London Borough of Tower Hamlets v Simons & Ors

This is an application brought by the London Borough of Tower Hamlets for a 12-month supervision order in respect of a little boy called [John], who is currently aged around two years. The mother is [Jenny Simons]. She is 21. [John] is presently placed with Ms [Simons] under a child arrangements order. It is agreed by all that Ms [Simons] should continue to care for [John] with the benefit of a child arrangements order and the support of a 12-month supervision order. The father is [Paul Richards]. He is aged 23.

The representation of the parties is as follows: the Local Authority is represented by Dr van der Leij. The present allocated social workers are Ms Constance Coffie and Mr Zakir Ahmed. Ms [Simons] is represented by Ms Channa. Mr [Richards] is represented by Ms Savvides. I will mention the circumstances in which she came to represent Mr [Richards]in a moment. The Children’s Guardian is represented by Ms Mather. The Children’s Guardian is Tanya Bowles.

The Court is extremely grateful to Ms Savvides for stepping in to represent Mr [Richards]at the last minute. On 14 May 2025, the father’s previous solicitor and counsel applied to come off the record due to a legal matter which had arisen. This resulted in Mr [Richards] facing a five-day hearing as a litigant in person, or the Court facing the possibility of an adjournment. On the first day of the hearing, on 19 May 2025, with the assistance of the Guardian’s team, a new solicitor, Ms Ravi Mahey of Cartwright King, was instructed by Mr [Richards]. Ms Mahey, in turn, instructed Ms Savvides. Ms Saviddes, not unreasonably, need time to read into the case, and so the hearing listed on 20 May 2025 was adjourned for the rest of the day. This has had the practical effect of reducing the time available for the hearing.

I would like to express my gratitude for the manner in which the professionals and advocates have worked together to assist the Court in this matter. I am especially grateful to Dr van der Leij, who did a significant amount of work within a very short timescale on the schedule of allegations and advocates’ chronology in compliance with the Court’s directions at the pre-trial review.

Ms [Simons] made a C2 application on 15 May 2025. This was for the admission of some text messages which she had found on an old phone. In the event, in the interests of proportionality, this application has not been pursued.

There is an agreed advocates’ chronology, which sets out the background. Taking my lead from that agreed document, I note as follows.

In 2019, the mother and the father started their relationship.

On 4 March 2021, the mother attended accident and emergency for a minor head injury after being beaten by the father.

On 27 October 2021, the mother sought medical treatment for a minor head injury due to an assault by Father. She had sustained two black eyes, an injury to her left eyebrow and an injury to the bridge of her nose.

On 22 July 2022, Mother sought a telephone consultation with her GP to discuss her pregnancy and relationship. The following is recorded:

“She reported that the father had been physically abusive from the start of their relationship, that he had been very controlling, won’t let her out of his sight and is always looking at her phone. The two accident and emergency attendances in 2021 were down to the father. She says in that consultation that she lied at the time and said there were other causes. The last incident, she says, was a week ago. She says she blacks out when he hits her and doesn’t remember it. Mother reported that she felt like she couldn’t escape him. She didn’t want to press charges, and she does not want any referral.”

On 29 July 2022, about that date, in any event, Father hit Mother in the face, causing bruising and swelling below her left eye. The injury was observed by police who attended upon her. The mother’s GP chased a missed appointment and sought to re-book the appointment, and Mother responded by text, which is in the bundle as follows: “Hi Alec, unfortunately my ***…”; I pause there to say that that appears to be a redaction by the GP of Mr [Richards]’s name:

“…is not allowing me to attend appointments anymore. I am currently recovering from a black eye, and he keeps saying no to my doctor’s appointment.”

Mother’s GP called the police, expressing concern that Mother may be a victim of domestic violence as a result. Officers attended at Mother’s home. The maternal grandmother reported that she was at Father’s home, so officers attended there. They were able to talk with Mother alone in the garden:

“Mother stated that the bruise was caused by tripping on a shoe and hitting her face on a table. She is reluctant to discuss the actual cause of the injury, and Mother stated she was in a difficult relationship and finding it hard to leave her boyfriend, and she became emotional. Mother told officers that her boyfriend doesn’t like her going to the doctor’s and has stopped her going, despite the fact that she was 24 weeks pregnant and in need of regular checkups.”

The officer observed bruising to her left eye. On the next day, on 30 July 2022, the father was arrested and detained for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and coercive and controlling behaviour. Officers attended to see Mother and offered to support her to leave the relationship. Mother said she did not want to leave Father, and she did not feel unsafe or controlled by Father. The maternal grandmother said that Mother had lost lots of friends since starting the relationship and that Father had said to Mother that she should not see her mother too much. The mother later denied this.

Mother was again offered help and support for her and her baby, but she did not want help. Mother again declined to answer a domestic abuse questionnaire or to give a statement. She stated she was not scared of the father and did not think he would put her in danger. Officers asked whether Mother would consent to referrals to third-party agencies. Mother indicated she did not want referrals.

Father was interviewed and denied causing the bruise, denied preventing the mother attending upon her GP and said that he had never been to an appointment with her. Father says that they have a healthy relationship and that they had never had a physical argument. He denied coercive and controlling behaviour. Father was released, and the matter was not proceeded with due to insufficient evidence.

