L v D

I am today concerned with the welfare of “Lucy”, a little girl of six, who was born in February 2019. This is my oral judgment at the end of a three-day fact find hearing taking place over 2, 3 and 4 December 2025.

I would pause here to apologise. I did hope to give judgment at 2, however, I have calculated that since submissions ended, I have spent nearly 11 hours just going through the paperwork and trying to write my notes of judgment, and I would make the point again that this has been partly because of the fact that some of the statements refer to statements no longer in the bundle, and the schedule of allegations that was sent on day 2 from the father’s side did have the page numbers, but from the mother’s side it still just had the paragraph numbers, and so it has taken a lot of time to go through. So, I make that comment because it would have really assisted the court to have the paperwork in a better order.

The parties are the applicant father, “Mr L”, represented by Mrs Turnbull of counsel, accompanied by a mini pupil on Days 1 and 2, and “Mr L” has been assisted by his intermediary, Ms Horner. The respondent mother, “Ms D”, has been represented by Ms Philips of counsel. If this judgment, or when this judgment is being transcribed, for the purposes of anonymisation and in relation to potential future publication, please do change the child’s name, if mentioned, to Lucy, the father’s name to Mr L and the mother’s name to Miss D.

As per the ground rules, before I give my judgment in full, for the father’s benefit, I will give a short judgment. So this is my short oral judgment within my larger judgment at the end of a three-day fact-finding hearing in ZE23P00985. The father has made an application for a child arrangements order to spend time with the child, an order in respect of parental responsibility, and for a specific issues order in relation to the child’s name change to double-barrel her surname.

In proceedings, the mother made six allegations that the father had perpetrated domestic abuse against her, and the father made four cross-allegations that the mother had perpetrated domestic abuse against him. There have been previous Children’s Act proceedings, which concluded in 2022, when the father withdrew his application. There is a prohibited steps order in place from 2022 that prohibits the father from removing the child from the mother’s care. There have been various delays in proceedings, but this fact-finding hearing has now been effective.

The court has had the benefit of a 426-page bundle and other documents sent during the hearing, and it heard oral evidence from the mother and the father before submissions. The court’s brief impression of the evidence is as follows: It found the father’s evidence could be evasive and sometimes inconsistent. Also, in cross-examination, he gave new details that, in the court’s view, were more than just expansion on the existing facts set out in written evidence. The court found the mother’s evidence was often clear when she gave one word answers to questions, but there were inconsistencies with her evidence, and she would often be evasive or say she could not recall something, in particular, when faced with evidence which was not consistent with her position, such as when referred to police disclosure. The court considered this when determining how much weight to place on the party’s evidence, especially as there is limited contemporaneous or other evidence in respect of these historic allegations. The court, in making its findings, considers whether the allegation is proven on the balance of probabilities and the burden of proof lies with the person making the allegation.

Turning to the allegations, the mother sought findings in relation to six, and the father in relation to two, as of his four allegations, mother had made admissions in relation to one, and the other one the court did not feel was relevant.

In relation to the mother’s allegations, on the balance of probabilities, I find allegation 1 proven, and that the parties also had an argument, were both shouting and swearing at each other, and both caused injuries to each other during the incident.

I find allegation 2 not proven, although I accept the mother was staying at the hotel and met the father in the car park and they had an argument.

I find allegation 3 not proven.

I find allegation 4 not proven, but I do find that the mother would attend the father’s house during this period, when there was a harassment warning in place. I find that the father encouraged this, despite the police’s advice he had received not to continue to see her, and the fact he could then contact the police and have her arrested, and I find they would have arguments and the father would then ask her to leave suddenly, and I find the behaviour of both parties in those circumstances of concern, as it seemed they could not keep away from each other, despite a volatile relationship.

I do not find allegation 5 proven, but I note that following this contact, the mother did not allow future contact, and the father sent his apology email in January 2020.

And I find allegation 6 proven, but not on the case as put by the mother, but in relation to controlling behaviour, given the finding I made in respect of allegation 4.

Taking the father’s allegations, I find allegation 1 not proven, and I find allegation 2 proven, but that the bruising to the father’s arm occurred as per the mother’s account.

And although I am not asked to make a finding regarding allegation 3, it will be recorded in the schedule that the mother accepted these incidents occurred in the following terms. In relation to incident 1, that she accepts she left the child on the floor of Topps Tiles and said words to the effect of, “Let me know when she needs picking up”; and incident 2, that she left the child unattended in the car at Topps Tiles, between two and five metres away from the mother, and the mother lashed out at the father and struck him. The court notes the second incident was in the vicinity of the child. The court also finds that both these incidents are likely to have caused the child emotional harm.

I also have concerns about the extent of father’s steroid use and his understanding on how that might impact on his behaviour. That is my short judgment.

Before moving to my full judgment, I pause to ask if the father wants a break, or if he wants to stay for the rest of the full judgment. If he does leave for the full judgment, I would ask that he returns for directions at the end, but it is a matter for your client, Mrs Turnbull, and I can see he is discussing it with his intermediary.

So turning now to the full version of my judgment. I have had the benefit of reading the bundle, which, as I said, is 426 pages, and I had read the documents in the reading list set out in the father’s position statement in detail before the hearing started. The bundle includes the parties’ witness statements, along with the London Borough of Havering disclosure, (which I found contained little helpful information for the purposes of my judgment). It also contained a Cafcass safeguarding letter, the father’s Communicourt assessments, the applicant’s medical disclosure, and significant police disclosure, alongside the court documents. I have also considered the revised schedule of allegations sent on the morning of day 2, and the PDF of the orders from ZE21P001651 and ZE21P02364, which I consider now as pages 427 to 437 of the bundle.

I heard the oral evidence of father on day 1, and the mother on day 2, before submissions on the afternoon of day 2, and I am giving judgment on day 3. I may, in my judgment, refer to Mr L as the father, and to Ms D as the mother, and I do so for ease of reference, and I mean no disrespect to either party. I have considered all the evidence before me, and just because I do not mention a particular fact or refer to a particular submission does not mean that I have not considered it.

I will briefly consider the background that led to today’s fact find hearing. The proceedings started with the father’s application for a child arrangements order, dated 29 June 2023, with accompanying C1A. He then issued a C2, dated 30 July 2023, which repeats the details of the orders sought in the C100. The mother made allegations of domestic abuse, and the father made counter-allegations.

The parties met in early 2018 via a dating app. The mother says they were in a relationship, and she lived with the father at his property for some period and had keys. The father disputes this and said they were not in a relationship, it was a situation-ship, but the mother stayed there from time to time. The mother became pregnant in 2018, and the child was born in February 2019. The parties had already separated by that time, having separated by January 2019. The father has seen the child six times since she was born, the last time being at the end of 2019.

