N (Children) (Domestic Abuse: Proven), Re

Miss M and Mr F are the parents of the child N (“the child”). They share parental responsibility. Their relationship commenced at the start of 2017 and ended in 2021. This is a Judgment given at the conclusion of a fact-finding hearing which took place before me on 24^th and 25^th November 2025 to determine the factual matrix upon which future welfare decisions can be made. For ease of drafting and without any disrespect intended, I refer to the parties in this Judgment as mother and father throughout.

The allegations are to be viewed against the background of the parents’ relationship having begun in 2017 and enduring for around 4 years. The mother will say that the relationship was abusive almost from the start, but more so after the birth of N in 2019. The mother says that she put up with weekly abuse and was unable to leave the father due to his manipulation and fear. Eventually, she says, in 2021 she was able to maintain her separation from him and has embarked on a new relationship with Mr G. The mother alleges that since the separation however the abuse from the father has continued by way of harassment.

Though the father has no convictions, he has 5 impending prosecutions between 2017 and 2025 including rape of a female aged 16 and over, sexual assault on a female aged 13 and over, coercive and controlling behaviour, assault, and intentional strangulation. The mother is the victim of all offences. He is currently on police bail with conditions not to have contact with the child and the mother or to go near their address.

The father says that after separation he would have unsupervised overnight staying contact weekly from Saturday morning to Sunday afternoon. He points out that in 2021 the mother started a relationship with Mr G, about whom there are safeguarding concerns in light of his history of domestic abuse in past relationships. In February 2022 the overnight contacts were stopped by the mother and became daytime only weekly on Sundays 10am-7pm. These too ended abruptly shortly after the child’s birthday in the summer of 2022, though the child went on to spend Christmas with the father and mother together in December 2022. The father points out that were he to have been as abusive as the mother now alleges, she would not have agreed to such extensive regular contact taking place. He also notes the lack of any police or local authority involvement during the course of the relationship. He has commenced a new relationship with his current partner in January 2024. She has two children, and the couple have their own child, age now around 18 months.

In December 2024, the mother applied for a without notice prohibited steps order preventing the father from removing the child from her care due to allegations of control and harassment. The Order was granted in January 2025 without notice to the father. A live with order was granted in her favour until further order. The Court further granted a Non-Molestation Order in favour of the mother, based on the evidence contained within her statement, despite no formal application having been made.

There was then a subsequent application by the father for child arrangements order in February 2025 seeking an order for contact. The applications of both parents were consolidated within the Order of March 2025. At that hearing, the Prohibited Steps Order was finalised on a no admissions basis until its expiry in July 2025. The Court further ordered for the live with order to continue until further order. Directions were made for narrative statements and Local Authority disclosure for the Court to be able to consider whether or not a Fact Find hearing was necessary. At the hearing in June 2025, the father agreed to finalise the Non-Molestation Order on a no admissions basis.

Despite Cafcass advising against a Fact-Finding hearing, the Court was concerned by the severity and nature of the allegations raised by the mother and wanted to consider further whether a determination of the allegations would be required before further assessment is completed. The Local Authority were invited to comment (involved due to concerns regarding the mother being in a relationship with Mr G), who then recommended that a Fact-Finding Hearing was necessary. At that time the proceedings were listed for a fact-finding hearing in relation to the allegations made by the parties against each other for 2 days in August. On the papers however I determined the matter was not ready for such a listing.

The matter then came before me for the first time on in August 2025. At that hearing I directed that either a compromise be made in respect of the Schedule of Allegations or that a Fact-Finding Hearing was necessary before welfare advice could be provided. Due to parties being unable to reach an agreement in respect of the allegations, the Court directed third party and police disclosure and set the matter down for this Fact-Finding hearing that has taken place before me on 24^th and 25^th November 2025.

In accordance with FPR 3A and 3AA of the Family Procedure Rules 2010, and in light of the allegations, the mother is considered as vulnerable. Measures were put in place to ensure she and her witness were able to give their best evidence and to ensure as best as possible the court environment was comfortable. Separate waiting rooms and screens in court were utilised.