In the autumn of 2022, [John] was born, and Mother was housed by the Local Authority at her current address. On 20 December 2022, there was an altercation between Mother and Father outside of Mother’s home while she was holding [John]. Two mobile phones were destroyed during this incident. The police were called by a third party, a neighbour, reporting that the father was assaulting Mother while she was holding [John] in her arms at her accommodation. Police attended, and Mother was at home. She refused to provide any details of the male involved in the incident, saying she did not need help from the police.

Mother admitted there had been an incident outside her front door, and her phone was damaged. She denied any assault. Officers checked the history. Mother denied the assailant was Father, refused to give a statement or details of the child, refused to answer a domestic abuse questionnaire, and refused a referral for any domestic violence support. On 4 January 2023, Mother contacted police and provided details of the assailant on 20 December 2022, confirming it was, in fact, the father. She denied an assault but says the two phones were damaged and wanted to proceed with that allegation.

On 19 January 2023, an officer spoke to the mother at length. Mother confirmed the child’s details, and she said that her relationship with the father was over. She asserted that there had never been any physical violence. Mother stated that the current arrangement is that communication was through the father’s sister and that Father did not enter the house. Mother stated that [John] was asleep in another room when the incident had occurred. Mother has stated that Father had lost his temper and broken his phone, so she did not want to press charges or give a statement. She described her relationship with the father as “civil.” Mother did, on this occasion, answer a domestic abuse questionnaire, confirming that the father was controlling. Mother consented to an independent domestic violence advisor, an IDVA referral, but refused to progress with a charge or giving any statement to the police.

On 26 January 2023, Father attended a police station for an interview relating to the alleged incident on 20 December 2022. He denied the third-party witness report that he had hit the mother. He admitted damaging two mobile phones, but he asserted that both belonged to him and that he had done this out of frustration. He denied threatening, harming or causing Mother to fear harm. On 7 February 2023, the police decided not to proceed with matters as the mother was not supporting the prosecution and there was not sufficient evidence to base a prosecution on the basis that both the mother and the third party were not prepared to provide witness statements.

On 14 March 2023, the Family Nurse Partnership Scheme sent a nurse to visit Mother. By this date, Mother had resumed her relationship with the father. Things had become better between them, she stated, and Father had started positive change. On 25 March 2023, Mother reports to the health visitor that she was no longer in a relationship with the father. Mother says that there had been no further incidents of domestic violence, but the relationship had ended when she found out that the father had been unfaithful, but they were agreeing to co-parent.

On 5 June 2023, the father hit Mother, hit her phone out of her hand and was abusive to her. [John] was present and crying during this incident. There is a brief video clip recording of this, which the Court has seen. It does not make pleasant viewing, and Father’s behaviour on that occasion was totally unacceptable.

On 31 July 2023, Father strangled Mother and hit her, leaving marks on her neck and a bruise under her left eye. In the bundle, there is a photograph showing extremely concerning red marks on Mother’s neck.

In August 2023, Father completed a perpetrator programme. Mother was referred for some group work, but declined to attend. On 11 August 2023, the Local Authority closed the file relating to this family.

A month later, on 15 September 2023, Mum called the police because Father was refusing to leave her home. A call was made at about 12.53am. A police CAD report notes:

“My ex-partner is not leaving. He stayed overnight. Now he’s not leaving.”

The following morning at about 4am, the police attend the property. Father left without issues when the police arrived. No offences were apparent. Mother did not wish officers to go up to her address, spoke through an intercom with the police and only wished for the police to ensure that the father had left the address.

On 11 October 2023, Father headbutted and slapped the mother. Police called in the early hours of the next morning. [John] was being held by the mother when she flagged down a police car at about 12.30am. When the police attended, the father had left prior to their arriving. Mother told officers that Father had become aggressive. He had headbutted and slapped her, but had caused no visible injury. Mother stated that the relationship was over, and, on this occasion, she answered a domestic abuse questionnaire. She did not support a prosecution, and she confirmed that position again later, and refused to provide a witness statement and refused a referral for domestic violence advocate and support. The father was arrested. He was interviewed, and he admitted the headbutt and he admitted slapping Mother. The father was issued with a caution and released.

On 14 November 2023, Mother called the police in a distressed state because of an altercation with Father at her home. Father would not leave. [John] was in the home. Father grabbed the phone and ended the call. Mother said to officers that the father had left and she had locked the doors. She was at home with [John] and her brother, who is 16 years old. Initially, Mother did not want to identify Father, but she was advised that the police would still attend because she had disclosed she was in a sexual relationship with the male concerned. Subsequent attempts to contact the mother on this occasion were unsuccessful.

On 29 November 2023, Mother told the family nurse that she had not been open about the issue of domestic violence. Mother reported that the father had been physically abusive towards her at the paternal grandmother’s house and that no one there had intervened. She reported that the father had been at her home since the headbutting incident in October in order to see [John]. The nurse discussed the possibility of a non-molestation order and application and Victim Support, but Mother declined, saying she did not need a non-molestation order. Mother reported that she will see the father when visiting her mother, which would make a non-molestation order pointless. They live in the same building.

