Angela v Robert

Judgments of the Family Court are often published, to promote transparency as to the delivery of Justice. However, that must be balanced with the need for the interests of the child, in cases like this, who is involved to be protected. The published version of this Judgment will therefore be anonymised, by changing the names of those involved and omitting certain other identifying details such as precise ages or locations. For the anonymised version of this Judgment, I propose to call the Applicant “Angela”, the Respondent “Robert” and the child “Charles”. A’s friends will be called ‘Diana’ and ‘Elizabeth’, and her husband ‘George’. If those names are inadvertently inappropriate, I ask the advocates to let me know.

The Court is concerned with Charles, who is years 3 old. He is the son of the Applicant, ‘Angela’ (“A”) who is represented by Mr Asaad, counsel and of the Respondent, ‘Robert’ (“R”) who is represented by Mr Kelleher, counsel.

On 25.9.24 A applied for a non-molestation order, which was made on 3.10.24 and remains in force until the conclusion of this hearing. On 25.11.24 R applied for a child arrangements order seeking a ‘lives with’ or ‘time with’ order. He also applied for a Prohibited Steps Order dealing with names, holidays and relocation within England and Wales, and for a Specific Issue Order relating to those issues and external relocation and for the return of the child to his care. On 20.12.24 A cross applied for a child arrangements order dealing with both ‘lives with’ and ‘time with’ arrangements, and for a specific issue order that she hold the child’s passport. The proceedings have been consolidated.

In the course of the proceedings there have been further applications, relating to the duration of the non-molestation order, interim contact, interim travel to a European country, (all of which have been determined) and for school place applications, and for a psychological assessment.

A does not live in the area served by this Court, but this Court is easier to travel to from her home than the Court which does serve the area she lives in. As the proceedings have got to this stage they should remain here. As I have conducted the fact-finding hearing, all future hearings will be reserved to me.

A has made allegations which, if true, amount to domestic abuse as defined by Section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 in this way:

“Behaviour of a person (“A”) towards another person (“B”) is “domestic abuse” if—

(a)

A and B are each aged 16 or over and are personally connected to each other, and

(b)

the behaviour is abusive.

…Behaviour is “abusive” if it consists of any of the following—

(a)

physical or sexual abuse;

(b)

violent or threatening behaviour;

(c)

controlling or coercive behaviour;

(d)

economic abuse;

(e)

psychological, emotional or other abuse;

and it does not matter whether the behaviour consists of a single incident or a course of conduct.”

Cafcass did not advise that a fact-finding hearing was needed, but in April another Judge decided that it was and gave directions for the trial of the factual allegations, which has taken place on 15, 16 and 17 December 2025. The allegations engage PD12J and PD3AA. The parties entered and left the Courtroom separately, and a screen was erected so that they would not see one another. That is an entirely neutral step. I explained to the parties that it is designed to help them both attend and participate in the hearing.

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

I heard evidence from A, R and two of A’s friends, Diana and Elizabeth.

The parties agree that they were in a relationship with each other for 16 years. They were engaged to be married to each other. They separated in September 2024. A changed the locks to her flat, effectively evicting R from it. He refused to leave and was arrested to prevent a breach of the peace.

As A puts it, in one of her statements, R “has never physically laid hands on me, he did not need to in order to control my behaviour.” In her first statement, which she told me she had recently read and she adopted as true, she alleged that R had been “physically violent towards me throughout majority of our relationship”. When asked about that discrepancy she confirmed that the former was correct, but said that by hitting doors or furniture near her, the Applicant had nevertheless been violent towards her. R denies that he has sought to control A’s behaviour.

It is not the function of the Court to consider why or how a relationship failed. That process can be very distressing, full of ups and downs, sometimes peppered with reconciliation or hope of reconciliations, and the people involved will often experience intense emotions and feelings of sadness and despair. Sorting out the practical consequences of relationship breakdown can be just as traumatic. Under those sorts of pressures, people rarely behave as well as they hope.

There is a line which can be crossed, between poor behaviour in the context of a relationship breakdown, into behaviour which amounts to domestic abuse and/or into coercive or controlling behaviour. As the Court of Appeal said in Re H-N [2021] EWCA Civ 448, “Where one or both parents assert that a pattern of coercive and/or controlling behaviour existed, and where a fact-finding hearing is necessary in the context of PD12J, paragraph 16, that assertion should be the primary issue for determination at the fact-finding hearing. Any other, more specific, factual allegations should be selected for trial because of their potential probative relevance to the alleged pattern of behaviour, and not otherwise, unless any particular factual allegation is so serious that it justifies determination irrespective of any alleged pattern of coercive and/or controlling behaviour.”

