D v E (Findings of Domestic Abuse)

This is my fact finding judgment in respect of cross allegations of domestic abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour made by and against each of the parents of CDE, who was born in 2019 and is now six. The order in which I present information in this judgment does not reflect the order in which I have dealt with matters. I have simply organised the information in a way which I hope will assist the reader to make sense of my conclusions.

C lives with her mother, Ms C, and has done so since shortly after her parents’ separation in spring 2024 following a police call out to the family home. The father, Mr D, currently has supervised contact in a contact centre which everyone agrees is going well and is enjoyed by the child, and video contact once or twice a week, which is more contentious and somewhat more problematic. Mr D also seeks either equal shared custody or sole custody of C (both have been proposed) and disputes the need for supervision of his contact to his daughter.

Following the commencement of proceedings in September 2024, Cafcass filed a safeguarding letter, recommending a fact finding hearing in light of the ‘very worrying’ allegations. They did not support any contact other than supervised contact due to ‘concerns raised by Ms C that Mr D may pressurise C, undermine her parenting and may make further allegations about her parenting.’ They did not support video contacts continuing at all during the interim because of ‘the potential for these to enable further dynamics of coercion and control taking place within the family home’. Subsequently therefore, the previously agreed supported contact arrangements changed to supervised. However, departing from the recommendations of Cafcass, the video called contact was directed to continue. In April a judge directed that that contact should be recorded via zoom. In July I was persuaded, just, to leave that established video contact in place until this hearing, in part because the mother agreed to it continuing on Saturdays, objecting only to the more problematic Wednesday contacts. My order of 7 July 2025 recorded:

This fact finding hearing was listed because the court considered that the allegations would likely bear upon final welfare orders, and pursuant to the guidance set out in Practice Direction 12J. My first involvement was on 7 July 2025 when the fact finding hearing was listed before me with a time estimate of three days. I took a case management decision on that date at the hearing was not ready to proceed because the ‘striking out’ of key matters and the exclusion of exhibit evidence meant that I would struggle to make sense of the allegations of coercive and controlling behaviour that remained. Pursuant to my directions, the matter has come back with allegations reinstated and the exhibit evidence before the court. Although, as the author of my own misfortune, the evidence has been unwieldy and difficult to navigate, it is my view, standing back at the conclusion of the evidence and submissions, that my decision has been vindicated. Considering the broad sweep of written, video and oral evidence which I have been presented with, my conclusions are that there has been a pattern of seriously harmful coercive and controlling behaviour by the father towards the mother over a sustained period, and the corroborating exhibit evidence has been of material assistance to me in my evaluation of the evidence of the two witnesses, namely the mother and the father.

At this hearing the mother has been represented by counsel Mr Blount, as she was in July. The father appeared in person at this hearing, as a result of a late withdrawal by his instructed direct access counsel for medical reasons. This meant that the back up directions I had made for the appointment of a QLR were triggered, but regrettably no QLR could be found. Pursuant to directions I had also made (anticipating difficulties with finding a QLR), the father lodged his written questions in advance of this hearing, and they were put, where appropriate, to the mother by me. Those questions were detailed and extensive, running to 36 pages of single spaced questions, including the index. I also permitted the father to submit follow up questions arising from the mother's answers to questions, although I disallowed the majority of those questions as repeating points that had already been dealt with in the questions I had posed. Whilst I rephrased some of the father’s questions for ease of understanding and clarity, and struck through any questions which amounted to duplication, the substantial majority of the father’s questions were put. The mother was in the witness box from 2:00pm on day one until the end of day 2. I am quite satisfied that the father has had ample opportunity for his challenges to the mother's case to be put to her, and that the process I have adopted has been fair to both parties.

The father was in the witness box for the majority of day three, and having indicated to the parties the day before that it was my intention to take submissions on day three if possible, we were able to deal with submissions in the same day. To assist the father Mr Blount went first, and the father was given a short break to gather his thoughts. Both sets of submissions took 30 minutes. Mr D’s submissions were clear and articulate, and where a helpful summary of his perspective on the case and the evidence - as indeed with those on behalf of the mother.

Both parties have behaved with courtesy and respect throughout this hearing, and I am grateful to them, to Mr D’s McKenzie friend, and particularly to Mr Blount for their assistance in achieving the aim of fairly concluding this hearing within the allotted time estimate.

I have read all of the papers provided to me and considered all of the video material. That includes:

I have in mind at all times the definitions of coercive and controlling behaviour and domestic abuse set out in Practice Direction 12J and the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. I have conducted this hearing with regard to the framework centre in that practise direction and appropriate participation directions to have been put in place in light of the parties’ respective vulnerabilities, namely screens breaks when needed, and the assistance of a McKenzie friend.

In light of the sensitive nature of the subject matter, I took the decision to consolidate all of the father’s questions on sexual matters into one ‘chunk’ rather than featuring at several points in the list of questions as they did originally. In considering which questions to pose and which to adjust or disregard I had closely in mind the need to ensure that the questioning was relevant, but that the father's legitimate challenges were able to be put, and the need to ensure that the amount of questioning was not oppressive or disproportionate. It was not an easy balance to strike.

I have in mind the key authorities in relation to domestic abuse specifically, such as Re H-N and Ors (children) (domestic abuse: finding of fact hearings) [2021] EWCA Civ 448.