On 1 December 2023, there was a police update on the incident which had occurred on 14 November 2023. Mother confirmed that she was safe and well and that she did not require any police input. She stated that she was no longer in a relationship with the father, and he does not pose any heightened risk to her. Mother declined an IDVA referral. On 4 December 2023, officers followed up again with Mother. She says that she continues to co-parent with the father and continues contact with him. There was no need for police intervention.

In January 2024, the parties, according to the father, ended their Islamic marriage.

On 10 May 2024, there was another Family Nurse Partnership visit. Mother feels on this occasion that she will be unable to fully end her relationship with the father, but that she was not currently in a relationship at present, but feels that she will never break free from him. There were no domestic violence incidents reported. There was no active relationship at that moment, but Mother said that they are on and off frequently.

On 5 June 2024, another Family Nurse Partnership visit. Mother reported that she was back in a relationship with the father, but, on this occasion, was distracted, and so a further visit was booked.

On 18 June 2024, the Family Nurse Partnership had a face-to-face visit with Mother. She informed the nurse that she was back in a relationship with Father, but they had not yet told their families.

On 26 June 2024, the father inflicted a burn to Mother’s back with a hot iron whilst she was sleeping. I make plain, Father does not accept that he did this. The Court regards this episode with the utmost seriousness. This event may have profound implications of how any risk assessment in the future views the father. I am afraid I will have to return to the details of what happened on 26 June in a moment.

On 1 July 2024, Mother made an online request for medical treatment in relation to her burn. On 2 July, Mother attended at the GP surgery for burn treatment. She was seen by a Nurse [B]. She said the injury had been caused on 26 June 2024 when she leant back on a hot iron and she was not wearing a top. Nurse [B] did not find the explanation plausible and consulted a Dr [A].

On 4 July 2024, there was a follow-up clinic for Mother, where, despite challenge, she repeated the accidental explanation for the burn and denied the father’s involvement.

On 25 July 2024, there was another Family Partnership visit. Mother made several disclosures about domestic violence and disclosed that the father had caused the burn. The disclosure was made to a [Nurse C], a family nurse, during this visit to Mother at her home.

On 31 July 2024, protective arrangements were first put in place for [John] by means of a police protection order, and [John] was placed in foster care. There was a strategy meeting. The father was arrested for grievous bodily harm. At about 17.43 that day, the mother made a disclosure to PC [X] that the father had caused the burn to her back. At 17.59, Mother called PC [X] back and said that she took everything back and that she had been lying and that her brain was not working when she made the allegation. Mother told PC [X] that she wanted the father released, and she wanted to call him in custody, and she was extremely distressed.

The father was interviewed at 22.38. He fully denied the allegations, saying he had not been in the property. On [date redacted], the father was remanded in custody. At some point on 1 August 2024, [Nurse C], the family nurse, gave a police statement regarding Mother’s disclosure about the infliction of the burn. The mother called a DC [Y] asking for an update, and she followed up with a text message, saying, “I don’t wish to give any statements.” Mother called again, asking about the process and wanting to know why the police were proceeding without a statement from her.

On 2 August 2024, Mother called DC [Y] asking to attend court to speak to the judge because she wanted to have the father released. On 3 August 2024, Mother signed a section 20 agreement for [John] to remain in foster care.

On [date redacted], there was a bail hearing at Snaresbrook. The judge, on that occasion, decided to keep Father remanded in prison until [date redacted], to allow efforts to obtain a victim statement.

On 7 August 2024, the mother gave a police witness statement stating that she does not support a prosecution of Father and that she is not a victim and that there was a lot of substance abuse by both the mother and father at the time, so that her accounts were not accurate. Mother stated she was not willing to confirm the details that she had given PC [X] in her first telephone call on 31 July and stated that she had thrown away the iron that had caused the burn.

On [date redacted], the father was remanded on bail. He was bailed to Lancashire and required not to enter into a zone comprising the M25 and was tagged.

On 12 August 2024, the Local Authority issued proceedings with an urgent application for an interim care order. On 13 August, there was the first hearing of that application. The father did not attend, nor was he represented. An interim care order was granted, and [John] remained in foster placement.

On 19 August 2024, Mother and [John] were reunited in a mother and baby placement for a 14-week assessment. I will not go into the detail of all of that, but happily, on 11 November 2024, Mother completed a positive parenting assessment. On the back of that, on 21 November 2024, there was a final care planning meeting; a plan which envisaged for the mother to return home with [John] under the auspices of a supervision order. On 9 December 2024, the mother returned home with [John].

On 12 February 2025, the matter came before HHJ Suh. The Court determined that a fact-finding hearing was necessary despite the agreed welfare outcome in this case being agreed due to the very serious allegations of domestic violence which, at that stage, remained contested. On that occasion, the interim care order was discharged. A child arrangements order was made for [John] to live with his mother; an interim supervision order was made in support of that child arrangements order, and the CPS and police were required to provide disclosure. There was also disclosure for medical records and other documents, and schedules of allegations were provided for.