The matter was first before the court at the first hearing dispute resolution appointment on 19 February 2024. I will not go into huge details about the proceedings, because there have been various hearings and orders, and I note there has been a delay as a result of an adjournment, and also in relation to the Communicourt assessments, but there was a DRA on 17 June 2024, and then on 28 August 2024, an adjourned DRA, and it was at that DRA in August 2024 where it was determined there should be a fact finding hearing. I note that the first one listed for two days was vacated, and it was relisted for three days, and it first came to me at the pre-trial review on 30 October 2025, at which we ordered, amongst other things, the unredacted police disclosure. We dealt with schedules of allegations coming in, and we set the witness template.

At the start of this hearing, there were some preliminary matters to address. First, the issue of the video recordings, as I have been unable to access them, but Mrs Turnbull confirmed she could play them in court if needed, and, in fact, they were played at the end of day 1 in court by Ms Philips.

Secondly, in relation to the schedule of allegations, which I had asked to be sent to me before the hearing in landscape as they were quite difficult to read in the bundle, and in particular the issue of no page numbers or references to the bundles in those schedules (which, as I have already mentioned, has made it quite confusing. In particular, some of the statements, such as at page 171 of the bundle, referred to statements and paragraph numbers that are no longer in proceedings and refer to allegations by different numbers). It has just made the consideration of evidence all the more time-consuming and difficult when reviewing the bundle before the hearing, after submissions, and when preparing my judgment notes yesterday evening and today. It was confirmed that the parties would send schedules by 9 am on the morning of day 2 in landscape with the page references, but there are still no page references in the respondent’s column.

Thirdly, the court dealt with what allegations were being pursued or should be considered by the court. Indeed, in respect of the father’s schedule of allegations, the court heard he was making allegations in response to the mother’s schedule. My view, as submitted by mother’s counsel at the time, is the place for that would be in the response to the mother’s allegations, but having heard submissions from both parties, and given it was set out in father’s schedule, the court determined it was necessary and proportionate and went to the welfare determination for the child, to consider allegation 1 of the father’s schedule and consider allegation 2. Allegation 3 would be dealt with by recording the mother’s admissions, and so the court determined it was not necessary and proportionate to consider that, and I have made comments in relation to those admissions and the impact, in my view, on the child. And in relation to allegation 4, I determined it was not necessary and proportionate and did not go to the welfare determination for the child.

Finally, we dealt with ground rules, and I was referred, in particular by Ms Horner, to 7.12 of the Communicourt assessment, and Ms Horner confirmed the way the hearing had been run that morning - so with slow, simple language and signposting - was working well and I think the hearing has worked well in the way that we have approached things, and I thank everybody for their assistance with that. Following preliminary matters, the court had the first break of 15 minutes for the father. That break - Mrs Turnbull, is everything alright?

Alright. I was saying that after the preliminary matters, we broke for 15 minutes, which was a break for father, but that break then became 45 minutes, as it became apparent that the father had not read his witness statements recently. Counsel came back in to speak to me briefly during that adjournment: the time that the intermediary had thought would be needed to read the witness statements was too short, and then, of course, father needed his actual break. I did have concerns that the time for the hearing might be inadequate if more time was needed for the father, and considered adjournment, but the next listing for a multi-day trial was in November 2026, and I also made it clear that instructing solicitors, in my judgment, do need to prepare their client for hearings, in particular, when they are giving evidence, and all the more so when there are ground rules in place.

I find it very concerning, given the issues the father has with processing information, that he was only taken through his statements again on day 1. In my judgment, it was the failure of the father’s solicitors to do that, or clearly arrange for it to be done on the morning of the hearing, which almost led to this hearing being ineffective and being adjourned. Certainly, an adjournment would have meant that the paperwork could have been sorted out, and considering it would have been a far less time-consuming task, but in any event, it was decided to proceed on the basis that we may need to adjourn part heard. But with flexibility, including sitting until half past 1 on day 1, and then until 4.20 on day 1, for which I thank the court staff, we have proceeded.

So turning now to the issues in the case. There are not many agreed areas, but both parties do agree there were arguments during their relationship, but they do not even agree on whether there was a relationship, and in respect of father’s schedule of allegations, mother does accept much of allegation three (as I have already mentioned in my short judgment), which will be recorded in the schedule of findings.

In respect of the areas of dispute, just briefly summarising, father has made his application for a child arrangements order, a PR order, and a specific issues order to double-barrel the child’s surname. The child has not had contact with the father since the end of 2019, and the mother’s position is that she is worried about the father having contact with the child, in particular, given his steroid use, how it makes him aggressive and affects his behaviour, and the allegations she makes of domestic abuse, physical, verbal and of coercive and controlling behaviour, some of which she says stem from his steroid use. The mother says that the incident that gives rise to her allegation 5 is the reason why she stopped contact. Father’s position is that the mother was physically abusive and coercive and controlling, and that she has fabricated her allegations, being a compulsive liar, to stop him having contact with his daughter.

I turn now to the relevant law. Domestic abuse has been raised as an issue which engages practice direction 12J. Paragraph 29 of practice direction 12J provides that the court should, wherever practicable, make findings of fact as to the nature and degree of any domestic abuse which is established and its effect on the child, the parents and any other relevant person. Section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which has been incorporated into practice direction 12J, defines behaviour as abusive if it consists of any of the following: physical or sexual abuse; violent or threatening behaviour; controlling or coercive behaviour; economic abuse; psychological, emotional or other abuse, and it does not matter whether the behaviour consists of a single incident or a course of conduct.

Controlling and coercive behaviour has been defined in paragraph 3 of practice direction 12J. Coercive behaviour means an act or a pattern of acts of assault, threats, humiliation and intimidation or other abuse that is used to harm, punish or frighten the victim. Controlling behaviour means an act or pattern of acts designed to make a person subordinate and/or dependent, by isolating them from sources of support, exploiting their resources and capacities for personal gain, depriving them of their means for independence, resistance and escape and regulating their everyday behaviour.

Those definitions were further considered in case law in Re H-N, which I have firmly in mind, including that few relationships lack instances of bad behaviour on the part of one or both parties at some time, and it is a rare family case that does not contain complaints by one party against the other, and often complaints are made by both, yet not all such behaviour will amount to domestic abuse.

I remind myself of the guidance given by the court and the consideration that has been given to allegations of domestic abuse by the Court of Appeal in Re H-N and I also remind myself of the examination of principles, set out by Cobb J, as he then was, in Re B-B, in particular, paragraph 26.

The burden of proof lies throughout with the person making the allegation.

In private law cases, the court needs to be vigilant to the possibility that one or other parent may be seeking to gain an advantage in the battle against the other.