When it comes to the law in this case, there is no dispute. I bear in mind particularly the following in relation to making findings of fact:

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 findings made at this hearing will form the background against which decisions will later be made as to what is in the child’s welfare interests in terms of time to be spent with her father.

The schedule of findings sought in this case is extensive. I intend to group those findings under headings and deal with the examples as illustrative – or otherwise – of patterns of behaviour, as they are found in the schedule. I will not deal with any findings that I do not consider to be relevant to the welfare interests of the children and in particular their contact with their father.

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

I had the benefit of a vast bundle of documents running to over 700 pages, along with video evidence of the police interview with the father. In addition, I heard sworn testimony from the mother, the father, and the mother’s witness and friend, Ms K.

I will summarise the father’s evidence first along with my analysis of it since for the main part his case is based on a simple denial that events described by the mother witnesses happened. The father’s case is simple – none of this happened. There were some troubling aspects to the father’s evidence which gave me cause for concern about his credibility.

The mother exhibited photos to her initial witness statement dated December 2024. The father queried their authenticity and as such meta data analysis was suggested at a previous hearing. The mother undertook that herself using I-cloud data retrieval. In her oral evidence she described the process by which she did so.

In his evidence the father suggested that the mother had somehow manipulated the dates shown in the meta data and further had self-penned the exchange seen in Whatsapp messages regarding an incident of sexual assault. I note the date attributed to those messages is a date in December 2019 just after midnight, consistent with her case. He stated he could get out his phone and show me how to do change the dates as he asserts the mother has. I asked when he had first discovered this was possible. He replied: “in the last week maybe”. I note that meta data evidence was obtained and shared with the father in June 2025, the date of the mother’s statement exhibiting that data. If he was really of the view that phone evidence was incorrect and/or fabricated, I would have expected him to make such enquiries in order to validate his concerns long before getting into the witness box. This evidence is possibly the most important and corroborative matter in the case. I can draw inferences from the fact he has failed to do so. Once the evidence requested by the Court had been obtained by the mother it was for him to prove otherwise. He has not sought to do so.

Furthermore, the meta data is not entirely helpful as it has at times recorded on the images upon which the mother relies dates as to when the image was saved on the mother’s phone rather than when it was taken. If it is right, as the father alleges, that the mother has constructed those dates, why has she not, in effect, done a better job? His case that all this is made up by her simply has neither evidence in support nor basis in reality. I am satisfied as to the authenticity of the evidence the mother exhibits in support of her allegations.

The following history is important in the context of the father’ case that any injuries recorded in the photos exhibited to the mother’s written evidence are as a result of domestic violence within her relationship with Mr G.

In November 2021 N became subject to a child protection plan due to the risk of harm posed by the mother’s new partner. His own history had led to the plan rather than any incident of domestic abuse between them. It is noted within the ICPC minutes that the mother: “... has stopped contact between the child and the father due to the risks she feels he poses. Since this the father has arrived at her home uninvited but she has not answered the door. The mother has been advised to report any threatening behaviour to the police.” The matter was stepped down to Child In Need at that time as the mother had separated and had maintained her separation from Mr G, with the mother to inform the Local Authority prior to any intention to reunite in her relationship with him. A further child protection plan was entered in 2023 due to the mother resuming her relationship with Mr G. In October 2023 the plan was again stepped down to Child In Need after assessment and support.

In February 2025, the mother called police to report a verbal disturbance between herself and Mr G alleging that he had pushed and kicked her. N was present in the home though not in the same room at the time. This was, the mother told me, two weeks before Mr G’s children were due to be placed in their care. This incident therefore set them back to stage one. In March 2025 the family therefore found themselves once again subject to a Child Protection Plan. The mother asserted that they had hit a breaking point and this incident was the first and only in 4 years. Since that time, I am informed by the mother that she and Mr G have been positively assessed to have the care of his own 4 children and the Child Protection Plan is to be reviewed next week with a plan again to end or reduce Local Authority involvement. The mother told me she is in fact no longer in a relationship with Mr G at present, but the Local Authority are happy for the couple to spend time together with N.

