X, Y and Z (Children) (Domestic Abuse), Re

I am concerned with three children, X (DOB ............, age 14 years), Y (DOB ............ age 9 years) and Z (DOB ............age 4). Their father, ..., the applicant (hereafter “F”), brought this application for a child arrangements order to spend time with his children on 12^th November 2024. The children live with their mother, ..., the respondent (hereafter “M”). F last had direct contact with the children in 2022, shortly after the parties’ separation. This is a Judgment given at the conclusion of a fact-finding hearing which took place before me on 17^th, 18^th and 25^th November 2025 to determine the factual matrix upon which future welfare decisions can be made.

This is the second of two judgments I have determined to be published to promote transparency within the Family Court in accordance with the guidance published by the President of the Family Division on 19 June 2024 (“Transparency in the Family Courts Publication of Judgements Practice Guidance”). They are fact find hearings in private law proceedings that I have heard in the last two weeks of November.

M was represented by counsel Mr Fattal. F was represented by counsel Mr Singh. Both parties were assisted by Punjabi interpreters. I heard oral evidence from M, her friend ..., and F. I have considered M as vulnerable in light of the allegations she makes and considered FPR rule 3A and PD3AA at a previous hearing. The parties entered and left the Courtroom separately, waited in separate areas and a screen was erected so they did not see each other at Court.

Each parent has made a number of statements which I have read. I should not and cannot recite every piece of evidence I have considered in this judgment but assure the parties I have listened carefully to their oral evidence, and I have also considered the bundle entire. I have allowed both parties to present their cases to me in full. However, it is for me to consider what findings are necessary and relevant to welfare decisions.

I am providing a written judgment, to record the evidence before the Court and to make findings of fact. Not only will it be important for the parents and any future professionals working with the family to read it, but it will form the basis of any future welfare decision making.

M and F are both from India and married in March 2010. They both came to England and the children are habitually resident in this jurisdiction. The parties had lived together in London. The parties separated in or around July/August 2022, but before X’s birthday. Initially F had contact with X only, which then ended in November 2022. In April 2023 the parties were divorced and around that time M relocated away from London with a new partner, PS, ending up in Dudley.

M alleges domestic abuse in her relationship with F, some of which she has reported to police. There was a police investigation in respect of an ABH and a threat to kill offence in 2015, but which was withdrawn by M. The eldest two children voice that they do not wish to see F, reportedly due to the domestic abuse they have witnessed. The youngest child is largely non-verbal and has had a Speech and Language referral made. M’s evidence refers to a pattern of abuse. M has sought to identify incidents in her Scott Schedule but in her evidence maintained that she endured a pattern of abuse. F, while making a minor admission as to having arguments with M as I will come onto, denies any physical abuse towards M or the children and will say that M is motivated to eradicate him from the children’s life.

F initiated family private law proceedings in November 2024. There has been a delay of 12 months between that issuing and this fact find hearing, in part due to repeated failures by M to file her statements when directed and also due to delayed receipt of police disclosure, which both led to the vacating of an earlier fact find hearing listed in July 2025. Over the course of the past year, there has been 5 hearings, helpfully for the most part before me as I have endeavoured to provide judicial continuity. In light of concerns I have had as to the current welfare of the children in light of M’s relationship after marriage to F with “PS”, I have directed and received a Section 37 report (dated 18^th February 2025) and subsequent Local Authority updates and assessments. The allocated Social Worker since 6^th November 2025, Ms C, attended throughout the course of the 2-day hearing to listen to the evidence, demonstrative of the level of current Local Authority concern. The children were made subject to a Child Protection Plan at ICPC on 6^th November 2025 under the category of emotional harm.

The party that asserts a fact must prove it. There is no onus on an individual to disprove an alleged fact. The standard of proof is the civil standard, the balance of probabilities. The more serious or improbable the allegation, the greater the need for evidential cogency. If a finding is made, then it is a matter of established fact and is no longer subject to scrutiny or doubt. If no finding is made, then the reverse occurs – the matter is considered not to be an established fact and is no longer subject to Court examination.

Findings of fact must be based on evidence, including inferences that can be properly drawn from that evidence and not on suspicion or speculation. The court must take into account the wide canvas of evidence that is available and not evaluate it in separate compartments. The evidence of the parties is obviously of the utmost importance. It is essential that the court forms a clear assessment of their credibility and reliability. The court must be mindful that human memory is fallible. CPR PD 57AC, Appendix para 1.3 states that human memory: a. is not a simple mental record of a witnessed event that is fixed at the time of the experience and fades over time, but b. is a fluid and malleable state of perception concerning an individual’s past experiences, and therefore c. is vulnerable to being altered by a range of influences, such that the individual may or may not be conscious of the alteration. The human capacity of honestly believing something that bears no relation to what happened is unlimited. Therefore, contemporaneous documents are significantly important, and, in that respect, hearsay is admissible and the weight to be attributed to it is a matter for the court to evaluate.