It is not for either parent to prove a negative.

The standard of proof is the civil standard, the balance of probabilities.

Sometimes the burden of proof will come to the judge’s rescue and the party with the burden of showing that something took place will not have satisfied the judge that it did, but generally speaking, a judge ought to be able to make up her mind where the truth lies without needing to rely on the burden of proof.

The court can have regard to the inherent probabilities of events or occurrences. The more serious or probable the allegation, the greater the need for evidential cogency.

Findings of fact must be based on evidence, including inferences that can properly be drawn from the evidence and not on suspicion or speculation. It is for the party seeking to prove the allegation to adduce proper evidence of what it seeks to prove.

The court must consider and take account of all the evidence available. The court’s role is to survey the wide canvas of evidence, considering each piece of evidence in the context of all the other evidence and I must have regard to the relevance of each piece of evidence to other evidence and to exercise an overview of the totality of the evidence in order to come to the conclusion on whether the case put forward by the person making the allegation has been made out to the appropriate standard of proof.

The evidence of the parties themselves is of the utmost importance and it is essential that the court forms a clear assessment of their credibility and reliability.

It is, of course, not uncommon for witnesses to tell lies in the course of a fact-finding investigation and court hearing and the court must be careful to bear in mind a witness may lie for many reasons, such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear and distress, and I am conscious that a fact if a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything.

“The primary purpose of the family process is to determine, as best that may be done, what has gone on in the past, so that that knowledge may inform the ultimate welfare evaluation where the court will choose which option is best for a child, with the court’s eyes open to such risks as the factual determination may have established”.

When repeated accounts of events have been given, I must think carefully about discrepancies in account. They may arise for a number of reasons. One possibility is they are lies designed to hide culpability and another is they are lies told for another reason. Further possibilities include faulty recollection or confusion at times of stress, or when the importance of accuracy is not fully appreciated, or there may be inaccuracy or mistake in the record keeping or recollection of the person hearing or relaying the account. The possible effects of delay and repeated questioning upon memory should also be considered, as should the effect on one person of hearing accounts given by others. As memory fades, a desire to iron out wrinkles may not be unnatural, a process that might inelegantly be described as story creep, which may occur without any necessary inference of bad faith.

The court approaches propensity evidence with some care. However, if evidence is relevant and admissible in circumstances in which there is a pattern of behaviour, conduct on one occasion may be taken into account in going to show that the conduct of striking similarity is more likely to be true on other occasions.

I also note Cobb J’s comments, as he then was, in Re B-B, in which he referred to a party being very confused over the dates and the sequence of certain events. Cobb J did not hold the same view as the father that this was because the mother was lying, but believed this could be attributed to being genuinely confused, possibly because of the passage of time since the events occurred, and possibly because of the intense emotional and possible psychological turmoil associated with them.

I note that the courtroom is an alien environment, and contested family proceedings create an emotionally charged atmosphere, and I make clear that I do not make an assessment of any witness solely by virtue of their behaviour in the witness box. And I further remind myself it is often unreliable to draw a conclusion from a witness’s demeanour alone as to whether they are telling the truth. However, where facts are not likely to be found in contemporaneous documents, my assessment of credibility does include the impression made on the court by the witness, with due allowance being made for the questions that may arise from the process of giving evidence.

I also note that the court is not bound by the cases put forward by the parties, but may 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 in doing so.

The issues the court will ultimately be tasked with in these proceedings is to focus on the child and her needs, and to determining questions about her upbringing. It is the child’s welfare that is the paramount consideration, and the concept that domestic abuse is harmful speaks for itself.

I remind myself that the parties’ and the child’s rights pursuant to article 6 and article 8 are engaged.

Turning now to my impression of the witnesses. I have heard the oral evidence of the mother and the father on affirmation, each of whom was subjected to appropriate and fair cross-examination.

Turning first to the father, his written evidence is set out in two statements. There was another longer statement that is no longer in the proceedings. He was aided in the witness box by Ms Horner, his intermediary. In examination-in-chief, he updated the court about an incident on 13 June 2018, said to have taken place at the M Hotel. He said that he had never been there and does not know its whereabouts.

He also updated the court regarding the mother’s allegation 2. The father does not accept physical damage to the mother’s car on the occasion of the incident set out in mother’s allegation 2, but he told the court there was an occasion when he did break the mother’s wing mirror, explaining it was when the mother was driving recklessly with his arm caught in the window and he put his body weight on the wing mirror and caused it to break off.

Overall, I found the father’s evidence was not overly reliable. I found it inconsistent in a number of places. This was not just internal inconsistencies within his own evidence, such as whether his arm was injured caught in a door, as per his written evidence, or caught in a window, as per his oral evidence, but also his own evidence alongside external evidence, such as saying he had not caused the mother injuries in his own evidence, but the police disclosure stating how he told the police he may have bruised the mother’s arms. I also noted the inconsistency between the father’s oral evidence telling the court he was angry and aggressive with the police on arrest as his chest was too wide for his hands to be put together using one set of handcuffs, but the police disclosure stating it was because the father was angry they would not arrest the mother as the father wanted, and that the father moved his van to block the mother in and would not move it. To me, consistency within evidence is a hallmark of truthfulness.

Considering the father’s evidence, I found that when the father gave details in the witness box that were not in his witness statement, the details given were not, in my judgment, simple and consistent expansions, but seemed to be completely new information, often which was, in my judgment, highly relevant to the father’s case. I do note there was a statement in proceedings that was about 130 pages long, that when father became represented, he obtained permission to replace, and that the father said it contained much of the information that was now seemingly new to the court. I also note the submission made on behalf of the father it is regrettable that this statement is no longer in proceedings.

I pause here to say, my view is that, there is unlikely to be a place for a 130 page statement in these proceedings, or in many Children’s Act proceedings, especially where, as here, the father told the court in cross-examination, this witness statement was the result of him speaking into a device which writes, in some circumstances, what is not true, and puts words in. Nonetheless, my view is that it is regrettable that his revised statement did not cover the same relevant points that he said had been included in the longer statement.

I also do not accept that he had not included this relevant information, as thought the court reduced what he could file by way of evidence, and so he could not have the full ins and outs of everything. I do not agree the new information was simply, as he put it, the full ins and outs, but it seemed to the court often highly relevant, pertinent information. Examples of giving new details included not having mentioned thinking the mother was on the pill, or another example was his first telling the court in cross-examination of the mother calling him from various private numbers (which he mentioned when asked about why he said he did not speak to the police when they tried to follow up with him).

