MI v AA

This case started off as an application to suspend a child arrangements order and spend time with order and revisit a finding of fact hearing that took place on 7 and 8 August 2023. At that hearing, the applicant mother was represented, but no findings were made. It took place before DDJ Asokan, formerly a full-time District Judge of this court. The matter progressed to a child arrangements order on 24 July 2024. Again the applicant was represented, and an order was made by consent for fortnightly supported contact for one hour and then, after three months, fortnightly unsupervised in the community, with a view to progression to overnight on the advice of the social worker under a child in need plan for a period of between three to six months, although there was no time frame in relation to that.

I note that there was also a non-molestation order made in proceedings BM24F05659 against the father. I note that there was a conviction for breach of an earlier non-molestation in 2023 (the father pleaded guilty) and a five-year restraining order made with a suspended sentence, with attendance at the Building Better Relationships programme. I also note that the mother received a Criminal Injuries Compensation award for a significant amount of money on 14 May 2024. That award was on the basis of an assessment on paper evidence only with no input from the father. I know not if any disclosure was made with regard to the outcome of the earlier finding of fact hearing.

By way of background to these proceedings, the mother asserts that her ability to give evidence at the finding of fact hearing was compromised due to a psychiatric disorder which she said undermined the basis of the subsequent final welfare hearing. She maintains she has a diagnosis of bipolar and adjustment disorder and argued therefore procedural unfairness in relation to ground rules and participation directions.

There was a lack of medical evidence with regard to the date of any actual diagnosis and its impact in the context of a contested finding of fact hearing, particularly with her giving evidence. The only ground rules and participation directions given were in relation to screens in court, which of course has been the case today.

The mother was represented throughout, both in relation to the finding of fact hearing and the final welfare hearing which was dealt with by consent. Her application in relation to suspending the child arrangements order and revisiting the finding of fact hearing was lodged 12 months after those orders were made, and no appeal in relation to them has been lodged.

I note that there is a GP letter where the mother was examined on 5 January 2025, indicating she suffers from bipolar disorder and PTSD. She self-reports the effects of this and its impact. She says she experiences anxiety, mood swings and depression due to experiencing ongoing domestic abuse by way of harassment. There is a MARAC, dated 6 February 2025, which felt that her concerns were not being addressed and that she was at high risk of domestic abuse. There is a psychological report whereupon she reports domestic abuse, which again mentions bipolar affective disorder and complex PDSD and anxiety from depression related to domestic abuse. It goes on to suggest that any contact should be at least supervised in a professional environment and with the mother not to be involved.

On 20 December 2024 the court made an order varying the order of 24 July 2024, so that contact continues to be supported until further order, or such other contact as recommended by Birmingham Children's Trust for the purposes of a child impact report. The child impact report was to address the progression of time the child spends with the father, and recommendations going forward. It was also directed, if so advised, for the mother to file and serve evidence as to the impact of her mental health and her ability to give evidence on the occasion of the finding of fact hearing, and measures that could be taken in mitigation. It is noted that since 24 July 2024 there have been three sessions of supported contact between the child and the father.

On 14 April 2025 the court made a police disclosure order because of the mother reporting further incidents of criminal damage, which necessitated full disclosure of CCTV and video footage. An undertaking was given by the father not to remove the child from the mother's care. Contact was to continue as per the recommendations of Birmingham Children's Trust, and an addendum child impact report ordered, in light of mother's allegations, the subsequent police investigation and the outcome of the MARAC on 6 February 2025. The father was directed to provide a position statement and to provide an update as to his attendance at the Building Better Relationships programme, an update from probation, and his response to the video evidence that had been provided.

It is noted that the respondent father has now been charged with three counts of criminal damage and three counts of harassment in breach of the restraining order. His original criminal trial was listed for 17 December 2025, just before this hearing. However, that has been postponed, and the new hearing date is now 12 May 2026.

By order of 12 August 2025 an extension was granted in relation to the police disclosure order, including the use of the father's mobile phone, for which permission was granted for an expert report to be filed as to the phone use and its location - such expert report, it was felt, being able to be provided from the criminal proceedings. At that hearing the matter was timetabled for a finding of fact hearing, and it was noted that the father had also applied for a non-molestation order himself in Coventry. At that stage little information had been provided in relation to that, other the fact that the proceedings in Coventry had consolidated those proceedings with these proceedings. There was a clear concern that no mention had been made of this previously within these proceedings.

In essence, this matter has been listed due to a number of incidents of criminal damage to motor vehicles owned by the mother's family or used by the mother's family, as well as their property, on 14 December 2024, 12 January 2025, 27 February 2025 and 15 March 2025. Mother also asserts that a person who attended her home on 11 April 2025 causing criminal damage was someone who is known to the father, although not the father himself.