As these are private law proceedings, I bear in mind the possibility that one parent or the other might be seeking to gain an advantage in a battle against the other. That does not mean that those allegations are false. It does however increase the risk of misinterpretation, exaggeration, or fabrication.

It is not uncommon for witnesses to tell lies. I remind myself that just because a person is found to have lied about one thing it does not mean that they are generally not credible. People can lie about aspects of their life for a great variety of reasons unconnected with the issues in each case. Any perceived dishonesty must be viewed in the context of all the evidence given by that person, and the relevance of the dishonesty to the issues before the Court and the findings requested will be central to the Court’s consideration of credibility. In considering credibility the Court can consider a witness’s demeanour when giving evidence or interviews but cannot rely on that as its sole consideration. In the case of Re B-B (Domestic Abuse Fact-Finding) (Rev 1) [2022] EWHC 108 (Fam) Mr Justice Cobb observed that an “abusive relationship is invariably complex in which the abused partner is often caught up in the whorl of abuse, losing objective sense of what was/is acceptable and unacceptable in a relationship.” A failure to report matters to authorities at the time incidents occur is commonplace in domestic abuse relationships for that reason.

I remind myself of the Family Procedure Rules and Practice Direction 12J, and what it says about domestic abuse, the definitions therein and the approach that this court must take. Guidance was given in the case of Re H-N and Others (Children) (Domestic Abuse: Finding of fact hearings)[2021] EWCA Civ 448. The court must look at the totality of the relationship when considering domestic abuse and controlling or coercive behaviour. Behaviour may be directive, assertive, stubborn, or selfish. It does not automatically make it controlling or coercive. However, not all directive, assertive, stubborn, or selfish behaviour, will be 'abuse' in the context of proceedings concerning the welfare of a child; much will turn on the intention of the perpetrator of the alleged abuse and on the harmful impact of the behaviour. 

The Court of Appeal in Re H-N noted the ways in which a child may be harmed by domestic abuse at paragraph 31:

As F makes allegations of “parental alienation”, I have reminded myself of the FJC Guidance on responding to a child’s unexplained reluctance, resistance or refusal (RRR) to spend time with a parent and allegations of alienating behaviour dated December 2024.To establish Alienating Behaviours, 3 elements must be evidenced: Re C (Parental Alienation) [2023] EWHC 345:

I also have in the forefront of my mind Art 8 and the principle of proportionality and the parties’ Art 6 rights.

Finally, as M relies on an image from CCTV captured covertly, I have also considered the guidance on covert recordings, which arises in this context (Family Justice Council Guidance on Covert Recordings in Family Law Proceedings Concerning Children).

Having set out the law at some length, I turn to my findings. I am going to consider each of them in turn, in the order that they appear in the Schedule of Allegations. Before doing so, I want to make some general observations on the credibility of the parents, starting with the credibility of M.

I am cautious about M’s credibility because F’s case is that the allegations before the Court are fabricated or exaggerated to push him out of the children’s lives. I therefore listened carefully to her oral evidence and scrutinised what she said and examined the documentary evidence for corroboration.

In her oral evidence, in cross examination by Mr Singh for F, when inconsistencies were put to her, she sought to defend herself by saying: “F went to India and Canada and left me as sole carer.” She routinely altered her narrative when confronted with inconsistencies. These shifting accounts substantially erode her credibility.

When asked by me why the children should not have a relationship with their father now as is her position, her response was not out of any risk of harm or fear but rather: “I am the mother and it is the mother's decision only. I don't want him to see the younger children. I have raised them by myself and they are my children.” After separation unsupervised contact took place between X and F with M’s knowledge and consent for several months. Were father to have been as significantly and consistently violent and dangerous as she now alleges such as to pose a risk to her or any of the children one would think she would not have supported such contact. Further still as to contact in the immediate aftermath of separation, she offered that she had said to him that, given their respective working days, the children could live with her in the week days and he could have weekends. She said to me: “I have kept the children myself for three years, I am not going to give them to him”.

M made very few, if any, concessions when inconsistencies and alleged fabrications were put to her. There were significant parts of her evidence I found troubling. Her written and oral evidence in support of the allegations she makes against F were wholly inconsistent internally which I will explore when I look at the allegations.

There is clear motivation for her to fabricate and lie about any domestic abuse from F in light of that oral evidence. The inconsistencies in the children’s views of F immediately post separation to more recently evidence that.