I also have in mind the guidance that I should steer clear of criminal concepts or terminology around sexual assault, rape. In this case although the word ‘rape’ was used by the police initially, the allegations have been presented as more generic allegations of ‘sexual abuse’, incorporating the use of excessive force and coerced consent and pressure, which has to be seen in the context of the broader alleged pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour.

The burden of proof is on the party making the allegation and the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities – where a party has persuaded me that their allegation is more likely than not to be true then I must make the finding. Otherwise, I must make a nil finding on that allegation.

I must look at all the evidence on its own merits and in the round, and I must likewise consider each allegation on its own merits but also in the broader context in which it sits, particularly in light of the allegations of coercive and controlling behaviour.

I have been reminded of the guidance around lies as set out in R v Lucas [1981] QB 720. In this case it has been particularly important to consider this issue, because the evidence reveals (and the mother candidly accepts) that the mother has previously told lies about the abuse that she now says was a feature of the relationship, in order to put social services off the scent due to her fear of the consequences of their involvement. The clearest example of her ability to present an untrue and yet convincing narrative, is in her 2021 complaint to social services, in which she forcefully argues for adjustments to their report based on what says were misreports or misunderstandings about both her relationship with the father and her previous relationship with the father of her older children. Given that the mother now asks me to accept that her previous accounts denying abuse (or minimising the extent and nature of it) were untrue, and to rely instead on her subsequent accounts of really serious abuse both at the time of the 2021 Social Services involvement and since, and given that the father says the mother’s allegations now have been entirely fabricated over a number of years, I have had to carefully consider the reasons for the lies she (says she) told in 2021 and the reliability of her evidence to this court.

Both parents in this case are articulate and intelligent and are able to present well. I have had to be particularly cautious both about the parents’ demeanour and their evident linguistic ability. Whilst the father at times sought to fall back on the fact that English is not his first language, he has been living and working in English speaking countries for more than 15 years, and I am very clear that although he retains an accent he is thoroughly fluent in English, and I did not accept his protestations that he did not appreciate the meaning of particular words.

The mother is white British and she has 2 older boys, now of secondary school age, from her previous relationship. The mother says that this relationship was abusive and that the father of the boys had drug and alcohol problems. One of the boys is autistic. The boys have not had regular contact with their father until recently, and both the mother and the boy’s father say that this is in large part due to the father’s own difficulties in previous years. The mother tells me that contact resumed when the boys father contacted her to check if she was ok, having received communications from Mr D. The contact the boys have with their father is relatively infrequent, is attended by the mother and paternal grandparents (and C) and usually takes place in a park. It is said that the father of the boys is in a better place now than he was. I have a letter from him acknowledging his part in the lack of contact over the years. The mother had a fledgling business when she met the father, which continued through the relationship, but which she was unable to maintain on separation. It is clear that the issue of the mother’s working hours was a source of tension during the relationship. I have seen photographs of the work she produced and heard her talk with pride about this creative outlet and business. The mother was tearful when talking about the loss of her business, and in response to the father’s complaint that these exhibits were ‘irrelevant’ she said ‘the pictures are not frivolous’ and ‘I could have been something’.

The father is originally from Country B, but has lived in this country for over 11 years, living in Country C for several years prior to that. When the parties got together he did not have settled status, but during the course of the relationship he completed an MBA and the mother supported him with his visa applications. C is his first child as far as I am aware. His brother lives in the UK but his father remains in [country B], with other family in [Country C]. He has regular telephone contact with his family and appears to be particularly close to his brother. When the parties got together Mr D became a father figure to the boys and remained so until separation.

C was born in early 2019 and so was still a baby when the pandemic began. In early 2020, when the father was looking after the children as she attended her grandparents’ funeral, the mother says that the father kicked the family cat across the room in the presence of the children, causing them upset. The cat was later rehomed by the mother, she says for its own safety. He also, says the mother, repeatedly told the children ‘fuck your mummy’. The father denies these allegations.

In the summer of 2021 the mother made a 999 call during an argument because she says the father refused to let her have C and she was fearful he would take her away. Some days previously there had been an incident when shoes were thrown (the father says tossed) down the stairs whilst the mother was on the stairs with C.

Following this incident social services became involved. The parents, fronted by the mother, appear to have presented their difficulties as primarily around communication, and persuaded social services that they were working on these issues by seeking couples counselling. Following a single assessment, their involvement ended. The mother alleges that the father threatened to kill himself by driving his car off the road and that he blamed her for the involvement of social services, telling her that he would lose his job and the family would be left destitute. She says this is the backdrop to her efforts to smooth things over with social services. The father denies this.

From about April 2022 onwards the mother was suffering intermittently with a painful perineal tear, which was caused by intercourse with the father. There is no dispute that this tear existed or that it continued to be a problem for the mother, and medical evidence confirms that. The mother says that it resulted from excessive force during sex, and was re-torn repeatedly as a result of sex with the father, and that he would not adapt positions or approach to intercourse so as to minimise pain and tearing. She describes several specific incidents of intercourse up to and including a date in early 2024, where sexual intercourse cause her extreme pain and discomfort. The mother’s complaint of sexually inappropriate behaviour were first made in the wake of the police callout on a date in early 2024, in response to DASH questions, and subsequently in a VRI. Whilst initially classed as a rape allegation, on review by a RASSO lawyer the CPS decided to take no action on the rape allegation, due to a lack of clear evidence of a lack of consent, instead seeing the sexual behaviour as part of the pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour that they were then investigating [A132-3 supplemental bundle]. Subsequently, however, that CCB investigation was also dropped.