It is fair to say that the mother does not agree with the recommendations in the child impact report as to the progression of contact. She feels that contact should remain professionally supervised. She cites that there have been incidents of vandalism to motor vehicles present at her family's property, for which the father has been arrested and charged, and that he is subject to bail conditions not to come within the vicinity of the home. On 1 March 2025 she says that the child would not get out of the car to attend contact, they were too distressed. She tried for 20 minutes but the child was inconsolable, and the contact centre staff agreed that contact should not proceed. She is concerned as to the impact of forcing contact for both her and the child. She proposes indirect contact only for a significant period of time.

The father has pleaded guilty to sending messages to the mother via Snapchat in 2023. He says that these were considered in the previous proceedings. He wishes to have a relationship with his daughter. The last contact he had was 1 February 2025. Contact had been cancelled on 15 February 2025 due to the child being unwell. On 1 March and 15 March, the child had been too distressed. He had been placed on police bail not to leave Coventry, which impacts on his contact. He denies all allegations of vandalising the motor vehicles owned by the mother's family, and breach of the non-molestation order and restraining order. He says the person identified in the CCTV footage is not him. The person is not visible. He says he has an alibi. Contact had previously progressed well following the final order made on 24 July 2024, with no concerns being identified. He says that when contact was due to progress, it was only then that the mother began to make false allegations. He does not accept that he does not have an established relationship with his daughter. He does not accept that contact is not in her best interests. He says there were no previous issues with contact, and it had been consistent. At the previous finding of fact hearing no findings were made against him, and the child has not been exposed to domestic abuse. His has undertaken work with probation, and he has no intention of removing the child from the jurisdiction as the mother alleges. He wishes for supervised contact to continue. He says that none of the videos clearly identify the perpetrator.

The child impact report recommended that the child contact continues to be supported under a child in need plan. There is no issue with regard to mother's care, but it cites the fact that at the time of the report there were two instances - 14 December 2024 and 12 January 2025, whereby the family’s car had been vandalised. At that point the father had seven supervised contacts, albeit it had not been regular, so the development of an establishment relationship was in its infancy. It recommends that contact needs to continue to be supervised to build a relationship over time. The report says that due to cost, the father can only afford to fund monthly contact, although the child needs more frequent contact, and perhaps shorter contact. It recommends that the frequency and consistency of contact should be increased, and remain in a supervised setting unless an agreed third-party supervisor can be put forward, so that the child can be more comfortable with the father and could then progress to the community, potentially weekly for one hour, for a period of three months, and then move to the community for four hours fortnightly and increase over time to overnight (no definitive time frame being set). It recommends the use of a parenting app and updates in relation to health, education, milestones and photographs.

A subsequent addendum child impact report sets out the further incidents of vandalism on 27 February 2025, with the father arrested on 1 March 2025, and again on 15 March 2025, with the father arrested again on 16 March 2025. He has now been charged.

The health visitor is reported to be concerned as to the emotional wellbeing of the child and the targeting of the family home, which appears to be increasing. At that stage mother was in safe accommodation.

The contact centre also reported concern that the child was presenting as very distressed, and if there were one more incident in relation to distress at contact, then contact should be stopped. It is noted that contact has not taken place since the preceding hearing.

The child impact report reports that father has not got an established bond with his daughter, who does not even refer to him as "daddy". In the previous two contacts the child refused to attend, but prior to then there had been no significant concerns. It goes on to state that direct contact is not in the child's best interests, due to the emotional impact on them, and recommends indirect contact only and monthly updates for a period of two years whilst work is undertaken as to the child's wishes and feelings. It recommends a prohibited steps order and a section 91(14) direction for two years.

The father criticises those recommendations on the basis that it pre-supposes that the father is the perpetrator of domestic abuse and fails to take into account the potential of alienating behaviours by the mother, and false allegations.

I have read the statement of the mother in relation to the allegations that she makes. All incidents have been taking place at her parents' home. There are five incidents which I am asked to consider: the incident of 14 December 2024, 12 January 2025, 27 February 2025, 15 March 2025 and 11 April 2025. She feels that the family is being targeted, as no such incidents have occurred before.

Allegation 1 relates to the incident on 14 December 2024. It refers to criminal damage to her mother's Motability vehicle. She suspects the respondent because she recognised him by his gait.

Allegation 2 is that of 12 January 2025. The perpetrator wore similar style attire and was the same person referred to in the first incident, and it happened following harassment, she says, from the father's sister in Pakistan, and verbal abuse via messages from her.

Allegation 3 relates an incident on 27 February 2025. Again, she refers to observing CCTV footage. She recognised again the respondent father by his appearance and his distinctive movements and gait. He was wearing the same clothes.