All of these issues were significant in my conclusion that her testimony was flawed and not entirely credible. Sadly, however, I am unable to find F entirely honest and reflective. He failed to acknowledge any negative behaviour and express any remorse. When asked about the arguments with M that he had admitted to within his written evidence, he told me they were not frequent, and in fact he wasn’t arguing. He demonstrated no insight into what the children had said about the arguments, or “chaos” as X had described, instead painting himself positively as far as possible, as a provider and almost victim: “I was doing so much, I was thinking why is this happening to me?...I would come home, there would be an argument, it makes you think why that has been taking place...when I went home the family wasn’t happy...why is the atmosphere like this?”.

I heard evidence from M’s friend, ..., via video link. She was cooking throughout her evidence which I commented on but did not prevent given the limited nature of what she had to say to me. She has known M for the last 11-12 years and most recently saw M last month. She has never met F. She said M would show her marks on her face, neck and arms that M said had been caused by F. In her statement she says clearly that she never witnessed any domestic abuse incidents. However, in her oral evidence she told me there was one occasion where she dropped M off at home, F opened the front door and slapped M. She said she had initially forgot to tell the solicitor about that but did mention it later and was told it would be added onto her statement. She ended her evidence by being very positive about PS, that he was very good to M and the children. She told me: “she is a very good mom, I don’t know about her problems with F because I don’t know about his temperament”. Asked what M had told her about his temperament, she replied: “she told me he did not spend much time with me, spends lots of time away...he was always argumentative”. That in closing was very insightful. It demonstrated to me this witness did not support M’s case of a chronically physically abusive marriage about which she had confided to her friend.

As I find both parents lacked the ability to be entirely honest, I have therefore had to be assisted by the contemporaneous and supporting evidence as far as it exists. The written evidence by professionals I have found very helpful in charting the evident change in the children’s wishes and views of F.

In fact, the first allegations the children make to any professional of any physical domestic abuse between F towards M on my reading is long after their separation in 2022, following a referral in October 2023 from school regarding concerns as to M’s parenting regarding physical chastisement, parental mental health, low level neglect and domestic abuse in her relationship with PS.

For all of those reasons, and despite reservations as mentioned above about F's evidence, where there is divergence in the parties’ narratives, I have a general preference for the evidence of F over the evidence of M.

It is not the task of the Court to pick through every unhappiness that there was as the parties' relationship faltered and failed. I simply need, at this stage, to determine whether M can show that any or all of her allegations are more likely than not to be true.

The evidence will necessarily only be summarised in this judgment and selected issues drawn on by way of illustration, but all the evidence was considered in the round to enable me to have the most accurate picture of what actually happened.

When speaking to the Social Worker in June 2025, F accepted that: “there was shouting and arguments with the children’s mother that the children witnessed”. In his statement for these proceedings, he states that: “following the discovery of her affair in March 2022, there were verbal disputes over a 3-month period. For that I express regret.”

Unfortunately, however, in his oral evidence he sought to minimise this admission rather than take ownership for his behaviour or demonstrate remorse. He told me that he naturally talks in ordinary conversation in a loud voice. His friends, M and indeed the children have pointed this out to him and told him to speak more quietly. I asked when previously he had admitted arguments, shouting and verbal disputes whether he accepted that this was at a louder a volume than the norm but he refused to do so. I also notice that throughout his oral evidence he was actually a very softly spoken gentleman which rather undermined his case on the point.

X has told the social worker in June 2025 that arguments in the home were frequent; Y has shared that F used to scream a lot. X described chaos and noise in the household in her earliest reports to Social Care shortly after the parents separated in August and November 2022.

I find on the balance of probabilities that loud arguments took place during the marriage and frequently so from early to mid 2022 which the children witnessed and overheard and felt fearful about, which they demonstrated by feeling the need to retreat to their bedrooms and, as X expressed, crying. Those arguments clearly upset and scared them. I am satisfied the nature, frequency and volume of these arguments was beyond everyday normal relationship disputes and so were emotionally abusive towards M. F was the louder party, and the one the children interpreted as the aggressor; however, it takes two parties to sustain an argument. The parties are equally to blame for causing emotional harm to their children by arguing.

M alleges that on 8^th May 2015 F pushed her head into a wall and hurt her shoulder and head. He pulled her hair and held a knife against her and threatened to kill her, X and himself. He chased M up the stairs, threw her on the bed and physically assaulted her. That is the summary of mother's allegation as set out in her schedule.