Were the mother to have sustained any of the multitude of injuries seen in the photos during that extensive and repeated period of child protection planning, requiring regular statutory visits to the home and Local Authority oversight and assessment, it is more likely than not that such would have picked up the allocated social worker, through observation or disclosure. Assessments and reviews are multi-disciplinary, involving health and school. The absence of any concerns about that relationship undermines the father’s case that such injuries were caused during the course of this later relationship.

The areas of injury seen in photos produced by the mother include her upper left buttock, her arms, neck, ear, cheek (all with various dates in 2020), and her little finger (in early 2019). The mother accepts that in early 2018 she was admitted to a local hospital for 12 weeks for post-natal psychosis after struggling with poor mental health after the sad loss of the parties’ twins to miscarriage. It is further admitted she had attempted to take an overdose. She alleges that the father would tell her it was her fault. He would often tell her to kill herself. The father tells me she would self-harm and send photos of her injuries to him. He asserts a photo of the mother with blood dripping down her face and onto her neck and upper chest is of a self-inflicted injury. He tells me that she would headbutt the radiator. When being asked if he had been present, he denied this. However, when asked when he had first had sight of this photo, he was extremely vague, asserting it may have been sent to him at the time, or that may have been a different photo. It is an image I would expect him to recall.

When asked to recall seeing the other injuries shown in the photos exhibited to the mother’s statement, he told me that he could not recall seeing any of them, which are plainly to visible areas such as her face and arms. Taking the dates these were taken as correct as I do, he must recall seeing those bruises as they were sustained during her relationship with him. Those denials had an air of unreality about them, especially in the face of the evidence.

I note that the mother freely admits self-harming and having scars on her arms and legs from such actions. Though there is not one universal modus of self-harm for anyone, the number of areas where she has been injured and type of injury sustained, most commonly large bruises, are more likely than not caused by a third party rather than self-inflicted.

While of course I bear in mind that the human memory is fallible and fades over time such that events taking place 4-7 years ago as alleged by the mother may well be harder to recall as vividly as had they been more recent, certain matters I would expect to be clearly etched. At the very least, if being accused of specific acts of sexual assault as the mother does as I outline below, or of breaking her finger, or throwing a Yankee candle at her head, if untrue it is reasonable to expect him to say so. Rather, throughout his oral evidence and I note within the police interview, he repeatedly said: “I can’t recall...I can’t remember”. Only when pressed did he confirm his denial of the allegations. This aspect of his evidence I found in particular implausible and disappointing.

The father painted an absolutely idealised account of his relationship with the mother – he essentially put to the court that he was the victim in every way, even asserting that she through a Yankee candle at him. He offered no context to that accusation.

All of these issues were significant in my conclusion that his testimony was fundamentally flawed and not credible. I have examined what the father’s reasons for lying or giving fundamentally inconsistent accounts could be, but I can find none that are not focussed on avoiding responsibility for the actions that are alleged against him. It is possible that aspects of what the father said were true, but the dishonesty of his blanket denial that so many events happened was so fundamental that it made it both unnecessary and very difficult to sift out elements of truth.

I have read carefully evidence within the bundle related to the short temper of the mother. These aspects are not specifically challenged and indeed were not specifically put, however, it is clear that the mother herself has been accused of physical altercations with third parties. In February 2025, an ongoing neighbourhood dispute between a woman, the mother and Mr G led to a verbal altercation outside the mother’s address and a physical altercation taking place where the woman was scratched to the face by the mother causing marks.

I found in this respect the mother’s evidence in fact extremely insightful and self-critical. She readily volunteered that within her relationship with the father she could and would, in summary, fight back and indeed instigated altercations. She would push and hit him and throw things at him. “I’m no angel in all of this at all, but I never pretended to be.” What upsets her, however, is that whereas she can take responsibility for those actions, accepting she has been in the wrong, the father is unable to do so. That causes her real anxiety about the prospect of his having a direct relationship with N going forwards. She said he knows what he has done. It is unfathomable to her that he won’t put his hands up to his past abuse so they can move forward. Those admissions by her can in no way be thought to be self-serving, undermining her good character as they do.