In December 2022 there was an incident during which the hoover was broken. The mother says the father threw it down the stairs in anger. The father’s account is quite different. The children were present.

In 2023 C underwent surgery on her ear and adenoids. There was a dispute about this surgery that emerged on the morning of it, during which the mother says the father was abusive to her and unsettled C, resulting in C not being given the optimal treatment.

In early 2024 the police were called by the father, who complained his wife was being ‘aggressive’ and ‘demanding to leave with the kids’. He also complained that there had been an incident the day before when the mother had twisted C’s arm, causing her pain. The mother denies this. The police spoke to both parents separately. Both complained the other was behaving in a controlling manner. Regrettably, the police spoke to the father and obtained an account about the alleged assault on C by the mother in C’s presence, before going on to ask her to confirm her father’s account separately in the adjoining room (with the sliding door between them still open). C confirmed that mummy had twisted her arm and it hurt. She said she did not want to go to nanny’s with her mum. The police arranged for the mother to leave with the boys, and for C to remain with her father.

Two days later the father took C to the GP about her arm, as a result of which she underwent an xray. No injuries were noted.

Three days after that the father was arrested in relation to the mother’s allegations. He was interviewed and bailed. This marks the parents’ separation. At around the same time the mother posted on Facebook to her friends to the effect that D and her had separated, he had been arrested and bailed not to come near her or the children. She says this was in a misguided attempt to quell misinformation and gossip propagated by the father. The father characterises this as an attempt at public humiliation and an example of abusive behaviour and he seeks a finding of ‘public shame’ in respect of it. The bare facts of the posting are not in dispute. The mother’s complaint in oral evidence about seeking to correct false information spread by the father was not put to him. I don’t consider it appropriate or necessary to go beyond the mother’s concession that this was probably ill advised.

Following the end of the father’s bail conditions, contact took place in summer 2024. Initially it was set up by the mother to take place in the community but subsequently moved to a contact centre. In September 2024 the father made his application, and as a result of Cafcass intervention contact moved to supervised. After four sessions the contact appears to have automatically reverted to supported in line with the Centre’s policy, but on Cafcass’ further intervention supervision was again reinstated.

Financial remedy proceedings began probably around early 2025 and are ongoing, with an FDR scheduled for October. Before me the father complained that the mother had stopped using AppClose to communicate about C, which she said was because the father persisted in attempting to serve his financial disclosure through the app, contrary to the court’s order. The father complained in response that the mother was in breach of the court’s order for financial disclosure, because she had nominated a third party’s email address which was not permitted, and he was unhappy about sending his financial information to a third party (a relative of the mother’s). The FR order in question states simply that the mother is to nominate an email address through which to receive disclosure. There is no restriction on the email address to be nominated, and service by AppClose is not provided for.

The parents disagree about appropriate parenting techniques, discipline and boundaries. The mother sought to encourage a bedtime routine and for C to sleep in her own bed, but in fact she often slept in the bed or on the sofa bed with her father. The mother sought to implement a naughty step, but the father did not approve. The mother says that he refused to impose any boundaries on C, in contrast to the rules that applied to the boys, creating tensions within the family and between the siblings and unchecked, inappropriate behaviour by C. The mother raises one incident in September 2023 where she says C became violent, with the father laughing and telling C she could do whatever she wanted. The father denies this.

In addition, there are other more generalised allegations which I will deal with as I make my findings.

In general, the father’s allegations mirror the mothers in that where she alleges an example of abusive or controlling behaviour the father says it is fabricated or exaggerated as part of an orchestrated campaign by the mother and her own mother to oust him from the home and his daughter’s life.

The mother’s evidence was consistent with her written evidence, was detailed and was coherent. She was distressed at points, but I consider did her best to recall events accurately, correcting herself where appropriate (for example in relation to one obvious dating error). She was able to explain the emotional landscape in which she and the children were operating over time in a way which made sense and fitted with the objective contemporaneous evidence, and showed some ability to be reflective about the nature of the difficulties in the relationship. She was clear about the reasons for her approach to those problems over time, the efforts she had made to salvage the family unit and her evolving appreciation of the reality that she was in an abusive relationship and that she needed to make a safe exit plan because of the harm it was doing to the children.

The mother’s description of C and of her presentation during video contact was broadly in line with my observations of the video contact.

The father’s evidence was difficult to follow in places. At times he found it difficult to answer the question directly, without reverting to making a point of criticism about the mother. His answers often needed considerable attempts at clarification by either Mr Blount or myself, and on some key points remained ambiguous or difficult to understand (around what happened to the shoes, the hoover and his position on reports by the boys about his behaviour). I bear in mind that Mr D is a litigant in person and thus without the support and guidance of a lawyer to explain the evidential process, at least at this hearing. Nonetheless the internal logic of the father’s position was difficult to understand:

As with the mother, there was no hint of angry behaviour by the father during his evidence, but again, I would not necessarily have expected to see such behaviour in the witness box, even when being asked questions by counsel. At times the father was appropriately upset, at other times he laughed as if to scoff at the ridiculousness of the question or the instructions behind it. Mr D’s descriptions of the mother’s angry behaviour were thin and lacked detail.