Within the police disclosure is her police statement dated 9^th May 2015, which she confirms was read to her in Punjabi and she agreed as true the day after the alleged assault. In that statement she asserts that after F returned from work around 5-6pm, while arguing about a gold ring which F accused her of stealing, F pulled her hair, punched her on the head and slapped her in the face. M said she would call the police, in response to which F locked both doors. He took a knife from the kitchen and threatened to kill M and X before the police arrived. M suggested they look for the ring together upstairs. M managed to get the knife from F’s hand and threw it out of the window. He was angry and said he would get another knife but did not. She slowly came downstairs, had the key in her pocket, and took X and went on the bus to the Police station that evening. In support of her allegation, photos of the knife that M asserts she threw out of the window are photographed by police in situ in the back garden.

The police summary log of what M reported at the desk on the evening of the incident differs slightly, for example, in suggesting F demanded she go upstairs to look for the gold ring rather than this being her suggestion, and that she had to look for the key to the front door within his work clothes. I bear in mind there have been errors in interpretation and she does not swear this log as accurate. I also bear in mind that this presents a contemporaneous record of matters alleged to have taken place only hours earlier. What motive did she have for reporting in person at a police station unless she had valid cause to complain about F’s conduct as criminal?

However, she swears her witness statement dated 24^th January 2025 as true, in which she asserts:

However, in her second witness statement dated 20^th June 2025, also sworn as true, I note there appears the first mention that:

In her oral evidence she told me that:

Within the police statement, she refers to an incident in April 2015 whereby F pushed her out of the house and punched her, causing bruising to her upper arm, of which she took a photo. The photo shows two areas of bruising around 2cm and 3cm diameter. However, the same photo is exhibited to her family law witness statement dated 20^th June 2025 as evidence of the assault she says occurred during this alleged incident on 8^th May 2015. She told me in her evidence that she took the photo in a friend’s bathroom herself on 9^th May 2015. The photo in both the police disclosure and her witness statement are identical and undated. The absence of dating significantly undermines the reliability of these photographs. I am therefore not satisfied that there is any evidence of her sustaining any injury on 8^th May 2015 due to that inconsistency.

As to that image, F asserts that M received prescribed injections following the birth of X for a blood clot in her neck (blood thinners), which F was taught to administer, and which he did in her stomach, then, when that proved painful, at the top of her arm and shoulder. Counsel for F advances that this is consistent with NHS recommendations. I am satisfied as to that explanation and there is thus no photo evidence of M ever having sustained any injury perpetrated by F.

I note that within the police disclosure it records that in October 2023 F attended the children's school which prompted a police investigation. M was assisted by a friend to interpret for her. She alleged then that F had only ever used or threatened to use a weapon once, i.e. a frying pan. No knife is mentioned.

When interviewed by police, though we have no record of interview, the police summary records F’s case is that he returned home from work, X looked upset and when he asked what was the matter she hugged him. “His wife then slapped their daughter so he pushed his wife and she fell backwards.”. In cross examination, F confirmed yes, he did push M, and she fell back onto the settee, but he did not push her with any real force of such that would any injury. I note that admission is missing from his statements for these proceedings. He tells me there was no argument about jewellery, rather there was a fall out after F requested a sandwich. F went upstairs to get changed; M and X left. He later fell asleep downstairs and was woken by police arresting him.

Finding: Not proven. Both versions of events are unsatisfactory. If F is telling the truth then he saw M slap his 3 year old daughter and failed to comfort or safeguard her. However, it is for M to prove her allegation. Though I take into account the passage of time between the alleged incident initial police report and 10 year gap before providing her family law statements, the inconsistencies in her versions of events are overwhelming to the point that I cannot say they are true.

I find that on 8^th May 2015 there was a verbal altercation between the parties that took place in front of X, during which F admits pushing M to cause her to fall backwards onto the sofa. M was upset by F’s actions and removed herself and X from the home for 2 days having reported the matter to police.

M alleges that from May to August 2015, F used controlling and coercive behaviours and instructed third parties to compel M to withdraw her complaint in Allegation 1 to the police.

In her statement she fails to give details or names of any alleged third parties. In her oral evidence, however, she did provide names, including that of the wife of the solicitor instructed to represent the father. That solicitor has earlier recused himself of having any involvement in father's representation and I have already determined no conflict. In the Section 37 report dated February 2025, M asserts that the threats from F were centred on that she was illegally in the UK and he told her she would be deported if she engaged with police. Counsel for Mr Singh points out that M’s case is not only wholly unparticularised but procedurally unfair in seeking a finding based on unnamed individuals whom F has had no opportunity to question

M told me in her evidence that: “everyone was afraid of him, no one would keep me in their house”. She then said: “I wanted to keep my household intact”. F told me he told no one to tell M to withdraw her allegations, nor did anyone tell him that they told M to withdraw. In his view she came back as “she needed someone to pay the bills”.