The case was advanced on behalf of the father that he and the mother had lived with her parents after N’s birth for 6-9 months, until therefore around the start of 2020. However, I note that when an incident of sexual abuse is put to him by police in his interview as taking place in 2019, he accepts living in a flat with the mother at that time. Moreover, Ms K supports the mother’s case that she and the father lived in their flat together around two weeks after N’s birth in June 2019, of which she can be confident as she had her own baby only 3 weeks after the mother. That having the ring of truth about it well counters the father’s case that they lived with the mother’s parents for a notable portion of their relationship, such that they would have witnessed abuse or injuries. As Counsel for the mother advances, those consistencies and explanations provided by the mother and Ms K may appear at first minor but put together with a number of other corroborations provide windows into the mother’s credibility.

In addition, the mother accepted that the relationship was not all bad; if it had been: “I wouldn’t have stayed...when he was bad he was amazing for the week after, we’d get on really well and I’d stay”. Tellingly she said: “I wouldn’t drag myself through this if it was all lies”.

I found the mother’s detailed explanations of incidents on which she was cross examined persuasive and consistent. Where there were divergences from the written evidence, these were in relation to minor matters only. Overall, I formed the view that of the two, she was the far more credible and ultimately honest party.

Ms K has been friends with the mother since childhood and can in no way therefore be described as an independent witness. I of course view her evidence with that caution in mind. However, what she did tell me was consistent with her own narrative in her witness statement and with the mother’s version of events. She told me she would keep photos of injuries on her phone as the mother would send them to her, fearful that the father would discover them on her own phone. She did not report things to police out of fear for making things worse for the mother. I accept, as told me, that she was “here for N”. She was willing to concede a recollection of few details and limited her evidence to that within her direct knowledge, which I found, if not corroborative therefore, honest.

The allegations the Court is concerned with did not occur when independent witnesses were present. That does not alter my overriding conclusion that the father was fundamentally not a credible witness, whereas the mother was. In these circumstances I must examine the evidence given in relation to each allegation and satisfy myself as to whether there is sufficient credible evidence in each case to make a finding on a balance of probabilities that the allegation is true. I will deal with the evidence relating to each allegation in turn and will deal with my analysis of that evidence in each case.

Firstly, I note that the mother, whilst not making any contemporaneous reports to police, reported threats and harassment in May 2023 and in March 2024. In both, logs record that the mother had referred to the extensive history of physical violence during the relationship. Regrettably the mother was not interviewed until November 2024. The matter was reviewed and transferred to CID in early January 2025 as it became clear officers had overlooked that the mother had made significant allegations including of rape and which required such automatic reallocation. The father was subsequently interviewed in March 2025. To say that the police were querying mother’s case or were considering no further action, as was suggested by the representative for the father, is therefore incorrect. This is not a case where it can be said the mother has fabricated or bolstered allegations to police in order to make her case more winnable in either the criminal or family Court.

I will deal with these together as physical and sexual assaults can also form part of a pattern of controlling and coercive behaviour and my analysis of the evidence will apply equally to each allegation.

The schedule of allegations summarises that: “During the relationship, the Respondent has punched and kicked me, causing bruises and black eyes. He would repeatedly bite my ears in a violent manner”. The mother gives examples from 2018 to 2019 of such incidents, which include more than one occasion of non-fatal strangulation and being kicked to the stomach following the birth of N. The mother alleges that the relationship was problematic from the onset; however, they moved in together in 2019 and this is when the abuse escalated. She describes in her statement that he would be physically intimidating and behave in a threatening manner, regularly causing damage to the property through fits of rage. He would throw things around the house and punch doors, and he would throw things at her. He was very temperamental and would often grab her around the throat. Such incidents included, for example:

As I have already remarked, the father’s response is that he did not recall seeing those injuries on her, though accepting the photos show injuries to multiple parts of her body that would have been visible to him. Ms K recalls seeing substantial markings to the mother’s face and body. I find I can rely on her testimony more than the father’s.