There were further directions on 2 April 2024 before HHJ Suh, and she directed that the matter be listed before me for a pre-trial review on 1 May 2025, when I gave case management directions to ensure that the allegations were in an apple-pie order and ready for adjudication during this week. That is the background to this matter.

First, the person making the allegation bears the burden of proving the facts alleged: In re B (Children) (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) (CAFCASS intervening) [2008] UKHL 35, [2009] 1 AC 11. The court must guard against reversing the burden of proof: Re M (Fact-finding: Burden of Proof) [2013] 2 FLR 874.

Secondly, the standard to which that party must satisfy the court is the simple balance of probabilities. The inherent probability or improbability of an event remains a matter to be taken into account when weighing the probabilities and deciding whether, on balance, the event occurred; within this context, there is no room for a finding by the court that something might have happened; the court may decide that it did or that it did not: Lady Hale in In re B (Children) (above) at [31], [32] and [70]. In Re S-B (Children) (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) [2009] UKSC 17, [2010] 1 AC 678, sub nom Re S-B (Children) [2010] 1 FLR 1161 the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principles set out in Re B. The standard of proof is unaffected by the significance of the assertion: Re BR (Proof of Facts) [2015] EWFC 41.

Thirdly, findings of fact must be based on evidence not speculation. Evidence-based findings of fact may include inferences that can be properly drawn from the evidence and not on suspicion or speculation: Re A (A Child) (Fact Finding Hearing: Speculation) [2011] EWCA Civ 12 [2011] 1FLR 1817. The decision on whether the facts in issue have been proved to the requisite standard must be based on all of the available evidence and should have regard to the wide context of social, emotional, ethical and moral factors: A County Council v A Mother, A Father and X, Y and Z[2005] EWHC 31 (Fam).

In determining whether a party has discharged the burden upon it, the court looks at what has been described as “the broad canvas” of the evidence before it. The court takes account of a wide range of matters including its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and inferences that can be properly drawn from the evidence. The role of the court is to consider the evidence in its totality and to make findings on the balance of probabilities accordingly. Within this context, the court must consider each piece of evidence in the context of all of the other evidence: Re T [2004] 2 FLR 838 at [33].

Fourthly, I remind myself that it is not uncommon for witnesses in cases of this sort to tell lies in the course of the hearing; but a witness may lie for many reasons, such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear and distress, and the fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything: R v Lucas [1981] QB 720. Further, memories can fade or change with the passage of time particularly in respect of events which were traumatic or distressing at the time.

I give myself a revised Lucas direction, namely, I should only take account of any lies found to have been told if there is no good reason or other established reason for the person to have lied.

I also take into account the decision of the Court of Appeal in Re H-C [2016] EWCA Civ 136 where McFarlane LJ (as he then was) said at para.100:

I also have in mind the guidance in Re A, B and C (Children) [2021] EWCA Civ 451, [2022] 1 FLR 329 on Lucas directions.

I entirely accept that the mere fact of a lie being told does not prove the primary case against the party or the witness, should they have been found to have lied to the court.

I also bear in mind that there is no obligation on a party to prove the truth of an alternative case put forward by way of defence and the failure by the party to establish the alternative case on the balance of probabilities does not of itself prove the other party's case: Re X (No 3) [2015] EWHC 3651 Fam and Re Y (No 3) [2016] EWHC 503 Fam.

Fifthly, domestic abuse is raised. FPR PD 12J, which determines how the family court is to approach domestic abuse and harm in the context of private law child arrangements applications. Whilst this arguably relates to private law proceedings its learning and approach to domestic abuse issues is at the forefront of my considerations.

I remind myself of the principles set out by the Court of Appeal in Re H-N & Ors (children) (domestic abuse: finding of fact hearings) [2021] EWCA Civ 448 and K v K [2022] EWCA Civ 468.

I also bear in mind the court’s findings as to the approach to controlling and coercive behaviour. The court emphasised the need to evaluate the existence or otherwise of a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour without significantly increasing the scale and length of private law proceedings, in circumstances where delay is inimical to the welfare of a child and the courts. That applies here as well.

I also bear in mind that criminal law concepts ought not to be imported into family law

In the context of considering controlling and coercive behaviour, I am also assisted by the judgment of Hayden J in F v M [2021] EWFC 4 at [102] to [109], (in particular at [108] to [109]).

Finally, Munby LJ (as he then was) said in Re A (A Child) (No. 2) [2011] EWCA Civ 12 at [104]:

“Any judge who has had to conduct a fact-finding hearing such as this is likely to have had experience of a witness - as here a woman deposing to serious domestic violence and grave sexual abuse - whose evidence, although shot through with unreliability as to details, with gross exaggeration and even with lies, is nonetheless compelling and convincing as to the central core… Yet through all the lies, as experience teaches, one may nonetheless be left with a powerful conviction that on the essentials the witness is telling the truth, perhaps because of the way in which she gives her evidence, perhaps because of a number of small points which, although trivial in themselves, nonetheless suddenly illuminate the underlying realities.”