I also do not accept that the missing information, in particular, when it was highly relevant to the father’s case, was missing as a result of his statement being drafted over Zoom. Indeed, the father said in cross-examination, “The statement is not as good as my first one in some areas, that is all, and I guess my new statement is different.” In my judgment, if you know there are differences between statements, one of which is no longer in proceedings, and some of those differences are omissions of information fundamental to your case, you would ensure the statements are corrected, and I do note he had the opportunity in examination-in-chief to do this, which he did take with regard to two allegations.

The father did speak very quickly in the witness box, and I had to ask him to slow down on many occasions so I could take notes, but I am satisfied I was able to take full, complete notes of his evidence. I also had to ask him several times to wait until the question was finished, and not to talk over mother’s counsel, as initially I could not hear the answer, given that two voices were speaking.

I found the father did not always answer the questions that were put to him and could be evasive. For example, when asked about whether he was happy about the pregnancy, saying, “I do not think it is a question I can answer,” or he deviated from the question, such as whether the mother being pregnant put pressure on the relationship. He talked about the hostile interaction they had and that having a child was stressful for any parent, even in a committed relationship, and so then had to ask, “Sorry, what was your question again?”

He also did not answer yes or no when the question required it, such as when asked if he agreed using steroids could make people aggressive. He said he was not medically trained, so could not answer that. When pressed as to whether it was common knowledge, he said nothing should be assumed, and when asked if he thought the side effects worse when using steroids for long periods of time, he said, “My doctor said otherwise”. His response when asked if it was evidence of him being aggressive on steroids, given his behaviour towards the mother or the police was, that was counsel’s assumption, and, as he did elsewhere in cross-examination, said his behaviour was part of the solution to drive the mother away and “not to keep getting abused”.

Although I make allowances for the father being in the alien environment of the witness box and his difficulties processing information, I was concerned how he was also slightly flippant and, to me, verged on impertinent. For example, when asked about why he had not included details of thinking mother was on the pill, saying, “I am saying it as you were asking and I have not been asked for a transcript of the start to end date of my time with the mother,” or when asked if something was relevant to his position, the tone in which he said, “Is it”, or asked about his evidence, saying to counsel, “You have got the bundle.”

Finally, I found his narrative seemed skewed to his position. For example, how he was not in a relationship with the mother, despite her saying she was and the police disclosure referring to their relationship and the father having given information referring to himself as an ex-partner and early-on in cross-examination he referred to it as being a situation-ship and how this impacted on him when the mother told him she was pregnant as she was a stranger to him, or how he is the victim of abuse.

Given the above, and in particular the inconsistency and the way that new details were added in evidence, which to me were not clear expansion, it meant I did not find the father an overly reliable or credible witness, and I bear this in mind when considering what weight to afford his evidence.

Turning to the mother. She has provided three written statements in the proceedings. She was asked at the start of cross-examination about the abortion and her trip to the clinic, although this does not form part of her specific allegations. She said she felt forced to go to an appointment that had been booked, and felt so controlled she had to go through with it, although I note the father’s position on this in cross-examination was it was a mutually agreed appointment, and in police disclosure he referred to the mother as threatening an abortion.

Generally, I found the mother clear when giving oral evidence as she did not tend to deviate, but answered often using only one word, “yes”, “no”, “correct”, or when the father’s case was put to her, “okay”. However, in my judgment, there were also some issues with her evidence, including inconsistencies, an example of which being regarding the harassment warning referred to in paragraph 21 of her witness statement at page 158, that she stated she did not have evidence of, but in cross-examination, and given the police disclosure, it became apparent she had received one.

Although I note what submissions were made by her counsel, that the disclosure might initially have been redacted, and notwithstanding her being upset post a night in the station and missing an exam, I do not think the mother would not recall this, and in my view, her paragraph 21 was misleading. There may have been no evidence of it in the disclosure, but, in my view, she would have remembered this warning being given, and as necessary, she would have explained that in her written evidence. I accept she may have thought it was not something the father was pursuing, notwithstanding it was for the police to remove it, and given the father was still seeing her and having sex with her, which is, in my judgment, a mixed message, but she should have said all that in her statement.

Also, I noted that the mother could on occasion remember some things from a long time ago (and she was asked about this, in particular when considered along evidence from nearer the time, which was different to her evidence) and other times, in particular regarding timeframes, or where there seemed to be other evidence which contradicted hers or added to it, and she would say repeatedly, “I do not recall”. I also found her evasive at times, and slow to give an answer, such as when asked about the accident in which she said she had discovered the alleged tracker.

I also noted her position when asked about contact between the father and the child. She did say her concern was of handovers and the father’s behaviour on steroids, but often, and at least twice, she mentioned her position being contingent on what the court decides.

Although I do not find the inconsistencies between her witness statements and the police disclosure about being picked up or thrown or pulled to the floor problematic, as earlier in the police disclosure it is reported that she told them that she was thrown to the floor, and in respect of this particular inconsistency, I accept on the specific morning of her interview, she was emotional and had spent a night in the cells and missed an exam, and in my judgment, that was the reason why she missed out some details in her interview. I do not accept that being emotional at other times is always a reason for other inconsistencies or not being able to recall something and I do bear this in mind when considering what weight to attach to the mother’s evidence.

And I pause here to echo something that I have already touched on that was said in submissions on behalf of the father. There is little before the court by way of evidence other than what the father and the mother say. There are a few photographs and some medical and police disclosure. This does mean that the court really has had to examine the parties’ evidence very closely when reaching its decisions, and think about its assessment of the witnesses on each occasion in relation to each allegation and the evidence given for that allegation. This has been particularly hard given the way the statements refer to paragraphs of documents no longer in proceedings, and I mention this again as it really has caused the court to take far more time than it would usually need in preparing the notes for this judgment.

Moving to the allegations. Standing back and looking at the evidence overall and re-evaluating the provisional views I have expressed, there are a number of conclusions that I reach which impact upon various parts of the factual matrix and although it is necessary to articulate my findings in a linear way, in reality, the strands of all this information, which informed my decision, are intertwined and each of the answers I give are informed by the whole context. I am going to deal with mother’s allegations first, and then move to father’s allegations.

So taking the allegations in order. First of all, allegation 1, that the applicant did not like what the respondent was saying - and this was on 11 June 2018 - so he grabbed hold of her top and lifted the respondent out of the house. During this argument, he was verbally abusing the applicant, saying, you are a disgusting human being and cunt. The respondent went to her car and attempted to leave, however he followed her. The respondent was left with injuries after the abuse. The police were called to this incident. This allegation also gives rise to part of father’s allegation 2, which I will deal with separately, although I may touch upon elements of father’s allegation as I consider this allegation 1.