Strikingly, although his allegations of coercive and controlling behaviour were in very similar ‘mirrored’ terms to those made by the mother, I could not discern any real appreciation of the effects of coercive and controlling behaviour – indeed Mr D was unable even on prompting to acknowledge the relevance of the mother’s allegations to his relationship with his daughter, if true. Even allowing for the difficulty some people have of a hypothetical scenario, the father seemed quite unable to connect either his own allegations or the mothers as potentially relevant to the court’s welfare decisions, saying that he didn’t understand why a fact finding hearing was needed at all and that nobody had told him any safeguarding reasons for his contact needing to be supervised (in the interim).

Where the father did raise concerns about C’s wellbeing and the mother’s care it was in relation to her parenting techniques and protective capacity rather than her abusive behaviour (twisting of the arm, reintroduction of the boys’ father and recently a graze to the back sustained whilst in the mother’s care). Having listened to his evidence, there was a strong sense of the father’s allegations being a response to those made by the mother, rather than being pursued because of their relevance to C’s safety and wellbeing.

The father’s description of C and of her presentation during video contact was markedly different from my observations of the video contact. His tabulated summary of those contact sessions did not always correspond with the videos I have seen. The father’s behaviour on those videos, his responses in evidence - in particular his interpretation of correspondence from the mother’s lawyer as using contact to leverage discussions about finances, which was completely incompatible with the words on the page – made me think that his perception of events is sometimes distorted or unreliable.

I will deal first with the specific incidents that the parties rely upon, before looking at the overarching patterns and picture. I will try and deal with them in broadly chronological order rather than in the order they appear in the schedule. I cannot refer to every piece of evidence I have heard, and draw out only the key points.

The background to this is that the cat belonged to the mother from before the relationship. The father blamed the cat for his allergies (wrongly as subsequent allergy testing appears to have shown). On this day the father was caring for the children as the mother was at a funeral. On her return she says the children tearfully reported that daddy had kicked the cat across the room. The mother also says that, irritated that he was having to care for the children, he bombarded her with messages whilst she was at the funeral.

The father denies all of this. He said in evidence he did not kick the cat, and this was obvious because the cat had no injuries when it was taken to the vet. Again reframing his behaviour he says that he ‘blocked’ the cat from coming in the room because it was being sick everywhere and was approaching Y who was sat on the floor playing with cat sick. At the time Y and Z would have been approximately 7 and 9. In late 2024, some four years on, Z recalled to his Fear Free worker that Mr D would kick the cat which made him feel angry and scared for the cat.

Mr D is reported in the single assessment to have said he ‘didn’t recall’ kicking the cat, but that the boys would not lie. In his evidence Mr D maintained both that the boys did not lie, but also that the allegation of kicking the cat was not true and that the mother had either reported something the boys hadn’t said OR that she had manipulated them into telling a lie.

In my judgment the mother’s account was a truthful report of what she was told by the children, as was her account of their upset on her return. Whatever the precise nature of the ‘blocking’ of the cat the boys certainly saw it as frightening and upsetting, and Z appears to have still been affected by it some four years later. Based on my overall impression and conclusions about the mother and her child centred approach I do not think she would have coached Z into making that report. This allegation is made out.

The mother’s allegation is essentially summed up in the message she sent to the Father shortly after [C93]. After telling him she had taken the kids to her mums for two days, she said

The Father’s responses are primarily to point out inconsistencies in the mother’s account over time without actually providing a substantive account of his behaviour. He is correct that there are some subtle distinctions between accounts, some say the shoe was thrown at the mother, some simply say the shoe was thrown down the stairs. I remind myself that in the aftermath of the police callout the mother was attempting to ‘smooth over’ the relationship difficulties with social services, and this is likely to be a factor in the inconsistencies. In her oral evidence the mother did not try to bolster her account and plump for the more serious version of the event, frankly stating that she didn’t know if it had been aimed at her or not, that at the time she drew a distinction between an aimed shoe and an inadvertent near miss, not seeing the latter as abusive behaviour – but that she now understood both to be abusive.

In evidence the Father maintained that he ‘tossed’ the shoe rather than ‘throwing’ the shoe. It is a distinction without a difference. The father was playing with words here (something he accused Mr Blount of, whenever pressed for clarification). He accepted that he took the shoe from the bedroom, ‘frustrated’ that the mother had left the shoe in the bedroom upstairs, which is disapproved of in his culture, he wanted the shoe downstairs. He did not deny to me that the mother was on the stairs at the time with C in her arms, or that the shoes hit the wall near her head. At best this was an angry outburst that was reckless of the mother’s an C’s safety and could have caused an injury. At worst it was an angry outburst that was intended to hit the mother, but missed, again exposing C to the risk of injury. On either version the behaviour was inappropriate, caused by anger, and will have caused fear and alarm. It was abusive behaviour.