In Re M (A Child)(Fact-Finding: Appeal)[2021] EWHC 3225 (Fam) Judd J, applying FPR 3A.2A, provided a reminder that where a person is or is at risk of being a victim of domestic abuse, the court must assume that their participation in the hearing, and when giving evidence, will be diminished by reason of their vulnerability. The participation directions via alternating remote attendance has provided for this.

The Local Authority have prepared a schedule of threshold findings which they seek. Prior to the appearance of Ms Savvides, much remained in dispute. Ms Savvides, an extremely experienced counsel, has come into the case at the last moment, as I have already said. After reflecting upon his position with Ms Savvides, and, no doubt, upon the door of the court and the looming witness box in mind, he changed his position. The father should be extremely grateful to Ms Savvides for her coming into the case.

With her expert assistance and the benefit of her considerable experience, the father has now taken what I would describe as a much more realistic view about the findings which are sought, given the overwhelming case made against him on the papers. Had he continued in the stance he had adopted prior to the involvement of Ms Savvides, he would have had added to his notional charge sheet, a complete inability to recognise the reality of the situation he had put himself in, and requiring the mother of his son, who he had seriously abused, to be put through the further trauma of having to give oral evidence before the Court.

There is little credit going Mr [Richards]’s way in anything I have to say about him, but he does get credit for not further distressing Ms [Simons] with having to give evidence.

The threshold findings sought by the Local Authority are broken into four sections. Section A, by way of summary, is that:

“(a)

The father has perpetrated violence against the mother on multiple occasions between 2020 and 2024. This abuse occurred at times when [John] was present and/or within earshot of the violence, whilst Mother was pregnant and prior to [John]’s birth and during Mother’s pregnancy. The level of abuse and the violence of the attacks escalated over time.

(b)

The father has engaged in controlling and coercive behaviour towards the mother between 2020 and 2024.

(c)

Father poses a risk of significant harm to [John] and Mother as a result of his violent behaviour.

(d)

Mother failed to protect herself and [John] from Father’s abusive behaviour, which has caused significant emotional harm to [John] and a significant risk of future harm.”

In respect of the first section relating to violence, there were originally nine separate episodes pleaded. Following discussion between the advocates, item two was not pursued by the Local Authority. This left eight episodes of violence alleged. The father has admitted to all of the remaining allegations in that section, save for item nine, which relates to the episode when Ms [Simons] was branded with an iron.

The father’s pleaded position is that he does not seek to challenge the evidence or call witnesses in relation to this incident.

Ms Savvides told me in submissions that Mr [Richards] is concerned about the double jeopardy position he may find himself in before the Criminal Courts, notwithstanding that the previous criminal charges against him were dropped. She submitted that, but for the criminal charge, the father would have had more freedom to consider his position within these proceedings in relation to that allegation. His case, however, faced with a possibility of a criminal prosecution and conviction and, no doubt, a long prison sentence if convicted, is that he accepts that he was in the house when Mother was branded by an iron, but that he is unable to state how it occurred. He says he cannot remember and that there was a lot going on in his head at the time.

In her witness statement within the proceedings, which has not been challenged by Mr [Richards], Ms [Simons] states the following:

“Then, two days later, he wanted to have sex early in the morning on the 26^th. He was doing it, but I did not want it or respond to it. That was normal because he treated me so badly. My body would reject it. He got in a mood and went to the bathroom. He said, ‘You’re a zombie; what is wrong?’. I then said he could do it, but he said, ‘No, I don’t want to do it anymore’. I must have fallen asleep. I then woke up to a feeling on my back and turned to see him wrapping a cord around the iron. He had burned my back with the hot iron.”

The statement then exhibits a photograph of Ms [Simons]’s back with a really clear imprint of an iron on it. It is a shocking photo to behold. It looks like a scorch mark that one might see on a shirt if an iron had been absentmindedly left facedown and unattended for several minutes, except the burn mark is not to cloth but to human skin. A nurse, [Nurse C], who attended upon Ms [Simons] on 25 July, stated:

“I would describe [Jenny]’s injuries as ‘horrific’. It is a full iron print on her back, that [Paul] has waited to warm up to make incredibly hot, which suggests premeditation, before applying to someone you’re in a relationship with. It’s psychopathic behaviour.”

Whilst I understand that Ms Paul-Clarke is using the word “psychopathic” in a vernacular rather than formal legal sense, I endorse her observations entirely. In the lead-up to this episode, Mr [Richards] was sexually thwarted and disappointed that Ms [Simons] did not want sex with him at 6am. According to Ms [Simons]’s account, she even reluctantly expressed her consent to sex after Mr [Richards]’s first aborted attempt. Rather than accepting the position he found himself in, I infer that Mr [Richards] has had to take several premeditated steps. He would have had to go and get the iron, plug it in, wait a moment or two for it to heat up, bring it to the bedside and to position himself in a manner which enabled him to have a good aim at Ms [Simons]’s back, and then apply the hot iron to her back. It is nothing short of barbaric behaviour. It is almost medieval in its brutality. It comes after a series of episodes of violence to Ms [Simons].