The mother’s position is that during this incident, father scratched her arm and bruised her ankle by dragging her out of the house and stamping on her ankle. The mother said she was probably shouting and maybe swearing in cross-examination. She said she did not push the father or throw bags at him. I note that she has made some admissions here in cross-examination about the shouting and swearing that were not in her statements, and given these admissions, and given her admissions about other incidents, such as at Topps Tiles, where she accepts she lashed out and hit the father, I accept her evidence here on this point that she did not throw things at him or punch him in the face, as if she had, she would have said so. She does accept she grabbed him to stabilise herself and accepts she scratched him.

The mother has exhibited two photos of her injuries. Certainly, the photograph of her arm seems to be consistent with an injury suffered as a result of being dragged out of the house and scraping it on the door. It seems to have been taken in her car, which she says she was sitting in, blocked in by the father’s van, and the father accepts he blocked her in, and the police disclosure refers to this as well as father demanding to police that the mother be arrested to the extent of parking his van in front of the vehicle so she could not leave. Certainly, the time and date stamps of 7.13 and 7.14 on the evening of that day of the incident support her account.

The photograph of her ankle, which I accept was taken as the mother said, with her foot on the footwell of the driver’s door in her car when blocked in by the father’s van, shows swelling and bruising and I accept that to take a photo of her ankle, it would need to be taken out of the door, not in the dark of the footwell, where it might not be so easily seen. The mother said this injury was from father stamping on it. Noting that the father was a professional bodybuilder at the time of the alleged incident, I accept that if he stamped on her ankle, it would have caused significant bruising and injury. I do note that the mother did not seek medical attention or mention the injuries to the police, but I accept that the mother was emotionally all over the place and did not want to risk the repercussions. So I do accept that as an explanation for not telling the police or seeking medical attention.

In cross-examination, the mother was taken to the notes of her police interview on 12 June 2018, and it was put to her she did not mention being lifted up then or thrown to the floor. She says she did mention she was pulled, which was submitted to her is not the same. I have already touched on this, but I will repeat it here: I did not find her own account inconsistent with the police disclosure and note that, earlier in the police disclosure at page 288, it does say the father had thrown her on the floor. I accept that the mother was emotional and had spent the night in the cells and missed an exam, which in this instance explains the differing, but in my judgment, not inconsistent accounts of the incident.

Before moving on to consider the father’s evidence in this allegation, I note that the mother said in cross-examination her top was so torn and in pieces the police took it away. This was a detail I found of note. Why mention it in cross-examination on affirmation if it had not happened in this way? So I accept her top was torn following this incident, although I query why she did not put this in her witness statement given she did refer at page 133 to grabbing hold of the father, causing his top to tear.

This highlights one issue that the court has been faced with over and over again. Limited contemporaneous evidence in respect to the allegations and evidence of both parties that is inconsistent or expanded on with relevant details which the court then has before it for the first time in cross-examination with a limited explanation as to why. There was certainly no explanation from the mother as to why this had not been mentioned before, but I do note the father’s position regarding his longer witness statement no longer being in proceedings.

Father accepts in his response to mother’s allegations that there was an argument. He said in cross-examination what they were saying was not very nice, but he did not recall shouting or swearing at the mother. This was an example where it seemed he would not make admissions when it was not in support of his case, and, in my view, he minimised his role in this event. He clearly was acting aggressively to others that day, that is to say to the police as well, as per the police disclosure. Indeed, here was a situation for which the police’s resolution was for father to give mother her keys and for her to leave, but it ended up resulting in two arrests, given the father was getting aggressive, demanding the mother’s arrest, and blocked her in in front of the police. That to me is evidence he was not only aggressive, but not behaving proportionately, or with a view to getting himself out of the situation in the best way possible. In my judgment, from the evidence I have read of this volatile relationship, the parties were on this occasion shouting and swearing at each other.

I pause here to note how the father repeated when asked if they would call each other names and swear in their relationship, what he said many times in cross-examination, how they were not in a relationship. I do not accept this and find they were in a relationship, albeit not living together permanently. I note that mother could stay with family, with her mother, and had rented a room in a flat from June 2018, but that she also stayed with father, as many couples do when first together. I also note the email sent to the mother by father at page 141 of the bundle, which refers to wanting to be with the mother forever, and was signed from the man who did not deserve you. I do not accept he sent this email to the mother to stop her abusing him, given there was no abuse taking place following the incident in November/December 2019 to January 2020. It seems to me to have been written by the father as an ex-boyfriend. I also note he told the police, as recorded at page 341 of the police disclosure, that they had been in a relationship for six months. I also mention here that I accept that the father uses the term abuse to capture behaviour that the court would not deem abuse, such as being served a hard copy bundle in proceedings.

The father challenges the mother’s photographic evidence of her injuries, given the location data, but I accept what counsel for mother put to the father. It is, in my judgment, more likely that the location data, particularly from photos taken seven years ago, is a rough location (and within a mile or so, or four long roads, as per the father’s evidence), of where the mother was. Therefore, I accept these are photographs of her injuries suffered during the incident on 11 June 2018.

The father was also clear that he does not recall causing the injuries that the mother claims, and said in cross-examination he gave her no injuries. However, in the police disclosure, it is recorded he told the police he grabbed her by the arms and may have caused bruising. So he did, in fact, know that he may have caused her injuries and, certainly, I find this likely, given he was a professional bodybuilder at the time, and given the mother’s smaller size. So the evidence in the bundle is inconsistent with his oral evidence.

I note that the father said the mother kicked him in the leg and caused scratches to his neck. The mother denies the kick, although she says she grabbed hold of the father to stabilise herself, and accepts she scratched him, albeit unintentionally. Also, I note he did mention the injury to his knee to the police and I note as well that his form C1A mentioned the mother punching and hitting him with her fists and inanimate objects. He also refers in that to their daughter being exposed to arguing and volatility.

The mother’s counsel submitted that the father would tell police about things, not that the mother had done to him, but he had done to the mother. I do not find that on the evidence before me, even if I do note that the father seems to have little insight into his role in this volatile relationship, in cross-examination often seeking to blame the mother and not accept how he may have provoked her. Indeed, I saw on the video he mentions her embarrassing herself, which to me would provoke someone given the way he said it. However, I was referred to his January 2020 email at page 141 that I have already mentioned, and the fact he apologised for lies and false accusations. He did not say what they were, and I do not accept his explanation he just cut and copied this email from the internet to say they were not actually his words. I do note that there are no specific details about these from the mother as to whether they were lies and false accusations between themselves or to the police, but it does suggest a picture to the court that the father was saying he was not always honest with the mother.