Finding: Not proven. I note M’s decision to withdraw was presented by her attending the police station front desk on 11^th May 2015, only 2 days after making her statement and after spending those 2 days in a hotel. Any alleged pressure by third parties to withdraw her police complaint was very short lived. I find it more likely than not that her decision to not pursue her complaint was out of a desire to return home and make the marriage work, which it did for a further 7 years, rather than due to any control or coercion or threats by F or anyone on his behalf.

M alleges that in August 2015, F argued with her due to his being arrested earlier in the year. He is said to have thrown M against the wall and started to punch her forcefully on the head and then strangled her. F told M he would have killed her.

F pointed out in oral evidence that by this point they had resumed their relationship for at least two months. There was absolutely no reason to have an argument about the past at this point. There is no evidence of any injury to her, nor any report to either the police or social care. Nor too is there any evidence that she had to attend either her GP or hospital, as one would expect as a matter of common sense were the assault as vicious as M alleges.

The letter provided by London Bexley Local Authority summarising their involvement with the family records that a school referral was made in October 2018: “M explained that she and F got back together in 2015. M disclosed that X is scared of her father, and she wanted school support to help X like her father. X missed her old house and was happy when her father left. M reiterated several times that F has not hit her since they reconnected and buys X expensive gifts and anything that M wants” (my emphasis).

I further note with concern that M exhibits a photo of an injury to her back that within her first witness statement she alleges was caused by F’s brother during one of the alleged incidents of physical and / or sexual assault against him (Allegation 9), which I consider to be an abrasion around what would be her bra line. In her oral evidence, however, she attributed that photo to being caused by F, not his brother: “he used to beat me, it was from that time”. She said her friend took the photo and sent it her via WhatsApp. When asked to confirm who had hit her, she was clear: “him” (indicating F). I am satisfied M has used an image untruthfully, and given that inconsistency, I do not find this was an injury caused by F or any third party.

In her oral evidence M told me in respect of beating and strangulation: “he has done that on many occasions”. She also told me that the parties had different tenants in the property who rented a room from 2010 to 2016. I cannot help but wonder how such chronic abuse took place with such witnesses consistently present.

Finding: Not proven. There is no corroborating independent evidence by any third party, no police report, no photos of injury nor evidence that medical assistance was required. In light as to my views as to M’s overall lack of credibility, I find it more likely that this allegation is untrue.

It is alleged that F financially abused M throughout the relationship. There are limited details on this allegation and at an earlier hearing I found it was not proportionate to determine the matter. In any event, M agrees that she had her own source of income through her cash in hand work throughout the marriage and accepts that F has been paying her over £350 a month by way of child maintenance ever since leaving the family in 2022. He also bought X a laptop for her birthday in August 2022 and clothes for all the children.

Finding: Not proven.

M alleges that in December 2016 F emotionally abused and gas lighted her and accused her of having sexual relationships with other men. During an argument F then slammed M's hand in the door repeatedly.

M’s evidence is that F called her “G****”, the Punjabi word for prostitute and accused her with sleeping with other men. M explains in her first statement that on this occasion that she had tried to call her friend but she did not answer. In the end her friend’s husband had called her back. Immediately after F had asked who had called and accused M of sleeping with other men. He called her names, pulled her towards the door, and slammed her hand between the door and the door frame “again and again”. In her second statement she goes further, alleging that F did so on purpose as she had burnt this hand on the oven a few days previously and he knew it hurt her.

In her oral evidence she told me that the only accusations of her having extramarital affairs came in early 2022 and therefore she seemed to depart from the trigger to this allegation. Rather, she described that F had returned home with X. He had consumed alcohol. M had said to him that she could have collected X if he had informed her that he intended to drink and there as an argument about that.

In his oral evidence, F initially denied accusing M of having affairs with other men at any point prior to early 2022, when in fact he became aware of such an affair. However, when the specific event of M being called by a friend’s husband was put, he recalled admitting doing so on this occasion only. However, he remained consistent in denying any assault as M describes.

Finding: Not proven. I remind myself as to the report M made to Bexley Local Authority as I cite above. I accept what F told me; that as a matter of common sense such an act of abuse would have led to injury to M's hand. There is no evidence of any injury.

I find that there was an argument between the parties in December 2016 about a phone call M had received from an unknown male, as part of a pattern of arguments throughout the relationship as I have found at paragraph 30.

M alleges that in June or July 2017 F returned home intoxicated, grabbed hold of a knife and threatened to kill her. In her written evidence she explains this was following F going out to play kabaddi. On returning home late she was upstairs in bed. He was clearly drunk and came upstairs with a knife and threatened her before falling asleep. He told her he was going to kill her that day. He then lay next to her and fell asleep quickly, knife in hand. In her second statement she clearly states that he did not rape her but slept close to her, but she was petrified. X was asleep in the same room when this took place. She says she went downstairs as she could not sleep.