Mr [Richards] says he is unable to recall the episode. I do not accept that. I will recount, in a moment, the reasons why it is that the criminal charges against him were dropped. He says he cannot say more for fear of prosecution and prison. Quite frankly, he would deserve to feel the force of the criminal law for what he has done, but that is not a matter for me. I am concerned with [John]’s welfare. How will any risk assessment as to Mr [Richards]’s likely future behaviour be conducted for so long as he remains in his current state of forensic denial?

Whilst I accept the reality of Ms Saviddes’ submissions, the logical inference of this is that he is not going to be able to accept with professionals, the “monstrous” - I use that word advisedly - behaviour he has engaged in. For so long as he remains in a forensic, “I cannot recall what happened as I am worried I may be prosecuted” denial, then it seems to the Court that any risk assessor will have to reflect anxiously about the scale of their work. It is a deeply unattractive position, and it seems to this Court, exposes [John] to risk if professionals are prepared to indulge Mr [Richards] in his stance of “I cannot recall what happened.” His current stance is cowardly and not child-focused.

Any professional work which may inform future judicial consideration as to what kind of contact should be permitted and how it might be managed, will, no doubt, weigh in the balance, whether it is in the child’s interest to have any relationship with a man who has “tortured”; again, I have chosen that word carefully, that child’s mother when he was sexually thwarted by her.

This episode occurred on 26 June. Ms [Simons] did not seek medical attention until 1 July. On 25 July, [Nurse C], a nurse, attended upon Ms [Simons] at her home. This was after two failed home visits, which Ms [Simons] had cancelled. Up until this point, Ms [Simons] had maintained that the injury was nothing to do with Mr [Richards]. Her account had been that she had accidentally leaned backwards on an iron whilst not wearing a T-shirt, as a friend had visited and used the iron, and she did not know that it was hot. In her police statement, Ms Paul-Clarke stated that she had challenged Ms [Simons] about her account on this occasion, and suggested that she had an idea about what had happened, and that Ms [Simons] had burst into tears.

Ms [Simons] admitted that Mr [Richards]had been the perpetrator of the injury, and stated she woke up with an excruciating pain and, at first, was disoriented and did not know why. Upon waking up, she could see Mr [Richards]wrapping the cord around an iron, and said to him, “What the fuck did you do?” Mr [Richards]told Ms [Simons] to go back to sleep, but she ran downstairs to look at her back and saw the burn. She screamed at him to leave, which he eventually did.

The next day, Ms [Simons] sent pictures of the injury to Mr [Richards]’s mother and sister, who came around that day and applied a dressing and cream to the injury. As if this account could not get any worse, Ms [Simons] did not immediately request formal medication treatment, as she was worried about what story to tell to make it sound like an accident. Eventually, she had to report it to her GP as she was in too much pain, and she was concerned that the wound may become infected. [Nurse C] continues:

“I have been [Jenny’s]’s family nurse since August 2022 and would say we have a good relationship. [Jenny] is normally very friendly, chatty, confident and clearly bright. But when we talk about [Paul], she is clearly anxious, wants to change the subject and appears scared of him and of family repercussions of conflict between his and her families, as they live in close proximity. To me, she appears to be someone who does not see a way out from an abusive relationship.”

On 31 July, PC [X] made contact with Ms [Simons] to ask if she would assist with an investigation into her injury, and, at 17.43, she indicated she would be willing to assist the police. She had stated that they did not have a fight or argument, but that he simply burned her at 6am on her back while she was sleeping topless, and that he had left the house straight after that. Ms [Simons] stated that she had felt something on her back and realised what was happening. She stated that the iron was only on her for a few seconds, and the whole incident was very quick. She stated, “It is a first-degree burn that has healed.” Ms [Simons] mentioned that Mr [Richards] had told her that it was his brain. Ms [Simons] mentioned that she had chucked the iron away the day it happened, and said they could get evidence of her injuries from her medical evidence.

I note that this account varies from her account given in these proceedings. This account does not reference the aborted attempt at sexual intercourse. It also suggests a degree of awareness of what was happening in real time, whereas the account in this case references Ms [Simons] being disoriented prior to coming to her senses and seeing Mr [Richards] wrapping the iron cable away.

I have in mind Munby J’s dictum I have made reference to in my statement of the law when I consider these differences, and I do not consider that, on a balance of probabilities, they deflect from the essential account I am being told about Mr [Richards] being the perpetrator of this attack. It seems to me that the account in these proceedings, unchallenged as it is, and the most full, is the account which I should adopt, and I do. At 17.49, Ms [Simons] called PC [X] back and took everything back and said she was lying and that her brain was not working when she had made the allegation moments before. Ms [Simons] was very upset and began crying about her child being taken from her.

Mr [Richards] handed himself in to the police on 31 July and was arrested and interviewed. He denied branding Ms [Simons] and denied being present at the property at the time it was said the injury had been sustained. The police obtained his phone data and had his location identified at the time that the injury was sustained. The phone data and the police analysis of the same triangulate Mr [Richards] as being present in Ms [Simons]’s property at the time of the injury. Additionally, Ms Saviddes accepted in her submissions to the Court that Mr [Richards] had been present before conveying her client’s exculpatory account of him not being able to recall anything.