Allegation 4 relates to an incident on 15 March 2025. She says the perpetrator is the father because they were wearing the same joggers as the father did earlier in the day at contact.

Finally, allegation 5, refers to an incident on 11 April 2025 in relation to CCTV footage where she says the father's friend caused criminal damage to her parents' property, his face being partly visible. She gives a name of MI.

I have read the statement of the maternal grandfather. Again, he reiterates that all incidents referred to were captured on CCTV. He did not see the attacks on 14 December 2024, 12 January 2025 or 27 February 2025 or 11 April 2025, but he has seen them on CCTV. He says the height and build and movements of the perpetrator match those of the respondent father. In relation to the incident on 15 March 2025, allegation 4, he says that the perpetrator was dressed the same as in the previous attacks. He says he made eye contact with the perpetrator and is convinced that it was the father. He has no doubt. He says he has a distinctive run.

The maternal uncle has also filed a statement, although he did not give evidence in these proceedings. He too attests to the incident on 15 March 2025. Again, he says he recognised the respondent by his eyes, nose, moustache and height, build and gait.

The father in his statement accepts the breach of a non-molestation order in 2023. He sent Snapchats because he was missing his daughter, but he denies being responsible for any of the alleged incidents. He said he has nothing to gain by doing any of this. The person in the footage is not him. It is not distinct. He also denies that his sister has been harassing the applicant mother. He says the joggers that the mother refers to being worn earlier in the day is incorrect. He also says that he has alibi evidence in relation to the incident on 15 March. He says he does not know who MI is. He says that the attacker seems to be same person in allegation 5 as the other attacks because they were wearing the same clothing. He says the police have searched his address for the clothing that he was supposed to be wearing at the time but have been unable to locate them, particularly a puffer jacket. He says the police have taken his phone in order to undertake a location check in respect of the dates in question.

He has filed a witness statement from his friend, who asserts that he lived with the father for the month of March 2025, including 15 March, and can attest to his whereabouts on that occasion.

I have also had the opportunity of reading lengthy police disclosure, firstly in relation to the incident on 14 December 2024. There is also video evidence. I have seen it. A man walks up in a puffer jacket, smashes the rear window and then walks off. The footage does not show the face. The perpetrator is not able to be identified. There is no clear image, and they are wearing a long coat.

I have read the accompanying witness evidence which states that the father can be recognised by his gait, size and build, and the way in which he is smashing the front and back window with a hammer. The father of course denies that he is responsible.

The second incident is that of 12 January 2025. It refers to the father's sister making abusive calls via messages, followed up, the mother says, by the father coming to her address. She says that he drove up the road and flashed the car to see the damage he had caused earlier. I have seen the videos in relation to the damage. A person walks past, stops and looks - they are wearing a puffer jacket - and then proceeds to smash the window of the car and runs off. Both windows, back and front, were smashed with the use of an implement. A supporting statement says the mother was in the house at the time and heard two loud bangs and the sound of glass smashing. She says she saw the father walking away. This was the second occasion the car had been attacked. Again, she could not see his face because he was wearing a hoodie, and the footage is not clear, but she asserts the individual has the same size, build and walking style as the father. She saw him only for a few seconds. It was dark and only street lighting was available. Again, the father denies this.

The third incident is in relation to the incident on 27 February 2025. The mother asserts that the father used a vehicle, a white BMW-type vehicle, to transport him to the scene. There was further damage to the maternal grandmother's car. Again, the mother says she recognised the father by his gait and walking style. She is 100% certain with regards to that. I have viewed the footage. A person walks past - the suspect is not easily identifiable - and smashes the car window and runs off. He wears similar clothing as before.

I know from the police disclosure that a small hammer was seized on 1 March 2025 in a black bag from the father's property, but no puffer jacket was found. I also note that a neighbour saw a man fitting the father's description, but they were not prepared to provide a statement.

I note it was reported that in one of the incidents the suspect was on the phone, and therefore further analysis was needed. The father denied his involvement at the time when he was arrested.

The fourth incident was 15 March 2025. Prior to this the mother reported contact did not take place because her daughter did not want to go. She said she forewarned the police as to this, because she felt there were going to be repercussions. Witness statements report seeing the father running away, then coming back and the maternal grandfather chasing after him.

A witness statement from the maternal grandfather reports that he recognised the applicant father by his gait, and also, he was with his friend, the same one at the contact centre earlier.

I note the police call the mother made. In it she is extremely distressed. I have seen the videos. The identity of the cars referred to are not clear. There is a man in a puffer jacket, and then loud bangs. The perpetrator smashes the car window and runs off. A man comes out and looks. Again, the father denies the allegations, but of course he was arrested.

Then 11 April 2025. Damage is caused to property with an implement, the perpetrator is wearing a heavy-duty coat. The mother asserts that it is not the father but could be linked to him.