I also noted that the father’s account of what happened in his evidence is not supported by the police disclosure, such as why he got angry and aggressive. The father was asked if the police were lying in relation to their account of why he got angry and he said they were misinterpreting the situation. I do not accept that. If he was angry because of the handcuffs, in my view, they would have said that. There was no reason not to. As I have mentioned, it appears on the evidence that neither the mother or father would have been arrested if the father had moved his van and let the mother go as suggested by the police. When asked if he would not accept the police’s proposed outcome, he said, I was very unsatisfied, but certainly especially with the mother’s exams the next day, that would, in my judgment, have been a proportionate response and dealt with the issues. The father did accept his blocking in of mother and I mention this, reminding myself of the direction I gave in relation to propensity evidence and the mother’s account of the incident in Father’s allegation 2, which I will come on to.

Given the father later told the court he was professionally bodybuilding at the time, so that he could not get his arms close enough together to put on handcuffs, I find it is likely that any such grabbing of mother was with some force and likely to cause injury. I also noticed that a witness was mentioned in the police disclosure who did not want to give his name, but did tell the police he saw the fighting.

Stepping back and considering the mother’s account of this incident and father’s evidence, along with other information in the bundle, I do find that father minimised his actions in reports to the police, such as saying he may have caused bruising when he knew he would have, and I also note he made a number of reports, evidenced by the disclosure, and wanted certain outcomes, such as the mother’s arrest, but then did not engage further with the police, and given lack of evidence, the police took no further action. This to me could be acts of abuse that form a pattern of coercive or controlling behaviour, and I will consider this later in my judgment.

But in respect of this allegation, on the balance of probabilities, considering the parties’ evidence and the father’s acceptance there may have been an argument, but preferring the mother’s accounts and the injuries, in my view, corroborated by the photos which I accept were taken at the time, and given the police evidence, and my assessment of the parties as witnesses, I find this allegation proven and I also find that the parties had an argument, that they were both shouting and swearing at each other, and they both caused injuries to each other during the incident. This finding should be considered alongside the finding I make in respect of father’s allegation 2.

I am just aware, I appreciate it is not usual to stop mid-judgment, but just given ground rules, I am just going to ask if father needs a short break. I would suggest we stay in court, and if he does need five minutes, he can take a step outside.

So turning now to allegation 2 on the mother’s schedule. This was on 13 June 2018, that after the incidents on 11 June 2018, the respondent was too afraid to return to the property which she shared with the applicant and subsequently stayed in a hotel. On 13 June, the applicant saw the respondent in the hotel car park having installed a tracker on her car. The applicant then began verbally abusing her and damaged the respondent’s wing mirror.

The mother says she was embarrassed after the incident that forms the basis for allegation 1 and so went to stay at the hotel, not with family, when the father showed up, verbally abused her in her car and ripped off her wing mirror.

In cross-examination, the mother expanded on the circumstances, saying the father sent her a pin drop showing where she was staying, so she went to leave the hotel. She does not say that in paragraph 44 of her witness statement. In that, she says, “I saw the father in the car park of the hotel and got in my car as he pulled into the car park.” I find it of note that in a fairly lengthy statement, she did not mention this highly relevant fact as to why she would have been in the car park late at night, trying to leave, and I note that it would be late at night, given it was June, and it does not get dark until late during that time of the year. I also note that the mother has not particularised the verbal abuse here as she has done regarding other allegations and, indeed, at page 135 of the bundle, her witness statement does not mention verbal abuse specifically, but only mentions the father shouting angrily.

She has exhibited a photo purporting to be the ripped wing mirror. She has not exhibited the receipt for the repair that her witness statement refers to. Instead, at exhibit DR3, she has exhibited the invoice purported to be from the hotel, which it was submitted does not have a year on it, but it does show dates in June from the 12^th to check out on the 15^th, which is consistent with the mother’s evidence of staying there and I accept that this could have been paid in advance, which is why the photo could be dated the 14^th. I find it unlikely this is an invoice that fits with these dates from another year and accept on the balance of probabilities, this is an invoice from a stay there in 2018.

I pause here to note again the exhibit at DR3 is not the exhibit which the witness statement refers to, and given there have been issues with bundles throughout these proceedings, I would urge instructing solicitors to make sure the paperwork is always in order.

In my judgment, father’s evidence about this allegation, in particular his written response, is also problematic. It is not consistent with what he said in examination-in-chief, that he had never been to the hotel - his response in the schedule that the mother had contacted him to meet at this time to discuss and resolve the argument, suggests it was at the hotel. I also do not find this response consistent with the response in his witness statement at page 151, when he says, “I do not acknowledge this incident.” He did, on his own evidence, meet the mother that night. The father does not mention in his written evidence going to a lay-by, or a place with a dropped pin, or that he did not go to the hotel, or set out any of the facts around meeting her in his response, that he did give in cross-examination. As I have already referred to, on the face of his schedule, he accepts he went to the hotel.

I do not accept the father’s explanation it was dark and he does not know where he went. Indeed, the picture of the car and the broken wing mirror that the mother exhibits is consistent with the time and the darkness of father’s account in cross-examination. But as to how he got there, there is no evidence before the court, save for what mother said in her statement about the tracker on her car.

The mother said the father had installed it and she found it after an accident. There were no more details. In cross-examination, I found she was vague about the circumstances of the accident, which she then expanded on and said she was driving over a pothole. She could not remember the date, but then when asked again, said it was after the child was born. When asked about evidence of the tracker, if she had a picture of it or where it was, she said her own father still has it. She said when she found it, she texted the father, who denied having put it on the car, but that he then texted her father to ask for it back. In my judgment, the mother could have provided a picture of the tracker, the text she said the father sent to her father, or mentioned that at least in her written evidence, or she could have provided the tracker itself in court, but she has not. That would have been clear evidence of a tracker in support of her account.

In relation to the broken wing mirror, it certainly looks as if it could have been ripped off with force, but there is only one photograph of it in the dark from the rear of the car, essentially in silhouette. There are no other clearer photographs of the damage, and it was submitted by the father’s counsel this could be the result of someone clipping the mirror or poor parking, which the mother did not accept. I do note the father has accepted breaking a wing mirror on another occasion, although in circumstances that he says were not his fault. But on the evidence before the court, it is difficult to see how the wing mirror, as shown in the photo, was damaged.

Considering both parties’ accounts, the issues with both parties’ evidence I have mentioned, although I do accept the mother was staying in a hotel and met the father in the car park on the evening of 13 June 2018, and that they had an argument, I do not, on the balance of probabilities, find this allegation proven. On the evidence before me, I am simply unable to make the findings sought as to the circumstances that led to the father attending the hotel and the parties being in the car park together, as to any verbal abuse or that the father damaged the mother’s wing mirror, but I do not find that there was a tracker on the car.