PD12J defines such conduct in these ways:

“coercive behaviour” means an act or a pattern of acts of assault, threats, humiliation and intimidation or other abuse that is used to harm, punish, or frighten the victim;

“controlling behaviour” means an act or pattern of acts designed to make a person subordinate and/or dependent by isolating them from sources of support, exploiting their resources and capacities for personal gain, depriving them of the means needed for independence, resistance and escape and regulating their everyday behaviour;”

There were some preliminary matters. A did not pursue the last paragraph of Allegation 4, or an allegation about the way that R had dealt with A’s solicitors. She did pursue an allegation that R had done things in breach of the non-molestation order: to be clear, there has been no application that R be held in contempt of Court and the process set down by Family Procedure Rule 37 was not followed. The parties understood that whilst I might conclude, on the evidence and on the balance of probabilities, that one or more such matter was established, that would not result in any finding that there had been a contempt of Court nor would it be sufficient for a prosecution. A also relied on some of R’s alleged conduct towards Diana amounted to abuse towards A: whether that could be shown would be a matter for evidence and submissions.

A was an articulate woman, who was able to explain herself clearly. She was able to reflect on points put to her, and explain why she maintained her view on any given point. She told me that she understood that contact between Charles and R would need to move on from supervised contact at some point, does not oppose there being some form of contact, was open to the idea that now might be the time for it to move to supported contact, but that she thought a psychological assessment of R was needed. As to schools, Charles is likely to have an EHCP, but A expects that this will provide for additional support within a mainstream school setting, rather than nominating a particular school. She has identified 3 local primary schools she would choose. She would expect to be awarded a place at her first choice, which is very close to her home. The application permits up to 6 preferences, and has to be submitted in a month. She agreed that if R were to notify her of his preferred schools by 9.1.26, she could then consider his views before finalising the application. I thought that the reference in her initial statement to R being physically violent towards her was misleading and that reduced a little my confidence in her evidence, but overall I thought that she was recounting what she called to the best of her ability.

Diana said that A was her best friend, but she was also clear that she had regarded R as a member of her friendship group for a long time. Her evidence was clear and calm. Elizabeth said that she was a friend of both parties, though she had known R for longest. She too gave clear, calm evidence.

R is a man of firm opinions. As he gave his evidence he came across as quite self-centred, and very focussed on what he believed to be fair. He could not be described as laid-back or easy-going when it came to any form of discussion about the consequences of the end of the parties’ relationship. I note that he has fallen out with Diana, who fairly quickly found dealing with communications from R to A to be overwhelming; Elizabeth; the removals company used by A to send R’s belongings to R’s father’s house; and the first contact centre used by the parties so that R could see Charles. He acknowledged that he was often “frustrated” by A’s refusal to agree with his proposals, or to respond to them as quickly as he thought she should, but he denied that he had ever been angry. He found it difficult to understand that A, having explained that she considered that communication between the parties had broken down, would not then respond to other forms of communication he chose to try. An example of this could be seen on Saturday 7^th September 2024, when A sent an email to R shortly before 9am saying “…as there has been a communication breakdown, I am engaging a solicitor to ensure that an agreement can be reached for you to see Charles as soon as possible. My solicitor will reach out to you promptly…”. R accepted that he received an email from the solicitor during the course of Monday 9^th September. That was the next working day.

At this point in time, the parties had separated, and less than a week earlier A had moved temporarily to stay with R’s old friend George and his wife Elizabeth. A had given R 14 days notice to leave the flat which she rented but in which R had been living. She had been offering contact with Charles, but not at the flat, which was the only proposal R was prepared to consider. R had attended Charles’ nursery on 5^th September to see Charles, without prior agreement with A. Whilst R’s distress in all of the circumstances and his desperation to see Charles are obvious, A’s email to him was entirely reasonable and R accepted in evidence that it would have been reasonable to wait a couple of working days to hear from the solicitor.