There is a further incident referred to on 29 April 2025. However, that particular incident is not pursued, although it is asserted the persons involved, though not the father, were his acquaintances. At that point the father was on tag.

To detract a little, it is appropriate for me to mention the non-molestation proceedings now brought by the applicant father. I note that a non-molestation order was made on 12 June 2025 without notice in relation to an incident which purportedly occurred on 10 June 2025. It has already expired. The mother herself has applied to revoke the order, and cross-alleges domestic abuse. As indicated, these proceedings were listed to be heard alongside the finding of fact hearing in relation to the children proceedings in Birmingham, the matter originally having been listed for a final hearing in Coventry.

In essence, the father alleges that on 10 June 2025 a man attended his home and was driving at high speed in a BMW towards him. He further alleges that the respondent mother attended his house with an unknown male who demanded he faces him like a man, whilst holding a knife.

I have read the supporting witness statements in relation to that, of which there are, in total, three. I have also read the responses, where the mother denies the allegations.

The mother raises questions as to why the allegations have not been referred to in the related Children Act proceedings and why the proceedings were issued in Coventry. Indeed, why, in the non-molestation proceedings, reference was not made to the allegations that the mother has made.

In essence, those non-molestation proceedings have not been the focus of the finding of fact hearing. However, given the fact that there have been no further incidents since the precipitating incident in June 2025, I determine that the application for a non-molestation order made by the father should be adjourned, with permission to restore the same and, if not restored by the date of the next hearing, should be treated as having been struck out, without further order of the court needed. I believe that is a proportionate way of dealing with matters, rather than determining the factual accuracy of what, is in effect, predominantly a side issue insofar as the proceedings today are concerned.

I think it is also worthy of note that prior to this hearing I received further extensive police disclosure.

In relation to allegation 4, 15 March 2025, there is a crime report from the maternal grandfather. He states that he saw the father's face from the bedroom window and recognised him clearly. He said he shouted that he had smashed the car and proceeded to chase him. He felt that his previous recognition of the father had been downplayed. He did not just recognise him by his body language, albeit the CCTV footage does not capture the suspect's face clearly and was not recorded in the paternal grandfather's first statement.

Of course, the clothing seen in the footage of 12 January 2025, 27 February 2025 and 15 March 2025 could not be obtained following a search of the home, albeit a hammer, as I have indicated, had been seized. The father maintained that it was used to hang paintings in his house. There is also extensive police disclosure in relation to the father’s allegations. I do not wish to deal at length with that.

I repeat that I have seen extensive video, and heard audio files, as well as body cam footage from the police, including the seizing of a small hammer and a black bag, albeit no puffer jacket. I have also listened to the police interviews, of which there are two, in relation to the father. I do not repeat that, as much of what is said has been set out extensively in the evidence already before this court.

I mentioned earlier the fact that there may be an expert report in relation to the father's phone locations from the criminal proceedings. There is no formal report, but there is mention of it in police disclosure which has not been used for the purposes of the criminal proceedings and was provided to me this morning.

There are two phones: one which has no data, and the other which states that the phone was not in the vicinity in relation to the incidents of 12 January, 27 February and indeed 15 March 2025, albeit it does go on to say that this does not undermine or indeed assist the case, and of course, was evidence which it was felt could not be used or would not be used in criminal proceedings.

In relation to the incident of 14 December 2024, it was put to her that the police had investigated this but could not identify the person in the video, despite their expertise; it took place at night, albeit there were street lights, and that the individual cannot be identified by their face as they were wearing a hood.

In relation to the incident of 12 January 2025, it was put to her that the father's vehicle did not move from Coventry and therefore it could not have been the father's car, which is indeed confirmed on the police disclosure material which says that the vehicle did not move from Coventry.

It was put to her that she cannot identify the implement used, or the face of the perpetrator. The footage is black and white; there is limited lighting and the individual was wearing a hood obscuring his face.

She was challenged in relation to some inconsistencies in her evidence, in as much as in her witness statement she asserted she did not see the individual other than through the door cam, but in the police evidence she says otherwise, and responded that she saw the individual from the window first and then checked the footage.

It was put to her that she cannot identify the perpetrator. She disputed that. She said she could identify him by the way he walks and the way he was using the implement causing the damage. She also said that earlier in the day she had been sent abusive messages from his sister. She was challenged, however, that there is no evidence in the paperwork as to these messages. She was also challenged about the slight differences in what was purportedly said by the sister.