These are but a snapshot of the incidents the mother has described in her evidence. I am satisfied what she says is true that: “I am only giving evidence on things I can back up, there are so many more incidents”. For example, she told me that the father would bite her ears “when he couldn’t get to me properly” and exhibits a photo demonstrating a clear injury to the top of her ear which is unlikely to have been self-inflicted. To police she describes an incident of the father pouring a milkshake over her head and holding a screwdriver to her neck, in front of N. I find these details and narratives indicative of honest testimony rather than any overactive imagination as those details and narratives have been consistently reprised.

I am satisfied the frequency of verbal and physical assaults was as she described; a regular occurrence and more so after N’s birth and their cohabitation. Moreover, such incidents involved numerous occasions of non-fatal strangulation, usually with his hands, such that would stop the mother from breathing.

In relation to control and coercion the schedule outlines that: “Throughout the relationship, the father would alienate me from my friends and family. Following the end of the relationship, the father continued to control me through his contact with the child and when he would see her”. In support of that allegation, I heard from Ms K. Examples included that the mother would come to her home while the father was out at work (they living in flats opposite one another). The mother had to be home before he returned or else he would stand outside under Ms K’ flat and shout up or text for the mother to leave. She was also a party to the mother’s discussions about the father’s demands for contact post separation. He would make it difficult for the mother to have a social life and would often let N down by being inconsistent and failing to follow a routine. I note the mother even now sought to defend that aspect of his behaviour, telling me: “he’d make up excuses why he couldn’t see her, he was very hit and miss, but he was trying to put a lot in his new relationship”.

In relation to sexual abuse, the schedule outlines that from 2018-2020: “On several occasions during the relationship, the Respondent attempted to engage in non -consensual intercourse”, for example including forced sex and whilst intoxicated.

The father accepts that at times during the relationship the mother would say no to intercourse. The mother asserts that at times the father would indeed stop, but not always.

I compare the internal consistency and corroboration by Ms K and Whatsapp exchange with the father’s case. The allegation has been put to the father by police in his interview in March 2025; he has responded in his statements in these proceedings; and he has given oral evidence. He has responded to police that the messages in respect of the second incident outlined above are taken out of context and she is malicious, whereas his case in these family proceedings is that he cannot recall the message exchange and that they are fabricated or edited. How could he not remember being accused of rape by his partner? It is either an exchange he accepts he was party to that the mother’s has maliciously misused, as he asserts to police, or she has fabricated the messages herself entirely such that he has not taken part in the conversation at all; both cannot be true. The father’s contradictory case on this extremely serious allegation is very telling.

In relation to verbal abuse, the Schedule of Allegations summarises that the father would often verbally abuse the mother whilst the child was present, criticise her parenting, and make derogatory comments about her mental health. He would shout in her face and on several occasions physically prevented her from leaving a room during arguments. She alleges the father drank alcohol, not dependently, but if he did so for example go for a work drink on a weekend it would make an argument and his aggression more likely.

The father admits verbally abusing the mother. He admitted in oral evidence calling her a “c***” and doing so in front of the child. I noted he seemed to make that concession quite nonchalantly, not recognising any issue or harm in him so doing. He told me arguments were not very frequent though took place more often when they lived together, which I find was in in the last 2 years of the relationship from 2019.

I prefer the mother’s evidence to the father’s due to the profoundly inconsistent and unreliable nature of the father’s evidence, and by comparison the consistent and reliable nature of the mother’s evidence, as corroborated by her witness and documentary evidence.

When I consider the definition of “coercive and controlling behaviour”, I am satisfied that these examples taken as a whole represent “a pattern of acts of assault, threats, humiliation and intimidation or other abuse that is used to harm, punish, or frighten their victim”.

For all of the reasons stated above I find these allegations proved on a balance of probabilities. For clarity there is no doubt that seeing and overhearing her parents argue and her mother verbally and physically abused by her father was emotionally harmful for N. Given that some incidents took place where she was in the near vicinity, there was also a risk of physical harm to her on these occasions.