Allegation 3. This is that in January 2019, while the respondent was pregnant, the applicant got into an argument with her and subjected her to verbal abuse and kicked her out of the house at midnight. Due to the cold temperature, the respondent sat in the applicant’s unlocked van. Once she closed the door, the applicant locked her in and she was trapped for hours. The mother said the father kicked her out and that was when she sat in the applicant’s van, and when she did so, he locked her in. She did not go into more detail in her written statement, and when questioned about this in cross-examination, said she had not said in her witness statement that he had physically locked the van, and that maybe she should go into a bit more detail. The mother explained the difference between the allegation in the schedule and her account at page 136 of the bundle, explaining about the father’s deadlocks on the van.

The mother said after this that the father followed her home and keyed her car on every panel and broke a side mirror off. I agree with the submission made by father’s counsel, if it had happened as she said, she would have evidenced the serious damage. It is of note to me that she did not mention it to the police, or report it to her GP, given how pregnant she was and to have been sat in such a cold temperature for hours, although she did say in cross-examination she does not make reports to the police, and she was embarrassed to tell her GP. It was submitted to her she did not report it because of the harassment warning in place, and because the police had advised her to stay away from the father, which the mother did not agree.

The father denies locking the mother in his van. He said that if there was an argument, he would have not kicked her out if she could not get home safely, but may have asked her to leave. I note he did not deny asking her to leave, and I also consider, in my view, that he minimises his actions sometimes, skewing them to his narrative of events. I also note how he has weaponised his van in the past, as per the incident in allegation 1, blocking in the mother’s car with it.

The mother’s witness statement does not explain why she got into the father’s van when she had her car there, in which she later was able to leave the father’s property, and this does not appear to be an incident on the evidence before me where the mother said she did not have her belongings with her at any point. My concern is why did she get into the van if she had her own car there? In my view, given the impression I have informed of the parties’ relationship, it would have been to provoke father in this volatile relationship, where they seem to be drawn to antagonise each other.

Again, the mother does not particularise the details of the argument or the verbal abuse. Indeed, her witness statement says at page 136, they got into a heated argument subjecting her “to the terms I have referred to above” and kicked her out at midnight. I was not clear what the terms I have referred to above were. Was it the terms in relation to allegation 1 at page 133? I do accept the father had multiple cameras at his property, two of which he accepts were pointed at the parking bay, so accept he could have seen what the mother was doing. I also accept that the mother was at the father’s house in January 2019 and they argued and she left at midnight. However, on the balance of probabilities, on the evidence before me and given the issues with the mother’s account, I do not find this allegation proven.

Allegation 4 is that from May/June 2018 to February 2019, if the respondent said anything to the applicant which he did not like, he would manhandle her out of the house while pregnant and shut her out. Most of the time, the mother would be left with no belongings on her and on some occasions no shoes on. The father would then call her family members that he had thrown out the mother and she would not leave. Whilst stuck outside, the father would often talk to the respondent through the door, mocking her.

The father says the mother does not live with him. The mother says they did. She refers in her witness statement at times to the father’s property as home, or to sharing the property, for example, referring to whilst living with the applicant. The police disclosure at page 289 also refers to her having told the police that she was living with the father and had keys to his address until 11 June 2018. She did say in cross-examination when asked about allegation 3 that she had a room from June 2018 elsewhere, but had moved to father’s then to give the child the best chance of a non-broken family. The father said in his witness statement he denies this allegation and has said they just stayed with each other. The father was asked about her having keys and told the court that keys did go missing from his property so he had the locks changed.

My view is that the mother did have keys and that the lock change was when the relationship was coming to an end or had ended. In any event, in my judgment, I do not need to make a finding about whether they were living together or not to make a finding in relation to this allegation. I note that the mother had a harassment warning issued against her in April 2018. It is mentioned in the police disclosure at page 405, issued on 27 April 2018, and again, it is mentioned to her by the police as per page 288 of the police disclosure from an interview on 12 June 2018. It is referred to there as being issued the previous month, but it was in fact April, and she was told she could be arrested if she went to the father’s.

The mother told the court she did not know why she was given it and cannot recall the conversation in June with the police, and I note, and I have already referred to this in relation to assessing the mother’s evidence, that at page 158 of her witness statement she says, “There is no evidence in the police disclosure of the father having reported any incident involving me or of me having received a harassment warning.” I accept the police disclosure that was available when she made that statement may have redacted the references to the harassment warning, so there may have been no evidence of this in the disclosure, so it was technically true. However, I find the statement disingenuous. From what she told the court in cross-examination, she knew she had been issued a harassment warning. She may not recall being reminded of it in June, being emotionally all over the place, or may have thought it was not in place, on her case, as a result of what the father had told her, but she does not state any of this in her written evidence.

Indeed, I note that part of the father’s case is that the mother is a compulsive liar and she was asked why she had lied in the statement. She said she did not recall lying and it was more she could not digest anything that was actually happening. She said she sought help from Women’s Aid, but when questioned, said it had ended two years ago. I note that this witness statement is from last year, so after her help had stopped, when, in my judgment, she could have digested things and had a solicitor representing her. She did not update the court in examination-in-chief, although she said she had read the bundle and would surely have noticed the inconsistency between that statement and the position. In any event, I do question why, with the harassment warning in place and given the risk of arrest, the mother would go to father’s house repeatedly from April 2018.

That said, I do note the father seemed to encourage a continuation of the relationship, even when the harassment warning was in place, and I note in June 2018, he was advised by the police he should keep away from the mother and call 999 should she attend his address and it is not fitting to make allegations against her when he alleges he is being harassed, however still continues to see her, and in interview, the disclosure goes on to say, he stated he met up with her and had sex with her two days before. It seems to me the father would blow hot and cold with the mother, inviting her to his house but then asking her to leave, which he accepts in his response, making reports to the police about her, then not following them up. There is no evidence before the court of him contacting the mother’s family members or of how he taunted her.

However, I did note what father says to her in the video the father submitted from the peephole doorbell camera. In the video, the mother does seem to be without possessions and is tapping at the door, on her case, as she had been thrown out without belongings and wanted them back; on the father’s case, this was her tapping at the door, being annoying. I note it is a short excerpt and we do not have the context of what the father was doing before or after and we do not have a date and nor can we hear what mother is saying, but we do hear father saying, “You are embarrassing yourself and making a scene”.

In my view, the way he says that is not helpful and may have exacerbated the situation, but given the evidence before me, I do not find this allegation proven, but I do find that the mother would attend the father’s house during this period when there was a harassment warning in place. I find the father encouraged this despite the police advice he had received not to continue to see her and the fact he could then contact the police and have her arrested, and I find they would have arguments and the father would ask her to leave suddenly, and I find the behaviour of both parties in the circumstances of concern.