In relation to the allegation on 27 February 2025, she said in her witness statement to the police that the perpetrator wore the same clothing as before and the same style of walking, as well as the way he attacked the car, which she said is the way he had attacked her before. She was challenged in relation to that because in the previous finding of fact hearing no allegations were proven. She was challenged that the perpetrator had a long coat and the hood was up, and their face was obscured. It was put to her that she herself had not witnessed it in person, it was at night, with vision partly obscured by another vehicle. It was put to her that there was no evidence to suggest that it was the father. She said she identified him by his running style.

In relation to the 15 March 2025 incident, again she was challenged that she could not see his face.

In relation to the incident in April 2025, it was put to her that both her mother and her screamed, but there was no noise in the earlier March video. She responded that the top window was open so it would be picked up by the door cam. She was challenged again that the perpetrator could not be identified, vision was partially obscured by a car, and it was quite a distance from the house. Again, she reiterated she recognised it was the father by his walking and running style.

In relation to the incident on 11 April 2025, she accepted that this was not the father. Reference was made to the recital to my order of 12 August 2024 in that respect. It was put to her that there was no evidence that this person had been known to the father at all. She responded that they are part of an organised gang smashing wives' cars. She was challenged that all this had been made up when contact was due to progress from December 2024. Prior to then, there were no incidents, and that she is using these incidents to prevent the progression of contact.

With regard to the gait of the father, she was challenged that there was no expert forensic evidence in relation to this, or analysis. It was put to her that the movement of hitting a vehicle with a hammer is different from throwing a cricket ball, which she used to identify as one of the facets of identifying the father for the incident. It was put to her that there was no unusual walking style, but she stated she recognised his walk from when she had known him. It was put to her that they had only been together for seven months and had been separated for three years. It was put to her that the individual was wearing a long-padded coat buttoned up and therefore that would restrict their stride as well as obscuring their build, and that clearly, she cannot be sure it is the father. Furthermore, the coat has not been recovered, despite a police search. The mother retorted that they could not search his car. Again, she was challenged that the car had not been moved from Coventry. It was put to her that she has a closed mind and blames the father, and her views are coloured by her views of him.

She was challenged that there is no evidence of CCTV footage from the contact centre as to the father's attire matching the attack in the evening. There is nothing in the recordings to link the father apart from what she says about the way he swings the hammer and walks and runs.

In relation to allegation 4, she states that she forewarned the police that something was going to happen, yet the police disclosure is silent with regard to this. She was challenged in relation to the incident on 29 April 2025, where it appears that the screaming started before the actual damage was done. She responded that the maternal grandmother was stood by the window, keeping a lookout. They had set up a rota. On seeing him, she screamed to warn him off. The mother was in the next room, and then she too screamed, although she could not see the incident. (It is worthy of note that this was past midnight) She was challenged that in a police witness statement she said that she did see this, and then screamed. She responded that the incidents all began to merge.

The mother asserts that she is sure that the father has carried out all these attacks. On 15 March 2025 she was 100% sure of it because of his anger at the contact centre, and he has targeted her car and the maternal grandmother's car, as he believes the maternal grandmother is controlling her. She was challenged as to why the father would risk deportation and not seeing his child by doing this. She responded that the father has breached the non-molestation order before.

He reports that he stayed with the father from approximately 2 March until the end of March 2025. It was him and his wife and the father in a one-bedroom property. It had a living room and one bedroom. He said he had accommodation issues and the father offered for him to stay. He was challenged that the police search on 1 March 2025 as per the video showed no bags in the bedroom, and it was a search undertaken at ten o'clock at night. He says he might have been confused with the date that he had moved in. It was put to him that when the father was arrested on 16 March and no reference was made as to anyone being at the property. He says that he was at work, although his wife was at home. Again, he was challenged that at no point was it mentioned that anyone else was in the home in any of the police evidence. He later asserted that he subsequently gave a statement to the police, albeit again there is nothing in the bundle relating to this. He also reports that the police asked him about a jacket at a further search when it was just him and his wife at the property. Again, there is no footage or evidence of such a later search.

His attention was drawn to a photograph of a blue Jaguar car outside the contact centre. He said it was a friend's car. He was challenged that when the police searched his property, they found a hammer in a black bag with nails. He said he uses this for putting up pictures. He borrowed it from a friend. His friend gave it to him in a black bag with some nails. He cannot recall the date his friend moved in, but he was advised by police to arrange for someone to move in to provide a potential alibi. He had a previous mobile phone but that was changed. He cannot recall the exact date. He said it was in January 2025.

He was asked questions about an alleged friend called MI. He says that he knows a number of people with that name. I asked him how many. He was unable to give a number. I asked how many he knew locally and reasonably well. Again, he was unable to provide a definitive answer with regards to that.

It was put to him that on 11 April 2025 his friends went to where the mother was staying, and damaged the property on his instructions. He denied that.