The schedule of allegations outlines that, following the end of the relationship 2021, the father would repeatedly contact the mother on a withheld number, making threats to remove the child; he has attended the mother’s property on multiple occasions and has sent third-parties to her property; and has approached the maternal grandmother and the child on two occasions, despite contact having ceased.

To the Local Authority, the mother reports that in 2022 the father attended her home uninvited and she did not answer the door. The father unhelpfully, and to my mind in a way that was puerile, responded in cross examination that: “if she did not answer the door how does she know it was me?”.

The father’s case appeared to be that the motive for the mother’s fabrications of all these incidents was to interrupt his contact. I note the police disclosure records that she had stopped contact in around March 2023 after becoming aware that the father had allegedly assaulted his girlfriend’s mom in front of his girlfriend. She found out as the girlfriend’s mother had reached out to her. The harassment then started. He made threats to turn up and she told him if he does so she will call the police. On reporting this to the police in May 2023 it records: “Today he has got vicious. On the phone he has said if he sees me he will rip N out of my arms. He has said he will be at my door tonight. He has said he will kick me in the belly” (the mother at that time being pregnant with Mr G’s child).

In her statements the mother outlines other specific examples, such as in October 2024, he attended her home address uninvited, and at the beginning of December 2024, the father followed the child and the maternal grandmother around a Sainsburys store. He approached them in an intimidating manner, causing the child to become visibly distressed and frightened. There is a broad pattern of intimidation and abusive behaviour exhibited by the father.

The mother reported to police that in September 2024 she was in Telford Hospital having a check up on her pregnancy. When leaving the triage area, the father became verbally abusive to her and her partner at the time, saying loudly "You're a pair of f*cking idiots".

The mother confirms that she took action after the relationship had ended by reporting matters to the police due to the level of control he was having over her life, describing it as “sickening”.

The father admits that after the Local Authority became involved in 2022, the mother having requested he not contact her as the social worker had said he needed to go to Court in order to see N. I note a risk assessment was recommended in February 2022 but for which the father was unavailable “due to work patterns”. Though he denies making calls to the mother from a withheld number, there was limited if any challenge to her assertion that such calls would typically take place shortly after her speaking to, or meeting with, the father’s sister, who has her own child of similar age to N. The mother’s call logs (which I note the father does not assert have been edited or fabricated) evidence multiple calls being made in quick succession on several occasions. For that reason, she ceased contact with N’s aunt as she suspects they were feeding back information to the father and that loss of trust has sadly fractured all relations between N and her paternal family.

He accepts seeing the child in December 2024 but denies approaching her in the store. He states he found this an emotional encounter, seeing his daughter but being unable to speak to her. He also accepts taking a present to the mother’s home for N’s birthday in 2024. He further accepts messaging N through her Ipad in 2024.

There are other incidents referred to in the evidence that go to the same issue of the father’s harassment, including trolling of a picture the mother has posted on social media this year: “think you’re funny trying to ruin lives...he may not be able to message you but I will, all lies” and “you don’t know abuse if it smacked you in the mouth”. His denial of any involvement in that and response that Shrewsbury is a small town demonstrated not only any lack of empathy for the mother receiving such anonymous abuse but was also incredible where it is clear he has discussed these issues with third parties.

Each allegation is detailed and consistent and given my analysis of the credibility of the mother I have no reason not to believe that the father has behaved as described by the mother.

The mother alleges that following the recommencement of contact in 2023, the child disclosed to her that on two occasions the father had been physically abusive to her. She told her mother that her father had twice smacked her in her mouth and put her on the naughty step. The child further alleged that when she would have contact with the father, whenever she would act out or became mischievous, he would place her on the naughty step and turn all of the lights off until it was bedtime.

In her first statement, the mother goes further, asserting that N had told her that he would drag her by her ponytail, and he had kicked her. She told her mother that her father had told her she was not allowed to tell her. The mother informed social services, who then placed the child under a Child Protection Plan dated December 2023. The child repeated to social services her allegation that the father had slapped her and put her on the naughty step. She has also described her father to school as “mean”.