Instead, he sent emails to A at 10.25am and just after 7pm. In his 7pm email, he said “I still have had no contact with any solicitor representing yourself”. R must know that was unreasonable, almost to the point of absurdity, but he sought to justify it by reference to his own desire to have arrangements in place about Charles. And then on the morning of 9 September he went, without prior appointment, to George and Elizabeth’s house. He accepts that he did not go to see them. He went there because that was where he knew that A and Charles were temporarily staying until he had moved out of A’s flat. He delivered a toy of Charles’ and some other items for him, and a handwritten letter to A which included at its heading a request that she read it in private, and a request that A should not discuss the letter or its contents with Elizabeth. The letter sought a reply within the hour to the contact arrangements R proposed to take place shortly before Charles had a hospital appointment later that day. R returned an hour later to collect a reply, but left when asked to do so by George. R sees nothing wrong or unwise about that, even with the benefit of hindsight. He was entirely incapable of seeing that his choosing to attend the place A had fled her home to stay so that she was not in the same flat as R, and in direct contradiction to her expressed and reasonable wishes about contact, would have worried or upset A. He chose not to wait a reasonable time to hear from A’s solicitor, as he could have done. He focussed upon his own desire to see Charles, which he appears to have allowed to outweigh the feelings of A about communication.

Generally, R was argumentative and challenging when he was cross examined, and he found it difficult to acknowledge, even with the benefit of hindsight, how some of the things he had said or done might have made A feel. R had a marked tendency to turn everything around so that it became about himself, as he gave his evidence.

Allegation 1 – Emotional Manipulation and threats. A alleges that on 16.10.22 R threatened to commit suicide, because he wanted to give up his job, which he disliked, and A expressed concern about the financial consequences. She says that R said that if he continued in the job he would end up “in the asylum or the morgue”, sent a message saying that he should never have agreed to have a baby knowing how mentally unstable he was. All of this caused her to agree that he should give up the job. R denies that he made the ‘asylum or the morgue’ comment, but it is plain from the parties’ contemporaneous messages that A was expressing concern that he had said something very close to that, and R did not disagree. I prefer the evidence of A and find that R did say that. R points out that he was struggling emotionally at this point – two close family members were very ill, Charles had just been diagnosed with a lifelong condition, and he was deeply unhappy at work. His perception is that he shared the fact that he had been struggling with suicidal thoughts, and was seeking support from A. A was on maternity leave at the time, and so her suggestion that R find a new job before quitting the one he had was understandable. There were few disputes about the events of this day, and the messages the parties exchanged speak for themselves. In one of the messages, A says “I know I lost it”, which I take as an acknowledgement on her part that she had engaged in argument with R in which she had raised her voice. There is really a difference of perception between the parties about the extent to which what happened was emotional abuse or manipulation, or whether it was simply R struggling with powerful emotions. In my view, R clearly used his feelings to cause R to change her mind about R leaving work. By telling her that he had felt suicidal, making the ‘asylum or morgue’ remark, leaving the property and not responding to her attempts to contact him, he created real fear for A that R might hurt himself, so that she felt compelled to agree that he should leave the job he disliked before finding alternative work. That took matters over the line from being an argument between the parties and was, in my view, emotionally abusive behaviour by R. It was also coercive behaviour, because R made A frightened in order to get her to agree with him. I know that R’s perception is that all he did was seek support and to discuss options rather than, say, simply handing in his notice at work without first discussing that with A. Wanting to have the discussion was completely appropriate and R could not be criticised for wanting to do that: the problem is the way he then went about that when A did not immediately agree with what he wanted to do.

A further alleges that on 23.8.24 an argument arose about the disposal of rice in the sink. A accepts that she called R ‘selfish’ but says that this enraged him. He removed a drawer from a dresser and threw it at the wall, causing some damage to the wall. R’s evidence is that this happened out of A’s sight, though she no doubt heard the impact and saw the damage very soon afterwards, whereas A says that she was present. On this point, I prefer the calm evidence of A to the rather self serving evidence of R, but in truth I think the point of limited importance: on either account, A was aware of the damage being done by R in his anger. R says that he was acting from frustration, not anger: I do not agree. He may have been angry because he was frustrated, but frustration does not lead someone to damage their home. Both parties say that R fell to the floor in distress. A describes R having a tantrum, threatening suicide: R says that A ‘s presence was stopping him leaving the room. Even if that is so, R’s behaviour was very odd, unsettling and must have been scary for A. I accept R’s evidence that he felt unable to leave the room because A was in the way, and it is to be noted that R has never struck A, but aside from that, I had a clear preference for A’s recollection of the events of this day. I see in his message to A soon afterwards that R felt A was trying to trap him into assaulting her. That, in my view, is simply a self-serving attempt to justify his tantrum. This, too, was all emotionally abusive of her. It was an attempt to coerce A. Mr Asaad argues that one needs to go back to the origins of the argument – which was about the way that A was disposing of rice and its residue in the sink. R wanted A to change the way that she did this, so as to leave less mess. Having a discussion about a domestic frustration is reasonable. For that to develop into an argument is unfortunate but unremarkable. But the way in which R behaved as the argument developed was Rs way of trying to regulate A’s everyday behaviour and so it was also controlling behaviour. This incident was, in effect, the endpoint of the parties’ romantic relationship with each other.