In her oral evidence she told me she was too scared to move. She went on to say that in fact he had forceful sex with her on this occasion. Asked why that important detail was omitted from her statements she replied that every time they “made a relationship” he would make it forceful. I agree with Counsel for F that is wholly implausible that she would remember every detail of the event yet omit the central allegation of rape from: (a) her police account, (b) her initial statement, (c) her further statement prepared with new solicitors.

F told me he recalled this as a Sunday, as that was kabaddi day. He denies this incident entirely. He denied going upstairs or having a knife.

Finding: Not proven. M fails to set out any context to this bizarre allegation: why he would take a knife upstairs and threaten her without any apparent cause or motive. Her polarised different accounts as to whether he sexually assaulted her or not is also very troubling and indicates M herself cannot assert a true account of anything abusive taking place on this occasion.

Throughout the relationship it is alleged that F emotionally abused and gas lighted M and accused her of having sexual relationships with other men. He was forceful sexually and would manipulate M into having sexual relations with him.

F denied ever pressuring M into having sex with him. He points out that they had 4 children together by consent in total, sadly a baby son dying in 2016. He said: “I am not mentally disturbed...I have a right to sleep with her (I am satisfied this to be a cultural reference to a Sikh husband’s marriage role) but that does not mean I am going to compel or force her”.

Finding: Not proven. There is no reference in the external police and social work disclosure to evidence this was raised before M’s statements within these proceedings.

M alleges that in 2019 F had gone to India. On his return, F was angry that M had not called a friend’s wife who was in ill health. M explained she was busy with childcare so had been unable to do so. F threw her to the floor, grabbed hold of her hair bun and smashed her head on the floor repeatedly. F agreed in his oral evidence that he had on his return asked if M had comforted the friend to see how she was, and there was an argument about this but he was not angry and no assault took place.

Finding: Not proven. Though it is more likely than not F would have felt frustrated and upset that M had not demonstrated kindness to a family friend, I accept what F told me that as a matter of common sense such an act of abuse would have led to significant injury. There is no evidence of any injury to her head.

It is alleged that in 2021 that F knew that M was being sexually harassed and abused by his brother and did not stop this. It is accepted as a fact that F’s brother did in fact sexually assault M on at least one occasion. M relies on an image captured covertly on CCTV hidden her bedroom. I am satisfied it is reasonable and proportionate for that evidence to have been adduced and relied upon as clearly relevant to the issues in the case. I note it was only during this section of her oral evidence did M become upset.

The issue is whether F knew at the time and failed to protect her. It is alleged within the schedule of allegations that in the alternative that F encouraged his brother to sexually harass and abuse M. I am not satisfied of any credible evidence that would point to such a conclusion.

For the purposes of the London Bexley Wellbeing Assessment dated August 2022, M reports being slapped in the face by her brother-in-law, who was living at the address. In the Section 37 report dated February 2025, M informs the social worker that F’s brother attempted to rape her and would sexually assault her in front of the children. She asserts that she had informed F but he had taken no action.

In her written evidence she explains that F’s brother had lived with them previously and during that time had sexually assaulted her. She does not know if F was aware of that incident. In 2021 F’s brother came to live with them again. M would make efforts not to go home by staying late in parks with the children, as when at home F’s brother would grab her breasts and waist and try to kiss her. On one occasion F’s brother had tried to get into bed with her. She says that this and other such interactions were loud, and she had to fight him off, which F must have heard. I note that police disclosure records that in July 2021 a third party reported that M had been assaulted by her brother-in-law. M could not tell me who that third party was. She hid a CCTV camera in the room from which she has captured a screen shot. There is a disturbing CCTV image captured of him on top of M on bed in the bedroom and M is clearly trying to resist him and fight him off.

In her oral evidence, M confirmed that F’s brother lived in the household for several months prior to leaving in 2022. She recalled F’s brother would kiss her on the lips in the kitchen. She recalled on one occasion discovering F’s brother standing over Z’s cot in the dark (in her bedroom) and her screaming, though F did not come upstairs. She said her brother-in-law knew F would not come upstairs, but F would be in the home. In her view the catalyst for her brother-in-law leaving the home was that the image in the CCTV was sent by her to her sister in India who in turn shared it with F. She asserts that F’s brother left the home shortly thereafter, at F’s intervention.