On 7 August, Ms [Simons] gave a witness statement to the police in which she indicated she did not support any prosecution, claimed to be a victim, and, “During our time together, there was a lot of substance abuse by us both and so my accounts aren’t always accurate.” She added:

“No one has forced me to make this statement today. No one is coercing or controlling me to make this statement today.”

To add texture and a proper understanding of Ms [Simons]’s injury, I note that the GP account of her attendance upon Ms [Simons] on 4 July, Dr [A], when applying a new dressing, was able to examine the wound itself, which she describes as having a crust that was sloughing away. The base of the wound was still red-raw and wet. There was no sign of an infection, however. Ms [Simons] denied the injury had been caused by Mr [Richards]. Dr [A] was so concerned, she made contact with Social Services. In relation to the injury itself, Dr [A] states:

“I’m not an expert in forensic science, but it seems unlikely to me and my colleagues that such an injury would have been [sic] occurred from accidentally leaning onto a hot iron on a shelf, and I felt that Ms [Simons]’s explanation for how she came to be injured was not plausible.”

On the balance of probabilities, I find the Local Authority’s allegation made out, and I consider this episode to be at the very serious end of the scale of domestic violence. Ms [Simons] not only was barbarically injured, but she was then unable to seek medical attention for fear of professional repercussions, and was so absolutely and completely coercively controlled by Mr [Richards] that she was ultimately unable to support a prosecution, and Mr [Richards] has been able to evade the criminal justice which was due to him. This episode comes at the end of an admitted long and concerning runway of acts of domestic abuse over the previous few years, with a chronology marking several episodes of serious violence, which have included strangulation on one occasion and necessitated two accident and emergency hospital visits. Mr [Richards] is a violent danger to Ms [Simons]. [John] has been present during these episodes and is considered by this Court to be a victim of domestic abuse himself.

On the amended schedule, as provided, the remaining allegations, which are not admitted, relate to Mr [Richards]’s alleged coercive and controlling behaviour in the second section of the Local Authority’s pleaded allegations. These are items numbered 10, 11, 13 and 14. They read as follows:

“(10)

The father isolated Mother from her friends and her mother in the course of their relationship. He made the mother change the way she dressed.

(11)

After the incident on or around 29 July 2022, Father prevented Mother from seeking medical help for her facial injury or attending her antenatal appointments.

(13)

On 14 November 2023, at 2.15 in the afternoon, Mother called the police in a distressed state because of an altercation with Father at her home. The father would not leave. [John] was in the home. Father grabbed the phone and ended the call.

(14)

Throughout the relationship and on more than one occasion, Father would damage the mother’s phone so that she was unable to contact her friends, family or seek professional help.”

In respect of item (10), Ms [Simons] says this in her statement at paragraphs five and six:

“5.

By this time, he had started controlling everything I did. He stopped me going out unless I was with him. I hardly saw my schoolfriends anymore. Throughout this period, he would use my past with other boys from before I got together with him to emotionally abuse me. He would stop talking to me for days, and then would come back and shout and swear and call me horrible names.

6.

It was around six or seven months into the relationship that [Paul] made me change how I dressed. When we first started seeing each other, I used to wear jeans and fitted tops, and did not wear a headscarf. He first made me wear a headscarf and was okay with me wearing jeans and tops, although they had to be modest. Then he made me get rid of my whole wardrobe, and I was only allowed to wear loose dresses.”

This has not been challenged by Mr [Richards]. I find this as a fact. In respect of item (11), I note references previously made to the police or the GP, where Ms [Simons] refers to not being allowed to seek medical help. Turning to part of a police record at page 693, there is recorded there:

“She told officers that her boyfriend doesn’t like her going to the doctors and has now stopped her going, despite being 24 weeks pregnant and in need of regular checkups.”

Mr [Richards] has not sought to challenge Ms [Simons] about this. I find this found, on the balance of probabilities. In respect of item (13), I am turning to page 596 in the bundle. 596, I have a document from the Metropolitan Police. It is a described as a “Safeguarding Form 87F.” On 14 November 2023, there is reference to a call from “VIW1”, which I take to be Ms [Simons]:

“Ms [Simons] called the police at 2.15 hours on Tuesday, 14 November 2023. She could be heard crying on the phone and asking for police. A male then sounded like he’d grabbed the phone off her, and the line was cleared. Told METCC that the male had left, but was being very vague. She said he was refusing to leave, but then left, and that she’d locked the doors after. Several attempts made to contact the informant. Several visits to the venue with no reply.”

Again, I find item (13) made out. Turning then, to item (14), this is dealt with at paragraph

Again, this is not challenged, and I find it as a fact. I am not going to read it out, but I remind myself of the judgment of Hayden J in F v M [2021] EWFC 4, which I have already referenced in the legal section to this judgment and, in particular, paragraphs [108] and [109].

Four items (10) to (14) on the Local Authority’s schedule of items, whether they are admitted or as I have found them to be, on the balance of probabilities, I find that they paint a troubling picture of exactly the sort of behaviour that adds up to coercive and controlling and behaviour. The various cords or strands of this kind of behaviour weave together to present with a substantial knot of a deeply coercive and controlling relationship. I do not need to deal with the other matters on the schedule of allegations because they have all been admitted by both parents, and they will be set out in a schedule to my order.