It was put to him that in 2022 he was subject to a non-molestation order, for which he was sentenced for two breaches. It was put to him that only two days after that, contact was cancelled due to purported uncertainty in relation to the terms of the restraining order. It was put to him that on 9 November 2024 he sent red roses to the mother, via the contact centre staff. The father responded that these were not for the mother, they were sent for the child. He was challenged with regard to that, as the child would only be two years old at the time. It was put to him that he was warned about not sending any further gifts via the contact centre staff. Further contact was cancelled due to the child having a virus. It was put to him that therefore there was factual chronology leading up to the incident in December 2024, namely, his conviction, cancellation of two contact sessions, the police speaking to him about the flowers he had sent, and that he must have felt all this frustrating. He said no but he was upset. It was put to him that he then went to the wife's property on 14 December 2024 and he damaged her car. He said that was not true.

On 11 January 2025, it was put to him, the maternal grandmother took the child to contact for the first time. He said he was usually in the contact centre itself at the time so he would not have known who brought the child. He denies he does not like the maternal grandmother. It was put to him that the following day, 12 January, he again damaged the car in the early hours. He denied that. It was put to him that he used a white BMW as a getaway car, which was owned by his friend. He denied that. It was put to him that later on in the small hours he drove his vehicle past the mother's house again, flashing his headlights and driving off at speed. He denied that.

In relation to the incident on 27 February 2025, it was put to him that prior to this date the child refused to have contact with him. He denied that it made him feel frustrated. The child's reaction was understandable, he says. It was put to him that he went to the property and struck the car with an implement similar to a hammer. He was seen by the maternal grandfather. He denied ever being there. It was put to him that the police attended his property on 1 March 2025 and found a hammer in a black bag in the living room drawer. It was put to him that it was not normal to keep a hammer in a black bag in a living room drawer, as opposed to a utility room, for example. He said he had recently used it in the living room.

I queried whether or not there were any pictures in the house from the body cam footage. He indicated there were paintings in the hallway.

It was put to him that contact again did not take place on 1 March 2025 and he was subsequently arrested. This would have caused him further frustration. He said he was upset but this was not the first time that this had happened.

On 15 March 2025 contact again was cancelled. It was put to him that the mother felt intimidated by the father's friend in his car. He denies that he would not have felt frustrated nor angry. It was put to him that following on from that, on 16 March 2025, he attended the mother's house again in the early hours. He denied that. It was put to him that the attacks followed a chronology of events that made him upset. He responded: why would he do such a thing? He believes that it is the mother and her family who have organised this to affect his contact and get him deported, or someone else with a grudge against them. He said everybody is blaming him.

It was put to the father that, notwithstanding this, contact had continued post these incidents and therefore: why did the mother continue to take the child to contact? He responded that the majority of contacts were either cancelled or did not take place. It was put to him that the MARAC says that mum is at high risk of domestic abuse, so she could have stopped contact on those grounds alone.

It was put to him that the fact that he had breached a non-molestation order previously clearly shows he is capable of acting without regard to the law. He denied that.

He was challenged as to what reason would the mother have to damage her own company car and her brother's Motability vehicle, which was used by her mother. He responded that these would be covered by insurance. The main aim would be to get him deported and therefore was worth the risk.

He was asked about the effects of the attacks on him and his family. He said they were very distressing and upsetting. The family had been traumatised. He stated that there is no reason for anyone to attack their property. It is only their property that is being targeted, none of the neighbours were. He says he saw the incident on 15 March 2025. He chased the attacker and followed him for about five to ten minutes. He checked with neighbours also to see if they saw anyone.

He denies disliking the father. He said he lived in their house for several months - six to twelve months. They played cricket together for a considerable period the time.

He was challenged in relation to the incident on 15 December 2024, to the effect that the police had investigated this and yet the perpetrator was unable to be identified; the incidents occurred at night; there were poor lighting conditions; the perpetrator was wearing a long-hooded coat with the hood up, the face not being visible. He responded he could recognise the father by his movements. He was walking in short strides. It was put to him that the individual was wearing a long coat zipped up and that this would have restricted his movements. It was put to him that he only saw the CCTV footage and so cannot be sure it was him. He responded he was 100% sure.

In relation to the January 2025 incident, it was put to him that this was night time and there was limited lighting. He said he could still recognise the father by his movements. He was challenged that he was wearing a coat with the hood up and that his face would have been obscured. He was challenged that he could not say that it is the father purely by his gait. He responded that his gait is unique.

With regard to the February 2025 incident, again it took place at night. The individual was wearing a long coat again with the hood up and the face obscured. The incident had taken place, as had others, at a distance.