I am also satisfied that the boys reported to the mother that the father had repeatedly said ‘fuck your mummy’ to them, apparently in an expression of his frustration at her, when he was left to care for them on his own. For the record, the father’s response to this report via the boys was in similar vein to the kicking the cat matter – he maintained that the boys wouldn’t lie and yet that the mother had either made up their complaint or had forced them to make it. Even on the father’s case the ‘plot’ to oust him from the family home had not been hatched by the middle of 2021 when the mother confronted him about this in a private message between the two of them and there was no suggestion that this message was not genuine.

The mother’s oral evidence was detailed and compelling on this event. Her account has remained consistent over time. The parties agree that following the shoe incident the mother had sent an email setting out some requests or guidelines to deal with the problems she saw in the relationship, including his angry behaviour [C93]. They agree that on the mother’s return home there had been discussion about this email, during which the mother says he exploded with rage and became aggressive before threatening to smash her mother’s face in, and it was in this context that she tried to retrieve C from him before calling the police. Nowhere does the father explicitly deny threatening to smash the mother’s face in. Instead in his response and statement the father reframes the allegation by saying that ‘I did express concerns about M’s mother’s influence on our relationship, as her involvement was creating conflict between us.’ The response continues to set out criticisms of the maternal grandmother and her influence. In fact, by the end of the hearing it was clear that he very much blames the maternal grandmother for difficulties in the relationship and the allegations against him.

Whilst the mother describes herself and the children barricaded into a bedroom in fear awaiting the police, the father says that the person doing the shouting and screaming was the mother and that it was her actions that triggered the children. The father accepted the mother and children had gone to a bedroom upstairs, and although he suggested barricading themselves in was not necessary, and denied attempting to get in to the room, he did not actually deny that they had in fact barricaded themselves into the room.

The police attended the home and spoke to the parents in separate rooms. The bodyworn footage of the police attendance shows the father attempts to call the mother (having told the police he is calling his brother) but when the police realise he is attempting to communicate with the person who has called 999 for help, he is stopped from doing so. The father’s body language shifts markedly after he is prevented from speaking to the mother, and he begins to repeatedly flip his phone. I do not accept the father’s suggestion he was calling the mother to find out what was happening. The evidence is clear that the father has been very much alive to the potential impact on his employment of any safeguarding concern, and it is likely that he was calling the mother to make sure she didn’t say anything to get him into difficulty.

On balance of probabilities the mother’s account of the events of this day is truthful. This was an example of the father’s loss of temper, angry and frightening behaviour that caused the mother and children to seek refuge in another room, and to barricade themselves in to it with a mattress, in an attempt to stop the father forcing his way in. There was a high level of involvement of all 3 children in this incident, and I accept the mother’s description of her and the boys finding a mattress to put against the door, and of all three of them bracing their backs against the door and their foot against the bed frame to stop him getting in. The detail of this account was clearly based on recall of events, even down to the description of the farmhouse style door latch. The father did threaten to smash the grandmother’s face in, or words to that effect. The trigger for the 999 call was the father’s refusal to give C to the mother and he only relented and gave C to her when he realised she was making the call.

I also accept the mother’s account of the threats made subsequently by the father about what would happen if she didn’t sort out the consequences of her 999 call. In my view the mother was put in genuine fear that the father might take his own life, leaving her and the children destitute (in rented property as they were at that time), and that he might even take C with him. She was put in genuine fear that if she did not repair the damage she had caused the father would lose his job, again with dire consequences for the children. The contemporaneous messages between the parents and the mother’s communication with the Local Authority all dovetail entirely with this. It was left to the mother to impress upon the Local Authority that this was all a storm in a teacup, and she did a very good job of it.

There is no dispute that the hoover went down the stairs on this date during an argument. In his oral evidence the father insisted it fell when he put it down whilst standing at the top of the stairs and was not thrown. However, in his police interview he admitted straightforwardly that he had ‘thrown’ the hoover down the stairs, saying in response to the question ‘have you every thrown anything when you’ve been angry’ ‘yes…the hoover I’ve thrown, because what she did was she took all the kids and made me feel like I’m getting, I was left on my own because she would always threaten me, I will take the house, I will take the kids, I would take the money, nobody will believe you anything and I would feel so helpless….she would not let me go in there, she locked everybody, and I was like, alright then if you don’t want me to do it, I’ll just don’t do it and that’s when I thrown it… down the stairs’.

In closing submissions the father suggested that this was simply a confusion between ‘fell’ and ‘thrown’ as English is not his first language, and he had just used the word put to him in interview. It can be seen from the extract above that that is simply not sustainable. Mr D volunteered that he had intentionally thrown the hoover in anger in response to the mother shutting herself in the room. In fact, the mother says that she witnessed the hoover being thrown from head height before being barricaded into the room, and that it was the carpet cleaner that she heard being thrown once barricaded in, and so it seems clear that the father is in fact recalling the throwing of the carpet cleaner.

I accept the mother’s account: he was angry, he was abusive, he threw the hoover downstairs with force, there was a tussle over a chair which he tried to throw down the stairs too, and after the mother and children had retreated to the bedroom he threw the carpet cleaner down the stairs too. This will have been frightening for the children and their mother. I make this finding.

