finding alone would justify some kind of bar on future contact

Allegation 3 – 10.9.24 - The Respondent had an image of the Applicant’s daughter, Abigail in just her bra sitting on the toilet, on his iPad, which Daisy accessed and saw. I suspect that whatever I conclude Abigail will always believe this allegation to be true.There is no evidence that has been found by the Police, who have had the ipad in question for over a year, that such an image exists. I reject the notion that Bella and

Allegation 4 – Approx July 2024 - The Applicant alleges that the Respondent intended to take Daisy abroad without her permission and was in the process of applying for a passport for her. I accept that A saw two white envelopes in R’s porch and thought that these were likely to be passport applications. R says that they were provisional driving licences. Frankly, I do not believe him and I prefer the evidence of A on that point to that of R. However, that does not amount to showing that R had an intention to take Daisy abroad without A’s consent: there is no evidence that he has ever taken Daisy from her control, apart from the occasion when he was arrested and he was trying to ensure that Daisy went to her paternal rather than maternal grandparents. A’s fears about R’s relatives abroad were blown out of reasonable proportion, in my view. I find that this allegation is not made out.

Allegation 5 – early September 2024 - The Applicant alleges that the Respondent took part in drawing on Daisy’s body with colouring pens, including on her arms, tummy and legs, up to her underwear line. On R’s evidence this allegation, as phrased, is made out because A accepts that there was such drawing and he took part in some of it. A’s written evidence was that Daisy was wearing a short sleeve top and some shorts. R accepts drawing on her arms, in a game being played by Daisy, R and R's

Without a risk assessment it seems to me that it would be premature to vary the current arrangements. I shall direct a s7 report from Cafcass as to the future arrangements for Daisy to live with and/or spend time with R, in particular addressing any risks arising from my findings and how such risks might be managed. That will take a minimum of 23 weeks from the date Cafcass received the sealed order of the Court.

Cafcass will also need to consider whether, if any allegations of domestic abuse are considered relevant, the matters set out in PD12J. It seems to me that my finding on allegation 1 amounts to domestic abuse not least because A was one of the household members to whom it was directed.

All future hearings are reserved to me and special measures shall apply for all future hearings.

There are no applications before me for expert risk assessments. If either party wishes to make such application they should do so within the next 4 weeks, to prevent avoidable delay.

There shall be a DRA with a time estimate of 2 hours on the first available date 2 weeks after the s7 report is directed. Parties shall send a position statement to each other and to the Court not less than 7 days before the hearing,

The Applicant’s solicitor shall prepare the bundle for the next hearing.