The Child Protection Planning minutes dated October 2023 record that: “N had a meeting with the social worker at the school and has been able to open up to her”. There is no mention within that or any of the Local Authority records of any doubt as to N’s allegations as coming from her, and no evidence of prompting or coaching by the mother. Indeed, I note N’s description of her father as “mean” as consistent with the vocabulary of the 4 year old she was at the time.

In all the circumstances and upon consideration of all the evidence, in summary I find on the balance of probabilities that:

In her first statement dated December 2024, the mother outlines that: “N has been significantly affected by the father’s behaviour. She is undergoing counselling due to the psychological impact of the abuse and intimidation. Early help children services are involved and asked her to draw a picture, she drew house of happy, house of sad and house of dreams, the child drew in the house of sad, herself sat on top of the stairs in the dark with the lights off, she had tears running down her face, she drew me in the picture covered in blood.”

In her oral evidence the mother told me in essence that she happily moved on following her relationship with the father. However, at the time that this was her lived experience she told me: “I had it hidden from those closest to me; I was scared. My friends saw the injuries caused by him. I would break down sometimes and tell people. Some of the time I would defend his behaviour and tell people it wasn’t him”. She did not present in Court as fearful of him, rather angry and frustrated that he has denied her allegations knowing them to be true: “Both of us have instigated arguments, but he doesn’t want to admit he even pushed me in an argument”.

I accept she is here for N, as was Ms K. As evidence of that she said in respect of the father: “for most of the relationship he was a good dad, he was hands on”. And later: “I would love for the father to have a relationship with N, but there needs to be common ground. He knows what he’s done”. She also told me that the reason he is not having contact is “not because of all of this” but because: “his aggressive behaviour followed on into his new relationship. I had a realisation he was not a safe person, then there was him putting N on the naughty step and slapping her...I worry he’s not safe to be around kids, from what I’ve read he’s doing really well, but there has to be common ground”.

I have given thought as to whether or not I require a Section 7 welfare analysis from the Local Authority currently involved before I am in a position to make final orders. The father is subject to bail conditions to have no contact with the mother or N in respect of an active police investigation for significant offences. I have made significant findings. The father’s position adopted within these proceedings demonstrates a lack of recognition or acceptance as to his behaviours which points negatively to the prospect of him positively affecting change.

However, he is also living in a household with N’s paternal sibling. N has a right to contact with her father and that sibling so long as it is in her best interests and safe to do so. Though I have concerns about both aspects, I think it necessary and proportionate to request a welfare report to ensure the right decisions are made after the parties have had opportunity to reflect on my findings.

This is the first 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. I have edited specific dates of incidents and anonymised this Judgment so that the facts cannot be linked to any subsequent trial. I therefore do not consider that publication of this judgment will negatively impact on any police investigation in relation to any matter considered in this judgment or otherwise negatively impact any criminal proceedings, noting that the criminal jurisdiction is well-versed in handling highly publicised proceedings and apply appropriate safeguards to ensure fairness in any such proceedings.

Part of the reason I have decided to publish this Judgment is due to the quality of the mother’s evidence. In essence, this is a case involving historical allegations made by one parent against another and to which there are no direct witnesses. The father has no previous convictions and there are no contemporaneous police logs because of the mother not reporting matters at the time. As she pointed out, if she had spoken out at the time, he would have had, but she defended that behaviour. Notwithstanding that, considerable findings can be made. It is widely recognised that a failure to report matters to authorities at the time incidents occur is commonplace in domestic abuse relationships.

This mother has in her evidence underlined the nature of separating parents across the country: there is rarely black and white. Family law is grey because people are grey and cannot be pigeonholed into always being the “good guy” or “bad guy”. That is of course not to minimise the mother’s experiences or in any way blame her for the father’s actions. Rather, she accepts there were many positives and good times within the relationship, and she was willing for contact to take place after separation. By making honest and realistic concessions it highlighted the deficiencies in the father’s evidence.

That concludes my judgment.