A also alleges that there was an argument in February 2024 which began whilst A was making pancakes for Charles. The parties agree that there was some eggshell in the batter mix, which R pointed out. R felt that A did not successfully remove all the fragments of eggshell and so should have discarded the batter mix and started again: A did not agree. An argument ensued. Whilst I accept A’s account of what happened factually, and note that this argument left her fearing R’s reaction to minor events in future, I am not persuaded that this particular incident crosses the line between the sort of dispute that happens as a relationship is foundering over into domestic abuse, as defined by the Act. Nor, it follows, do I see that it crosses the line into being controlling behaviour, viewed objectively.

Allegation 2 – Threatening statement and Public Confrontation. By 1.9.24, the parties’ relationship was over. No doubt both were very unhappy. They were trying to work out how to move to the next phase of their lives – which meant living separately and sorting out the arrangements for Charles. The parties agree that Diana agreed to take Charles out to the park to give the parties the chance to talk things through and to try to resolve some of these issues. They were not able to do so, and so A went to meet Diana and Charles. R decided to go, too, and met them in the park: this much is agreed by the parties. A says that R then began loudly discussing the issues with Diana, trying to persuade Diana as to the wisdom of R’s proposals. R was very worried that he would end up losing the home in which he lived (which was rented by A in her sole name, with him being an occupier she was authorised by the landlord to have there) and the time with Charles that he cherished. I accept A & Diana’s evidence that R did as they say, which was noticed by other park users.

As the 4 of them made their way back to the parties’ home, A was a little ahead and pushing Charles, and R and Diana were a few paces behind. A’s evidence is that she could not hear what R was saying – they were crossing a busy road, and her focus was on Charles. There is a difference in recollection between Diana and R as to what R then said. Diana said that R expressed concern that “[A] is not losing anything and I am losing everything. The only way she would lose anything is if I harm [Charles].” Diana told me that she immediately shut down R and made clear that she was not prepared to countenance such discussion. She did not share what she says R said with A until later in the month. R says that what he actually said at the end of those words was “…if I took [Charles]” [my emphasis]. There is no evidence that R has ever tried to harm Charles, nor that he would ever attempt to do so, apart from this remark. There is, therefore, a straightforward difference of recollection between Diana and R. R says that he was repeating a point he had made in the earlier discussions with A, namely that in his view A was getting everything if her proposals prevailed, and the only way she wouldn’t get everything would be if he took Charles. R accepts that he should not have said this in any event. I place no weight on this narrow point on A’s evidence as to what was said to Diana, because A did not hear the words that were used. I prefer Diana’s account. It is curious that she did not share what was said with A shortly afterwards, but I bear in mind that until very recently before this point in time and possibly still at this point in time Diana would have regarded both the parties as her friends, and she knew that A was already very upset, and she immediately shut down R’s attempt to speak in this way. Moreover, Diana does not suggest that she ever believed that R would do anything to harm Charles: she appears to have taken the words as inappropriate and unwise, rather than as a threat, in the moment that they were uttered. However, she told me that she had a very clear memory of this exchange, because for her it was so significant. She was crystal clear on every other detail of her recollection of this day’s events. I prefer her clear recollection of what was said by R to the account of R. I therefore conclude that R used the words that Diana recalled him using.

I do not believe that R intended to harm Charles, then, or since then. I consider, though, that he was attempting to convince Diana that A’s proposals were unfair to him. He was trying to persuade Diana to advocate on his behalf, and to persuade A to agree to his own proposals. I accept that R was desperate to ensure that he saw lots of Charles. But in seeking to get the outcome he wanted, R went far too far, both in the way that he spoke to Diana in the park and in what he said to her as all they returned to the home. A argues that in coming to the park R was also inappropriate, because he went unannounced. I think him simply going to the park is unremarkable, and wishing to talk to Diana also unremarkable in and of themselves. It is the way in which R then conducted himself that he has crossed the line. The facts asserted by A are proved. A finishes her allegation by saying “this incident reinforced the control and fear I experienced in our relationship”. It was only some time later in September 2024 that Diana told A what R had said to her, and so in my view it is better to consider questions of control and coercion when I step back having considered all the findings I make.