F’s case put in cross examination was that his brother got a job in June 2022 and that was the reason he left the home. In his oral evidence F told me however that his brother had simply up and left one day, before the CCTV photo was sent to him. He did not know where he went or why, and he has had no contact with him since nor has any way of contacting him. Given that F has family in India, including his nephew (the son of his brother) and with whom he is in touch, I am surprised that this is the case. He points out he would work long hours, returning home 8-9pm, which M’s position in F being absent from the home would support as correct. He says nothing like this occurred when he was at home. He denies any knowledge of the assaults at the time. He told me if M had told him that he would have been on her side and would have called the police. F told me: “in our religion this sort of thing cannot be tolerated”.

Finding: Not proven. M says in her first statement that she knew if F became aware he would blame her. In her second witness statement she goes further, saying F actually knew: “whenever I told F he would ignore me or blame me”. In her oral evidence she denied telling F directly about the abuse. She then went on to say that F’s brother has beaten her in front of F, which would of course mean that F was aware of the abuse. Those are glaring inconsistencies in her narrative I cannot reconcile. However, I am satisfied that she is clearly a victim of assaults by F’s brother, and I make a finding that that was both physical and sexual on multiple occasions in 2021 and 2022, but not within F’s knowledge, nor such assaults occurring with his encouragement or consent.

I do not accept however that F’s brother left without any word of goodbye to F. I am satisfied F was sent the CCTV image and his brother left as a result, possibly to avoid police involvement. It is more likely that on receiving that disturbing CCTV image F prompted his brother to leave the home.

In the only allegation made of abuse towards any of the children in the schedule of allegations, it is alleged that F physically assaulted the child Y.

In the February 2025 Section 37 report Y himself accuses F, saying F did not hit his sisters but did slap him. I note in her second statement, however, M alleges that F has slapped X many times and she is a victim of direct physical abuse. This is inexplicably not included within the schedule of allegations. I note too that in her police statement dated May 2022 M further alleges that F had previously slapped X on multiple occasions in the face, about 3 months prior to the May 2025 alleged incident (when she would have been aged 3 years). If true, she has failed to protect and safeguard her daughter, failed to report the matters to police, and promoted contact between X and F knowing he presented a risk to her. Though in closing Counsel for M argues that M is very specific in her evidence that it was only Y who was hit, and that if M was lying then she would say that Y and X were hit by F. However, that is not entirely accurate in light of that police disclosure.

There are multiple versions it appears of this one incident in respect of Y:

In her oral evidence she reported a further incident of physical abuse by the father towards Y in 2022. She stated that the children were playing on the trampoline. F had asked them if they would prefer to live with him or M. X stood by him, and Y said daddy, running to him. He pushed Y, causing Y to hit his head “on the sticks”. When asked why those details were not in her statement she said everything she remembers she has told her solicitor: “he hit my son right in front of my eyes”.

When these multiple inconsistencies were put to M, she replied that she had asked her solicitor to correct things. When asked why she had not corrected these in chief through her barrister she replied: “I’m not saying anything wrong”. Counsel for M, had the unenviable task of putting M’s case to F in cross examination. He decided to put the first version as included in her first witness statement, although this had been departed from in her oral evidence. F denies any wrongdoing or any physical abuse. He asserts disciplining the children by stern looks and using a firm tone only.

Regarding evidence pointing away from the truth of this allegation, I note that:

Finding: Not proven. This is an extremely serious allegation, and it is entirely unsatisfactory for M’s case to be presented in such a haphazard manner. I draw the conclusion that is because it is untrue rather than any errors or oversights by those representing her.

M alleges that in November 2022, F called X, swore at her and called her a liar. X informed the Social Worker for the purposes of the Section 37 report that she waited in the rain one day for F for contact, but F did not attend. She went home. F then called and was very angry at her.

In her oral evidence M told me that X returned cold and said she didn’t want to see him. She felt let down and fed up. Previous to that, on two or three occasions F said he wanted to see her but then would call and say he couldn’t come due to work. It was put to M that feeling let down was the reason for X not seeing F, not any fear of F or from domestic abuse she had witnessed. Why promote contact if he was violent? M said she would tell X he is your daddy, whatever has happened between us is not a matter or you. M replied that: “when you let a child down then all the reasons come together”.

F’s evidence was that he would see X on Saturdays and Sundays. He would collect her from the back of the family home so Y would not see him, as M would not let him go to contact, and he was keen not to upset Y. I note F understandably became upset during this part of his evidence. He accepts there was one occasion where he let X down. He called her and on speaker phone he heard M say: “he’s kept you waiting in the rain”. He did not called X a liar but said that what M was saying was incorrect.

Finding: Not proven. I find F’s version of events more reliable. X does not report F verbally abusing her. Though X has refused contact since this occasion, I find this is more likely due to feeling rejected and let down by F by his non-attendance, and that confusion and disparity in her contact and that of her siblings led to that rejection rather than any abuse by F towards M or her.