In relation to the March 2025 incident, when shown the video, the maternal grandfather says that the father looks up. He saw his eyes. He was viewing it from the bedroom window. He was challenged that it would have been dark. He was also challenged about correcting his previous police statement to say that he made eye contact, albeit this was not mentioned in the first statement, and the footage does not capture the face clearly. He indicated he also recognised the perpetrator by the actions in hitting with the hammer in the same way as throwing a cricket ball. He was challenged with regard to this, as to the difference between the two, and also the fact that his movements had been restricted by his coat. He was challenged that if he shouted at him, why this could not be heard in the footage. He said the window was not open. He was challenged that there are no distinguishing gait or features as to the perpetrator’s body language.

He was challenged that the person on 11 April 2025 appeared to be wearing the same coat, albeit it was not the same person.

He said he was a cricket coach, including coaching the father, and that involved scrutiny of his movements, including bowling actions.

It is contended the issue before the court is the extent (if any) of the father's involvement in the five incidents referred to. It is contended that the father was evasive in answering questions in respect of the person named MI, which is contradictory in relation to his evidence and that which was recorded in a previous order of 12 August 2025. It is contended there is a connection between certain events which would make the father angry and the consequential attacks. There is no evidence of a vendetta from third parties against the family, and it is incredulous that the mother's own family would carry out the damage themselves so as to implicate the father.

In relation to identification evidence, it is accepted that the court cannot utilise similar approaches to evidence in criminal proceedings in family proceedings, but the nearest example in relation to similar treatment is that relating to unknown perpetrator cases in care proceedings. The civil burden of proof applies on the basis of an holistic analysis of all the evidence before the court. The father has both motive and indeed a weapon was found, and that the father's friend's evidence should be regarded as largely unreliable.

The burden of proof falls on the mother, which she has failed to establish. There is no cogent evidence linking him to the incidents; it is mere suspicion and speculation. No puffer jacket was found, although a hammer was. There was limited attempt to hide the same, and it is circumstantial only and there is no forensic evidence linking it to the incidents. The comments with regard to body movement and gait is opinion evidence and there is no expert evidence, including similar height vis-à-vis comparison when compared with the vehicle being damaged. The footage does not assist in identification. It is contended that both the mother and the maternal grandfather suffer from confirmation bias. Overall, the father would be exposing himself to significant risk by undertaking these actions, including potential deportation.

The standard of proof, which applies to all finding of fact hearings, is the balance of probabilities test, the burden of proof lying on the party making the allegations. Neither the seriousness of the allegations nor the seriousness of the consequences makes a difference. The inherent probabilities are simply something to take into account in deciding where the truth lies.

Any findings made must be established on the evidence available to the court, including inferences that may be properly drawn from that evidence, and not on suspicion or speculation. The court has to take account of all the evidence taken as a whole; it cannot be evaluated and assessed in separate compartments. It is necessary to have regard to the relevance of each piece of evidence in relation to other pieces of evidence, and to exercise an overview of the totality of the evidence in order to determine whether the appropriate standard of proof has been met. To that extent, the evidence of the parties is of utmost importance. Sometimes the burden of proof will come to the judge's rescue: the party with the burden of showing that something took place will not have satisfied them that it did. But, generally speaking, a judge ought to be able to make up their mind where the truth lies without needing to rely upon the burden of proof.

A simple balance of probabilities is the test for the identification of a perpetrator. There are cases where the judge might find this difficult, and they are under no obligation to do so if they cannot.

I also remind myself that it is common for witnesses to sometimes tell lies in the course of a fact-finding hearing. However, the court must be astute to the fact that a witness may lie for many reasons concerning the future upbringing of a child. The fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that they have lied about everything.

On the occasion of a fact-finding hearing, a judge does not necessarily have to deal with each and every inconsistency or conflict of evidence specifically or give lengthy reasons for their conclusions. Sometimes it can be difficult to articulate exactly why one witness is preferred to another. A court simply has to do their best to put into words the impression which they have been left with at the end of a hearing. Discrepancies in evidence of eyewitnesses, after all, are to be expected and are part and parcel of litigation.

The court is also not bound by the cases put forward by the parties but can adopt an alternative solution of its own. Judges are entitled, where the evidence justifies it, to make findings of fact that have not been sought by the parties, but they should be cautious when doing so.

In relation to the mother's evidence, I note the following in relation to allegation 2. There is no evidence provided of the threats made by the father's sister.

In relation to allegation 4, there is no footage available from the contact centre as to similar attire worn by the father earlier on in the day. The mother says she had forewarned the police on the day of a potential incident, but there is no evidence as to this in the police disclosure, or any comment as to the behaviour and emotional dysregulation of the father at the contact centre.

In relation to allegation 5, the mother accepts that this is not the father, and there is insufficient evidence that that person is known to the father.

I note that the puffer jacket has not been recovered despite the police search, albeit a hammer has.

The majority, if not all, the evidence linking the father to these incidents, as far as the mother's evidence is concerned, relates to father's body mannerisms rather than direct identification.