Allegation 3 – the events of 9.9.24. I touched on this at paragraphs 18-20, above. R says that he acted out of his desperation to see Charles. His love for, and commitment to, Charles is plain to see, but R’s decision making on 9 September was seriously awry. It was wholly unreasonable for him not to wait until he heard from A’s solicitors, even if that had taken a few days. In fact, they contacted him within one working day. It was extremely unwise for him to go to George and Elizabeth’s home without a prior appointment, in the circumstances. It was unreasonable for him to do so to deliver the letter he wrote to A, even if he dressed it up a little by taking a favourite toy and one or two other things for Charles. The letter itself is completely unreasonable in its demand as to with whom A should or should not discuss it, in proposing contact the same day when he knew Charles had a hospital appointment. Indeed, the impact that letter was likely to have was really to warn A that he knew when and where the hospital appointment would be so that she would worry that he would be hanging around hoping to intercept her when she attended. It worries me that even now R cannot see those possible interpretations of his actions. The letter was unreasonable in demanding a reply within an hour and for him to say that he would return to collect a reply. No wonder his old friend told him to leave when he did so. R’s actions of 9.9.24 were emotionally abusive, and they were an attempt to coerce A into allowing him contact on his terms, and to communicate with him in ways that A had made completely clear that she did not want. It was an attempt to reduce A's resistance to him and his wishes, and was therefore controlling behaviour.

Allegation 4 – the events of 17.9.24. R had been given time to leave the flat, and told that the locks would be changed if he didn’t. He knew this was coming and installed a camera so that he would know if someone tried to change the locks. He returned to the property when he saw the locksmith enter. I frankly do not believe his suggestion that he thought there might be a burglary: if he believed that he would have called the Police. I understand his distress, but he could and should have left once it was made clear to him that the locks had been changed. At the most, had he needed his work uniform(s) or a couple of bits, he could have simply asked that one of the friends present be authorised by A to pop in and pick them up so that he could then leave. He didn’t take that path, but he wanted to argue that he was entitled to remain in occupation, even when told that the Police had seen the documents which showed he was no longer an authorised occupier. R still does not accept, when he gave me his evidence, that he is not a tenant of the property, even though he was copied into an email from the estate agent on 5.9.24 telling him that. I thought the evidence of Elizabeth was clear and compelling and I prefer her account to that of R, who was in a state of distress on the evening in question and who might therefore naturally recall some details less clearly than her, where there is a factual difference between the two. I prefer the evidence of A & Elizabeth that R banged on the wall on one occasion. R’s persistence in remaining at the scene even after being advised to leave by 2 different sets of Police Officers was unwise. In the end, A and Charles had to make their way past R to return to their home and a burly locksmith had to put himself in R’s way to prevent R from attempting to re-enter the home immediately behind them. This was emotionally abusive conduct over an extended period by R.

Allegation 5 – the events of 21 and 22.9.24. The Police disclosure is clear. As well as arresting R on 17.9.24 to prevent a breach of the peace when R refused to leave, the Police records show that they gave R a warning that if he continued his conduct the Police might treat it as harassment of A. R told me that he did not recall that, but he also told me that he was not arrested, before recalling when reminded of the Police reports that he was. I suspect that R’s precise recollection of this whole period of time is imperfect because he was in a state of distress. However, by 21.9 he knew unambiguously that A did not want to communicate with him, that communications were to be routed via solicitors or Diana, and that he had been warned by Police about harassment. But on the morning of 21.9.24 he wanted to have video contact with Charles. He was not prepared to be told that wasn’t going to happen. He pestered Diana about it and addressed his friend in a way that I would have found insulting if a friend had communicated with me in the way he did. He made 3 attempts to call A by video. His behaviour on 21 September was, at best, demanding, unreasonable and petulant. Diana blocked him and R used old whatsapp groups to try to force Diana to communicate with him. He knew that Diana was in communication with A and I am clear that this was really an attempt to use Diana to communicate with A, against the wishes of both A and Diana. It was emotionally abusive of A and it was controlling.

On 22.9.24 A arranged for R’s belongings to be delivered to R’s father’s house, where she thought R was staying. R had not told her any differently. R’s belongings were delivered to the front of R’s father property. R’s father wasn’t able to receive them, as he was recovering from surgery, so R needed to do so, especially as it was raining. I thought the arrangements made by A were brusque, but if there had been a breakdown in communication then R can hardly be surprised given his conduct over the preceding 3 weeks. R’s father had lent his car to A whilst he was recovering from surgery, and asked for it back. He said that he would make sure R was not at his home. When A returned the car, R was there, with his belongings. A felt threatened and intimidated by that. I was not persuaded that this amounted to a deliberate attempt by R to ‘ambush’ A with his presence. I take the view that the events of 22.9.24 were really the unfortunate consequences of a breakdown in communication on a range of issues.