Though I am therefore not satisfied as to any of the specific incidents being alleged as taking place, I note that within the February 2025 Section 37 report F accepted that there was some physical violence. In cross examination he stated that this had been noted down incorrectly; he made, and makes, no such admission. It was put to him that he agreed to undertake probation intervention, to which he would not have been referred or recommended if he had made no such admission.

I find there were some physical altercations during the marriage whereby F pushed M, as he admits in the altercation in 2015 (Allegation 1) and I find he had admitted to the social worker. I further find this on the balance of probabilities happened on more than one occasion in light of the nature and frequency of the arguments I have found took place.

Such acts of aggression were unreasonable rather than abusive, and neither of the serious nature M alleges, nor caused her any injury. She was not strangled, threatened with a knife, beaten, or had her head or hand slammed as she alleges.

Counsel for F in closing outlines submissions in support of a finding of such behaviours. I bear in mind that M’s own evidence highlights her entrenched negativity and which strongly indicates an inability to promote a meaningful relationship between the children and their father. F alleges that on the 8^th October or November 2024 M made an abusive phone call to him saying he would never see the children again. I find proven that assertion in light of her admitted motive and views as to why the children should not have contact with F and apparent change in the children’s views over time.

With regards to PS, the earlier February 2025 Section 37 report concludes that there was no evidence of domestic abuse between M and PS. However, a recent section 47 and CAF assessment dated 18^th September 2025 does not share that view and expressed in fact the concern that X was not being open and honest and that her views were being influenced by M. I am concerned about the real possibility that the same is true as to M’s influence of the children's views about F.

However, rather than the children’s negative views arise from their M’s own narrative to which she has exposed them, of which there is no clear evidence, I find it more likely that those wishes are due to their Alignment and Affinity with her position as primary carer and her efforts to form a new family unit with PS to the exclusion the father.

Though I do not find she has informed her children of her specific allegations in order to influence their wishes and feelings, I am satisfied however that on the balance of probabilities that more than memory errors and story creep, those allegations set out in her schedule are on the balance of probabilities all fabrications by her designed to bolster her case that F should have no contact with the children.

M’s evidence was wholly inconsistent and unsatisfactory with regards to her relationship with PS:

I find M has been dishonest about her relationship with PS. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that M had an intimate relationship with PS for 3 years from mid-2022 and it is more likely than not that that relationship continues to the present day.

After the conclusion of the evidence on Day 2, I received the following message from the Social Worker via the Local Authority legal department: “Her thoughts as follows:-

The children have had three social workers allocated to them this year alone, having had different social workers of course formerly involved while they were resident in London Bexley. My invitation to Dudley MBC is to ensure Ms C remains on this case for greater consistency and continuity and thus more insightful child protection.

M does not in her oral evidence advance a case that F poses a risk of harm to her. I am not satisfied that F poses such any level of risk in any event in light of the very limited findings I have made. Any risk can be mitigated if M does not come to contact with F, directly or indirectly.

The children have suffered much significant emotional harm in their young lives. They have experienced loss arising from parental separation. They have been subject to many heated arguments between F and M. They have had professional involvement from social workers, and school therapeutic input, which have caused them to revisit these events. There are shared Social Worker concerns across London Bexley and Dudley MBC that X feels she has to hide or minimise events within the home (Family Assessment August 2022; Social Worker statement October 2025).

In terms of what has contributed to the children’s views of F, I note the comments of the social worker in the Section 37 report dated 18^th February 2025, that X and Y can remember detailed events of domestic abuse that affected a large part of their childhoods from a young age and that they have since been fearful of F and verbalised clearly that they have no desire to see or speak to him again. I do not agree that the children are fearful of their father due to their direct experiences of physical abuse because I do not find there has been any physical abuse within their living memory. They may well however have memories of their father being loud and confrontational towards their mother and they have formed the view that their father was the aggressor in those arguments. I am satisfied they had a good positive relationship with F during the marriage, as reflected in the earlier London Bexley 1:1 work undertaken with them in 2022.

By way of general observation, the accounts provided by M are so incoherent and contradictory that it would be unsafe to make the findings she seeks. They are all found not proven, and operating the binary system of such findings, such matters I find did not take place. On assessment of the wider evidence however I do find that:

I bear in mind PD12J. Based upon all the available evidence, I determine at this stage, given the dismissal of all findings sought by M, that I am satisfied that the physical and emotional safety of the children and M can be secured before, during and after contact. The impediment to progress is however the children’s wishes and feelings, with respect of X and Y, and lack of any existing knowledge of, or relationship with, F in respect of Z.

That concludes my judgment.