In relation to the father's witness, I have a number of issues with his evidence. He is unclear as to the date he actually moved in. There is a lack of evidence suggestive of any occupation by him at the father's property within the police evidence, including lack of any statement he says he gave or a record of a further search after that of 1 March 2025 in the extensive police evidence that I have seen. In my view, his evidence raises more questions than answers, and I do not regard him as a reliable witness in relation to pinpointing particularly father's whereabouts during March 2025.

In relation to the father's evidence, I found the father was evasive as to the identity of the acquaintance called MI. In his evidence he admits he knows a number of people with that name but, despite prodding, is unable to give a clear and concise answer as to those he considered friends or indeed acquaintances.

His evidence that the roses he sent on 9 November 2024, via contact staff, were for the child, who would be then aged two, in breach of a restraining order, I find, frankly, implausible. It is bizarre, in my view, that a child aged two would be sent red roses.

In his evidence I find that he downplays the potential effects on him of contact not taking place, and there does appear to be a pattern or link between incidents that have taken place and prior incidents which would have led to the father feeling a sense of grievance. His suggestion that these incidents of criminal damage were organised by mother's own family so as to imperil his contact and get him deported, I find an extreme action and lacking in credibility. It is tantamount to suggesting that the wife's own family would damage two of their vehicles, including their own property. I find that there is no evidence at all to suggest there is a grudge against the family. Indeed, the police are only pursuing the father, following an extensive investigation.

With regard to the maternal grandfather's evidence, I accept that it is clear that it is their property, and their property only, that has been targeted by these attacks. As indicated, there is no evidence of any vendetta against the family from a third party. However, I do not accept that the maternal grandfather can positively identify the father as perpetrator, particularly in what he says in relation to the video footage of 15 March 2025. The footage is at a distance. It does not capture the perpetrator's face clearly. It is dark. To say that he could recognise the perpetrator's eyes as being the father’s from a closed bedroom window is simply not credible.

In general, I accept the puffer jacket was not found in the father's possession, and although the hammer was, that may be circumstantial, and of course there is no forensic test linking the hammer to the damage caused.

Evidence of gait and body language is opinion evidence only and, as I say, there is no expert evidence as to the perpetrator's height when compared, for example, to the vehicles being damaged when he is in the process of damaging them, in order to provide a definitive answer in relation to that.

In my view, the video footage is proof as to the acts but not of the actual identity of the perpetrator, and therefore that solely by themselves they cannot be used in order to establish guilt.

I accept that the mother and the maternal grandfather have concluded that there is a link between the incidents and the father, as there is no one else, as far as they are concerned, in the frame, so to speak. But the identity of body language in order to secure their convictions, I do not believe can be relied upon.

Having said that, taking the evidence as a whole, including the evidence that I have read, the videos that I have seen, the evidence that I have heard and analysed, I do find that in relation to allegations 1 to 4, that these incidents were carried out either by the father or an unknown person under the father's instruction.

I also find that the incident on 11 April 2025, although not undertaken by the father himself, was undertaken by an unknown person under the father's instruction.

I make those findings on the balance of probabilities - in other words, more likely than not. The civil burden of proof is nothing like the criminal standard, where of course it has to be beyond reasonable doubt, i.e. the court is satisfied so that it is sure. But in the particular circumstances of this case and the dynamics of this case and having regard to the whole of the evidence - and I make no bones about it, this is a difficult case - I find that it is more likely than not that the father undertook these acts due to his frustrations in relation to the progression of contact, or instructed others to do so on his behalf. Those are my findings and the reasons for them.

The father seeks to appeal my decision on the basis of the fact that I reached my decision solely on the basis of motive. That could not be further from the truth.

As I have indicated in relation to the father's evidence, there were a number of concerning points: his evasiveness in relation to the individual called MI; the fact that he has already broken a non-molestation order previously, and then sent flowers, which I find were to the mother, again in breach of a restraining order; his underplaying as to the effects and frustration felt by him in relation to contact not progressing and in fact ceasing; his suggestion (without a shred of evidence) that somehow the mother has conspired with her family to cause damage to their own vehicles and their own cars, or, alternatively, that there is a grudge against them by unknown third parties, where there is no shred of evidence.

All this, in my view, leads me, on the balance of probabilities, to the conclusion that it is more likely than not that it is the father who is responsible for these incidents, either by himself or, as I have indicated, through unknown third parties.

Permission to appeal will be granted in cases where an appeal would have a real prospect of success, or there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.

"Real" means realistic rather than fanciful, for example:

For the reasons that I have set out, I am of the view that there is no realistic prospect of success in relation to the appeal or indeed some other compelling reason why an appeal should be allowed, and therefore permission to appeal is refused.