Allegation 6: Intimidation and Harassment – 16.2.25. R had to find somewhere to live. He worked – in a modestly paid job – close to A’s home. It is not a surprise that he found somewhere nearby to live, even if it turned out to be very close. I do not really understand why R did not tell A’s solicitor where he had moved to, but I do agree with Mr Kelleher that it can’t be harassment by R not to do so, especially as A was unaware of the fact until it was revealed some months later by a Judge in a Court hearing, who was concerned by the proximity, at the time, of the parties’ homes. R told me that he used to use side roads to avoid walking past A’s flat. The allegation is that R turned up in the park near A’s home. I note that the Police considered that each party had a valid reason for being in the park, and there was no evidence that R would have known that A would be there at this particular moment. I agree with the Police conclusion. That is not to minimise or to dismiss A’s feelings of shock or fear at seeing R in this way. However, I am not satisfied that A has shown that this was more likely than not to be a chance encounter. If R feels aggrieved that this has been raised in this way, then he needs to reflect on how his earlier conduct left A in the position where she felt afraid and worried when she bumped into R in a park.

Allegation 7 – Charles’ birthday. R accepts that he decorated the bus stop A & Charles used with balloons and a banner reading ‘happy birthday [Charles]’. He says he did so knowing that Charles can’t read, but hoping that A would read the banner to Charles so that Charles would know that R was thinking of him on his birthday. R also arranged for his father to deliver some party bags to Charles’ nursery, so Charles would have known this anyway. There was no good reason for decorating the bus stop in this way. R had contact with Charles and could celebrate his birthday anyway, even if not on the precise day. The effect of this decoration was to alarm A, who feared R’s presence. It was a reminder that R was close by, perhaps watching. I am disappointed that R still had not got the message that A does not want to communicate with him. Whilst I take the view that this was controlling behaviour by R, it was at the lower end of the scale.

Taking all of those findings in the round, for the reasons given above as well as amounting to emotional abuse of A, I have concluded that A has also shown that it is more likely than not that there were both coercive and controlling behaviours by R. In the context of all of that, I also conclude that the way that R spoke to Diana and behaved in the park on 1.9.24 also amounted to both coercive and controlling behaviour by R.

I plainly need a section 7 report from Cafcass. I note, to A’s credit, that she sees that contact between Charles and R is in Charles’ best interests, and that she would consider supported rather than supervised contact. She was able to recognise the good quality of contact between Charles and R as evidence by the contact notes.

I imagine that R will be disappointed by some of my findings. But he is in some ways in a fortunate position. I hope that he is able to sit back and reflect that he will need to find a better way in future to work around parenting Charles in collaboration with A. He needs to understand how important it is for communication to be polite and respectful, how it is necessary to ask rather than to demand, to give people time to consider and reflect, to accept that sometimes they may say ‘no’ to something he thinks completely reasonable, and to be able if that happens to take the time to accept that people are entitled to say ‘no’ if asked for something. I hope that he is able to work with Cafcass to show how he can be trusted by A in future to formulate arrangements for Charles that will protect A from any repetition of his tendency – perhaps inadvertently – to allow his desire to build his relationship with Charles to lead him to try to coerce, manipulate or control A’s behaviour.

If he wants Charles to have a really significant relationship with both parents, R will have to strive to show that he can achieve that in a respectful manner that understands the possible interpretation of his requests on A.

I will hear submissions on the applications for a specific issue about school place applications, psychological assessment, interim child arrangements and further directions. I am concerned about the number of applications including for routine holidays. If an order were made that Charles lives with A until the end of proceedings, that might eliminate the need for future applications of that sort and reflect the current reality of the situation.

Having made the findings that I have, I am clear that A has needed and will continue to need the protection of the Court by way of a non-molestation order. That will continue in its current form until the conclusion of these proceedings or earlier order of the Court. It occurs to me that one of the things R may wish to reflect on is the benefit to him of ensuring that A feels safe from the risk of exposure to future abusive or controlling or coercive behaviour. He may wish to consider whether he wants to offer undertakings as to his future conduct as part of the proposals he makes for the longer term arrangements for Charles.