I listened to both parents account of the events on this date. The mother maintains the father’s rage exploded following the trigger of losing his keys, and that he later showed up at the hospital, confronting her angrily at the entrance, having to be talked down by staff in order for the surgery to go ahead. The father accepted he had asked the mother for his keys, but deflected as to whether he was angry, and accepted that he had met the mother at the hospital and that there had simply been a need to clarify the correct procedure, and that this was all appropriate parenting. He denied any prior knowledge of the proposed tonsillectomy. I accept the mother’s account that a tonsillectomy had previously been mooted as a possible bolt on procedure to the adenoid / grommit surgery notwithstanding the lack of a history of tonsillitis because removal of adenoids can sometimes cause tonsils to flare up instead. I do not think the mother made this up. I do not accept the father’s suggestion that a tonsillectomy had never been mentioned and that he was simply ensuring the right surgery was carried out when the surgeon got muddled. Given my overall conclusions about the father’s propensity to angry outbursts and disproportionate reactions I prefer the mother’s evidence about this event. He was angry and verbally abusive to the mother, threatened to call the police on the mother, and ultimately told her that she had to sign for the procedure and if anything went wrong it would be her fault. To do this in front of the child immediately before her surgery was quite inappropriate. I make this finding.

Matters not in dispute:

The mother gave a clear account of what happened on the day of the alleged arm incident. She says that C was trying to get into her brother’s room to mess with his fidgets (as he is autistic he is very particular about his things). She took C by the wrist in an attempt to ensure that C did not invade his space or take his things, in a context where the father would allow it and C was upset at being taken out of the room, but that her arm was not twisted. She tells me that C then went downstairs and began smashing things up on the kitchen counter, and she had to physically intervene to stop her doing so. C then retried to the stairs crying when the father intervened.

What is striking about this is that there seems to have been no genuine attempt by the father to consider whether his overwrought daughter might have exaggerated, overreacted or told a fib about what happened in order to play one parent off against the other, or to consider whether – even if C’s wrist had got slightly twisted – this had happened in the course of reasonable attempts by the mother to manage out of control behaviour.

The father obviously wasn’t seriously concerned about C’s wrist or he would have acted immediately. Instead, he later deployed the incident by using it as an allegation against the mother. Whilst he equivocated in his evidence as to whether it was a one off or whether it was an accident, he clearly told the GP (when he belatedly took C to the GP several days after the alleged injury) that it was an accident. In my judgment was acting in an attempt to coerce the mother into returning home, and this is why he was reluctant to make a formal statement when the police attended, but when it became clear that she had made her own allegations and was not coming back he made a statement to the police suggesting for the first time that the mother had been rough with C before. It follows that I do not make any adverse finding against the mother for injuring C, and that the father subjected C to an unnecessary soft interview by the police and an unnecessary xray.

I set these out in full:

The dates given are early 2023 when M says she suffered a re-tear during sex at the 6 oclock position, and showed the Father this injury, who suggested she go to the Dr, and subsequently on various dates in 2023 and 2024.

I start with the medical evidence, which tells me that

This all corresponds with what both parents told me, namely that after the re-tearing in 2023, the father was shown the injury and they both agreed the mother should go to the GP. It is consistent with the mother’s account that the Dr ‘found no clear cause for the tearing’ and had ruled out various possible explanations. It is not consistent with the father’s assertion that ‘during a consultation with a gynaecologist, M was advised that her symptoms were likely due to age-related factors and the use of birth control pills.’

The father knew from spring 2023 that the mother was suffering from a painful recurring perineal tear, and he told me himself that this was in the six o’clock position.

The father said in oral evidence, for the first time, that the parents had modified their sexual practices and after that date the parents had sex only in the missionary position. This was not an account set out in any of the father’s statements and nor was it put to the mother. Her account has consistently been that the father preferred positions which produced tightness and disliked too much lubrication, and that he would repeatedly reposition her so as to achieve that result – and that this continued until separation.

The father says that this allegation (like all the others) is malicious and retaliatory, and that I should particularly bear in mind the timing of it, since it was made a few days after his complaint to the police about C’s arm being twisted. He prays in aid the mother’s supposed preference for ‘dirty sex’, which was new to him as a man from Country B, and he says they are inconsistent with the mother’s reference in her early 2024 message to a ‘sexless’ marriage.

In fact the mother says in the message that she doesn’t want a sexless marriage, and raises it in the context of trying to persuade the father to adjust sleeping arrangements so that C is not in their bed. In her oral evidence the mother explained that

This speaks volumes about the power dynamics in the relationship and about the degree to which the mother’s role as a parent was undermined.

The timing of the allegation could be an indicator of fabrication or maliciousness, but taken in context with the long evidenced history of perineal tearing, the detailed descriptions of the mechanisms both of the sexual act and of the coercion surrounding it, and the fact that the account was elicited and then picked up by the police through the DASH process, I do not think that it is. When considered properly, the allegation of ‘dirty sex’ relates either to a period pre-dating the tearing when both parties were younger, or to the sending of a light hearted meme of little significance. In any event, the fact that the mother had a wish for intimacy and to repair her relationship, that she sometimes sought and welcomed sex, or that she appeared to consent, do not mean that there cannot have been any abusive, over-forceful or insensitive behaviour on some occasions.