It follows that I find that the statutory criteria in section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989 for the passing of threshold is made out in this case. The date for threshold is when protective measures were first taken in this case, which I understand to be the date of the police protection order.

When determining what should now happen, [John]’s welfare is my paramount concern under section 1 of the Children Act 1989. The Local Authority plan is for [John] to live with Ms [Simons] under the existing child arrangements order. This is to be supplemented by a 12-month supervision order, and Mother agrees to this course. I have been presented with no other realistic options to consider. The Children’s Guardian supports this plan in her final support dated 7 February 2025.

Turning to that report, at paragraph 24, dealing with Mr [Richards], the following is recorded:

“Mr [Richards] has not been assessed in his parenting capacity and has not been able to commence any spending time with [John] due to the risks that have been identified within the Local Authority’s risk assessment of 3 October 2024. It has been recommended that Mr [Richards] undertake a specialist perpetrator course through DV-ACT PAI before any further consideration is given to how contact could be safely achieved. I note that Mr [Richards] is open to engaging in any course assessment which is deemed necessary, and that he is focused on [John]’s well-being and safety. However, there are complicated and conflicting factors at this time, given the criminal case. Within his statement, he accepts an incident where he has assaulted Ms [Simons] in October 2023. He has not accepted he was a perpetrator of domestic abuse, nor that he burned Ms [Simons] in June 2024. Mr [Richards] will therefore not be wanting to further incriminate himself, given his non-guilty plea. It is unsure if Mr [Richards] will change his position at the conclusion of his trial, and dependent on the outcome.”

Pausing there, I have already given the Court’s observations as to the cowardly manner in which Mr [Richards] has approached what he has done, and I would ask that a risk assessor take my comments firmly into account. Continuing with the Guardian’s report:

“Mr [Richards] considers that undertaking domestic abuse work should take place now rather than later, as it will ensure he does not make the same mistakes. It is of significance that Mr [Richards] accepts an assault in October 2023, only months after engaging in domestic violence work in August 2023. It therefore remains questionable if Mr [Richards] will take any value from undertaking any perpetrator programme and hence any increased level of safety for Ms [Simons] and [John] in future contact arrangements. Without any appropriate level of responsibility, it will undoubtedly hinder any meaningful progress.”

I think that any risk assessor should take heed very carefully of the Guardian’s analysis in that regard. The Guardian refers to [John] at paragraph 29 of her report, stating that:

“29.

[John] has experienced frightening and neglectful care in his young life, which will have impacted on his ability to feel safe and secure. [John] is a child who shows signs of separation anxiety and heightened levels of emotional dysregulation. Children who are placed in situations of stress are known to struggle to develop positively, and their physical and emotional development can be delayed. Chronic exposure to domestic violence keeps the brain in a state of fight or flight. Higher cortisol levels contribute to anxiety, poor emotional regulation and difficulty calming down.

30.

Whilst there are indicators that [John] has some traits of neurodivergence and is being reviewed for autistic spectrum disorder, these traits cannot be considered in isolation, given [John]’s adverse experiences. Trauma doesn’t cause autism, but it can create behaviours that look similar. Similarly, children with early trauma may be misdiagnosed with autistic spectrum disorder. Without further assessment, his diagnosis is not yet clear. However, [John]’s trauma experiences will certainly have had an impact on his developing personality and, if diagnosed, will have likely amplified his autistic spectrum disorder-related difficulties.

31.

[John] now needs to feel consistently safe and secure to build trusting relationships with others. He will continue to require reparative parenting, which goes above good enough care, to recover from his early experiences of trauma. Without reparative parenting, including good routines, stimulation and consistent and sensitive care, [John] will find it hard to thrive.”

Turning to the Welfare Checklist:

Mother can provide good enough basic care, but she is vulnerable socially and emotionally, and needs support from the Local Authority, and she needs to remain detached from Mr [Richards]. The most up-to-date social work statement records that Ms [Simons]’s engagement with Social Services was worrying, as late as March 2025. That is disappointing and worrying to read. Ms [Simons], however overwhelming all of this may appear, needs to ensure that she fully engages with the professionals so that she is able to protect [John].

There is no current proposal for Mr [Richards]to have indirect contact with [John]. I endorse that approach. Presently, the extent of contact, I am told, is likely to extend to the occasional providing of photos of [John]to Mr [Richards].

Before anything is able to develop, there will need to be a risk assessment. My judgment will need to form part of that risk assessment. The Children’s Guardian says that Father will need to undertake perpetrator work and a risk assessment, that Father will need to reflect carefully about how he is able to undertake any perpetrator work whilst he continues in his cowardly forensic stance that he cannot remember what he did to the mother with an iron. I do not know what the future holds or what role the father may have in [John]’s life.

It follows from my judgment that I consider it absolutely essential that the non-molestation order is continued in the terms sought, and I am told that the father does not disagree with that and, in fact, consents to the making of the order.

That is my judgment.