Asked whether she asked him to stop during intercourse, she said ‘No, I keep asking myself where my voice went. I don’t think [I was] in a situation where my voice has any impact anyway.’ She went on to reflect the parallel with indirect contact for C saying ‘how many times she says I don’t like the calls and he ignores it or makes a joke. He doesn’t listen he’s a one way bulldozer. I have so much shame why didn’t I say get off push away. He knows I’m in pain.’

I accept that the re-tearing was caused by sexual intercourse (and in fact the father does not dispute this). I accept the mother’s accounts of trying non-verbally to adjust her position so as to avoid particular pressure points or to reduce pain / risk of tearing, but that the father was insensitive to this, continuing with his usual practice unchanged. In my judgment the father must have known that the mother was at risk of re-tearing, and must have known she was fearful and in pain, and must have known when she tore. I do not accept that he adopted the missionary position and that simply solved the problem.

In my judgment, the most likely explanation for the combined undisputed facts on this issue is that the mother repeatedly submitted to sexual intercourse that caused her serious pain and injury because she was manipulated into feeling guilty, because she was desperate to satisfy the Father in order to obtain some respite in the relationship and because she feared the consequences of a refusal. The father was insensitive to the pain he was causing the mother. If, which I doubt, he genuinely didn’t know that he was causing her pain and injury, that in itself is telling about the father and the position in which the mother found herself.

I note that the father’s response to the references to the PTSD and flashbacks that the mother is now said to suffer from is not to reflect on his own behaviour but to use it to justify a shift in position to seek a change of residence.

As indicated at the outset of this judgment I have formed the view that there was a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour by the father towards the mother, and I do not accept the father’s allegations that the mother was controlling and abusive towards him. She is intelligent, articulate and I am sure strong willed, but she was also able to explain to me in her evidence what her subjective experience of the father was, and her rationales and evolving awareness. It is clear that the impact of the father’s behaviour on her has been quite profound.

The evidence also shows that much of the behaviour the mother complains of happened in the presence of the children, and that some of it was directed to them.

The father was at pains to ensure that I specifically considered pages H43-58, which are, he says, at the heart of his case. I have done so. These are a series of WhatsApp chats between the mother and maternal grandmother, produced by the mother. They date between the summer of 2022 and the end of 2023, though they are not continuous. They describe the mother’s perception and accounts of events in her relationship with the father and her own mother's responses to that. Understandably, the mother did not tell her mother, in these messages or otherwise, about the sexual matters. She said to me in evidence ‘I still haven't told her - she would die if I told her’. There is no suggestion that these messages in themselves are fabricated.

In my judgment, what these show is the mother’s attempts to understand, rationalise and find ways to cope with the father's behaviour, to encourage him to change, and later to think through her options for exiting the relationship. Rather than undermining her allegations as the father suggests, the fact that these discussions were ongoing over such a long period of time, and the fact that the cyclical nature of periods of calm and explosions of rage is shown throughout them, along with the mother’s fear of his responses, strengthens rather than weakens the mother's case they set alongside contemporaneous records of the mother seeking advice from a lawyer about how she can exit the relationship, and is trying to make a planned exit from my relationship she has come to see as abusive and unsafe for the children.

Similarly, both parties accept that the mother asked the father for a divorce on a number of occasions. The father says that if he had really been abusive she would have left and got that divorce much sooner. The truth in my judgment is that the mother did not leave sooner because she feared the consequences of doing so.

I am also provided with a large number of contemporaneous message threads between the mother and her friends, which also give accounts of what was happening in the relationship. For the father’s theory of a plot between the mother and grandmother to be true these would also need to have been fabricated over a period of years, which is in my view simply implausible.

The mother has been roundly criticised and largely unfairly by the father through these proceedings. She has been accused of parental alienation of her boys and when she has allowed contact – there is a strong sense that nothing the mother can do will find favour. This in itself supports the contention that the father is quick to undermine the mother and that this is a part of the pattern of behaviour and his general attitude towards her. There is insufficient evidence upon which to soundly base any finding of parental alienation of the boys in the past in any event, but having now heard all the oral evidence and read the communications between the mother and the boys father I can positively make a finding that she did not alienate them.

I make the finding (M allegation 1) that ‘Throughout the relationship, the applicant displayed controlling and coercive behaviour towards the respondent.’

I deal with the sub headings of that allegation not already covered:

I have no doubt this is the case. I have regard to the evidence about the grommit operation, the evidence supporting the mother’s persistent attempts to get C sleeping in her bed, the critical remarks about the mother to the children and to the mother herself. I have no doubt that if the father had genuinely supported the mother’s attempts to establish a sleep routine where C was in her own bed that would have been successful. It is likely that C was sleeping with her father to meet his needs rather than her own and I accept the mother’s evidence that she has now been able to establish a sleep routine, which has improved C’s school attendance, energy levels and health overall, with a reduction in illness. The consequence of the father sleeping with C in the marital bed was that the mother was often left to sleep in a toddler bed or on a sofa. I make finding 1d(1).

In addition, I accept the mother’s evidence about the father’s treatment of C as a ‘princess’, and that there were different rules and expectations set for her compared with her older brothers. I do not accept that these were simply down to a difference in age. The mother’s account (and photographic evidence) of the injuries she sustained as a result of C’s out of control behaviour, and the steady improvement in her management of big feelings are all consistent with the mother’s account of C being allowed essentially to do what she liked by her father without proper boundaries, and her mother’s attempts to deal responsibly with boundaries and inappropriate behaviour undermined.

I make finding 1d) : The applicant would regularly undermine the respondent as a parent, refusing to address C’s increasingly unmanageable behaviour, and preventing the respondent’s attempts to intervene, resulting in C’s aggression and physical violence towards the respondent and her brothers. On a date in autumn 2023 C became violent towards the respondent, hitting, biting and stabbing her with pencils. The applicant laughed and encouraged C’s behaviour, telling her she could do whatever she wanted.

For the avoidance of doubt I make the overarching finding at 2 : Physical abuse - The applicant was physically abusive towards the respondent and the children. The applicant’s anger escalated, creating a home environment where the children and the respondent lived in constant fear of aggressive outbursts and episodes of rage.

For the avoidance of doubt I make the overarching finding at 2 : Emotional and Verbal abuse - The applicant was verbally and emotionally abusive towards the respondent and towards the children.

I make the specific sub-findings at 2 that:

I do not make the findings sought by the father. For the avoidance of doubt I reject the allegations of cultural alienation, and that ‘M threatens to withhold C’s contact with F unless financial matters are resolved. M has previously threatened to stop her sons' contact with their father if CMS payments were reduced.’

It is important to record my views about the videos of contact because they bear in my view upon the likelihood that the patterns of controlling and coercive behaviour I have found have been applied to the mother, will also be deployed in respect of C or through C (as forewarned by Cafcass).

I found the 7 videos at times uncomfortable to watch. At moments C was engaged and plainly enjoying contact, and she beamed broadly and joked with her dad and leaned in to the camera. But at other times – and often – she disengaged, either by drawing or by forcefully asserting that she wants the call to end. The father repeatedly uses delaying tactics to prevent the call from ending, even on occasion when C is visibly frustrated and upset (she does not seem to be able to switch off the call herself although I’m told she has recently learnt this). Whilst the father says he is just trying to engage her and play games, I was struck by the father’s inability to listen to what C was very clearly telling him.

C is 6. It is (as I told him at the last hearing) entirely unsurprising if sometimes – even often – she does not want to talk for long or at all, or if whatever is happening in the next room is more interesting. I don’t criticise the mother for being nearby and I accept her account that she is usually the other side of the sliding door in the living room, with C in the conservatory. C will know her brothers and the tv or Ipad are in the other room.

The father is repeatedly making points throughout the recordings ‘Oh C - what are you looking at?’, suggesting she is looking at another adult or being told what to do ‘Who told you to say that?’. On most occasions I was unable to see C obviously looking at someone else, and in any event the way in which C presented was absolutely not as a child who is presenting a script. She is sassy and forceful and very much of her own mind. At one particularly uncomfortable point when the father is trying repeatedly to persuade C to take a call on a Wednesday and she says ‘no’, he replies by saying ‘No is yes and yes means no, though’ – and C’s entirely spontaneous response is ‘No is a full sentence daddy, so No!’.

It is a sad indictment of the father’s attitude towards the mother that he sees this as C being manipulated. Similarly, he persists in his suggestion that the mother has not allowed C to have the scooter he bought her even when she has told him that she rides it to school. The father’s perception of this contact is distorted. Rather than being child focused or attuned, I experienced it – at times – as emotionally coercive and as leaving C feeling unheard and frustrated. I have no doubt that this is a large part of the difficulty with video contact.

In my view the mother’s hypothesis about the difficulties with video contact as compared to face to face contact probably has some merit – she surmises that C relishes one to one time with her dad, but not on screen, and that she associates calls with her dad being not present when he used to speak for long hours to his family, and does better when his attention is on her only and not mediated through a screen. I think this merits further exploration by Cafcass, who should be provided with the videos if they feel they would assist.

The mother also alleges that

Although I don’t have sufficient evidence to make a finding that the mother is suffering from PTSD as a result of the father’s conduct, it would not be surprising if that were the case and I have no reason to doubt that. It would help if the mother could provide corroborating evidence in due course.

I do make the finding however that post-separation abuse has continued, both as pleaded and specifically as follows:

There will need to be a section 7 report incorporating a risk assessment. I will direct that assessment.

I do not think that video contact should continue by order pending receipt of that report and I suspend that order. If C requests video contact I am confident her mother will facilitate it. I have particularly in mind the recent video in which the father tells C that we have been allowed 30 minutes in an attempt to persuade her to stay longer when she clearly wants to leave. In this way the court’s order has been recruited as a tool of coercion of the child, which is quite inappropriate. It is of particular concern given my recital to the last order, and my verbal comments to the parents in July - to be reasonable about their expectations of video contact with a 6 year old.

I give permission for the order, which will list my findings, to be shared with professionals working with the family and the school, and for the order and judgment to be shared within the financial remedy proceedings, for use within those proceedings only and on condition that anonymity is maintained insofar as there are any reports of the financial proceedings.

I provisionally intend to publish this judgment in due course, in a suitably anonymised form. I will allow the parties 21 days to submit any written representations on that topic to me, including any proposals for anonymisation. I will make a decision regarding publication on paper.

That is my judgment.