Turning to allegation 5, this is in November/December 2019, the applicant would threaten to make the mother’s life a misery if she did not let him have contact with their child. The applicant asked to see their daughter. However, due to weather conditions, the applicant said he could have contact at his address. Once at the property, the applicant, the father, tried to convince the mother to be a family with him. She refused and this led to him becoming abusive. The father called her a cunt amongst other names. The father then slapped the respondent across the face while she was holding their daughter.

The mother’s position is that the parties were meant to meet in a park, but owing to the weather, they met at the father’s. It was put to the father that this incident was why mother stopped contact, as she did not think it was safe for the child to be around him. The father did, in cross-examination, accept it would have been scary for the child if it were true that he had slapped the mother and the child had fallen to the ground. He accepts contact occurred, but denies any abuse during the period from November/December 2019. I also note an issue with this evidence, that the father told Cafcass that the last contact with the child was in a cafe with the maternal grandfather, not at this time with the mother present.

I am also concerned about inconsistencies in the mother’s evidence. In 2023, she told Cafcass that the father slapped her while she was holding the child, but not that she fell to the floor. Her witness statement at page 138 refers to the slap being so powerful that it took her to the floor, but her schedule just mentioned a slap. In cross-examination when asked about this, she said she fell down on her knee to one side.

I do note that contact stopped after this meeting and that the mother says it was because of being concerned about father’s behaviour, in particular his steroid use. During cross-examination, the father was asked about his use of steroids and whether that made him aggressive. This, as I have mentioned, was an example where he would not, in my judgment, give a straight answer, and this did not assist the court. He did say he had been using them for over 12 years, and I felt the tone he said it was almost said with some pride.

I did note the medical disclosure. The GP did not have access to his full notes. His notes start in 2019, when the father does refer to being a victim of domestic violence, but the covering letter from the GP also states the father told the GP he used steroids recreationally and does not do this on a regular basis. I do accept the father has little family around him and it sounds that his family life has been traumatic. He told the court his brother was murdered and his parents are both dead and he went to a school for children with special needs and he has always had difficulties, and so he may have wanted to have a family, but there are few details in mother’s account as to how the father tried to convince her about being a family together.

There is also no particularisation about how often and the way he would threaten to make her life a misery if she did not let him have contact with the child. Both parties accept there was contact and, following this contact, the mother has not allowed contact again. That to me is persuasive that an incident occurred that was more significant than past abuse. However, considering all the evidence and the mother’s inconsistent account of the physical abuse and, for example, not being able to recall if there was any redness to her face, although she did say she was focused on the child at the time, and even though the slap is mentioned on each occasion but given the differences in each account, on the balance of probabilities, I do not find this allegation proven. But I do note, as I have said, that following this contact the mother did not allow future contact and the father sent his apology email in January 2020.

I pause here just to consider father’s steroid use. Given his answers in cross-examination and medical disclosure not, in my mind, reflecting what the father told the court, I do have concerns about the extent of his steroid use and his understanding on how that might impact his behaviour and I do think that needs to be further explored, perhaps by way of further discussion with the GP and then further medical disclosure.

Allegation 6, that the applicant subjected the respondent to a pattern of controlling coercive behaviour. The father denies this and says the mother was controlling him. The mother has also mentioned in cross-examination the abortion clinic appointment and this being part of his controlling behaviour. She says that he controlled her by stalking her, tracking her, keeping an eye on movements and that it was oppressive and made her feel she was walking on eggshells.

I note that the mother and father both mentioned physical and verbal abuse to Cafcass and although the mother mentions isolation to them, neither of them mentioned the specific behaviour that formed the basis for their allegations of controlling and coercive behaviour. I do note that in the police disclosure when asked about controlling behaviour of the father, the mother says at page 287, “Yes, he does not like me doing certain things I consider as hobbies”. So she does say he is controlling but not for the reasons given in the allegations and her evidence. She also does say she is worried he will not leave her alone but there are no more specifics about that.

I have already, in respect of allegation 2, not found that the father put a tracker on the mother’s car and I also note the submissions made on behalf of father in respect of one aspect of the mother’s allegations regarding controlling her movements around her getting home from work. It was submitted that the mother’s evidence is inconsistent regarding whether he contacted her if she was even a minute late home from her 30 to 40 minute journey or 30 minutes. In my judgment, these were not inconsistent statements as the minute late as I understood it was a minute late home after the expected time and the 30 minutes late was from her work ending, essentially the same time periods.

However, I do not have any evidence of this other than the mother’s own evidence, such as screenshots of calls or messages or details about how he kept a constant eye on her movements, save as, for example, references to installing cameras in paragraph 63 of her witness statement at page 138, which she says were “in our home” but no details as to where in the home (and the father’s position is they were outside the house for security, although I do note they seemed excessive in number for what he referred to at one point as a small property, including two at the back fence of the property, two to watch his van’s parking bay and a Ring doorbell and one at the front of the house).

I do accept the father likes things just so, such as when the police did not do as he wanted: arrest the mother, and he became aggressive, but I also have no evidence of the Facebook messages or fake accounts that mother said father sent purporting to be from other women or set up, so I cannot make a finding about that.

I also find there was a lack of particularisation about the father turning up at the mother’s grandmother’s on her lunch break and at her workplace. The father does accept he went to the mother’s workplace, but says he was invited. He says he did not go to the grandmother’s and does not know where the grandmother lives. I do note there were inconsistencies in the cross-examination regarding attendance at the mother’s workplace, for example, as to turning up at midnight which suited him for lunch which he then corrected to for her break and the father’s evidence on this point did seem to me a little confused.

Also, as I have touched upon, his view of abuse is not clear, and I agree with the mother’s counsel that he defines the term widely, including seeing the delivery of the bundle to his house as abuse, and he was questioned about this at length. Although, I accept his diagnosis of dyslexia and his difficulties processing information, I felt this was not a proportionate response to the bundle being delivered, even when he disagreed with its contents. He accepted that he and the mother messaged each other and found out where each other was, but said this was normal in a relationship, and his position was that the mother was controlling him.

But considering all the evidence before me, I do not find the allegation proven as put by the mother, but I do find that the father subjected the mother to coercive and controlling behaviour by what I found in relation to allegation 4, that the father encouraged the mother to attend his property, despite the police advice he had received not to continue to see her when she was subject to a harassment warning, and the fact he could then contact the police and have her arrested, and would then ask her to leave, and also in relation to the incident I found where he blocked her in using his van, and the incident I will go on to consider and make findings about in relation to father’s allegation 2, where he would use threatening behaviour to frighten her.

Turning now to the father’s allegations about the mother. First of all, that the respondent constantly attempted to control the applicant’s life. The respondent would invade the applicant’s privacy by going through his possessions and follow him to work on several occasions. The respondent would constantly text and call the applicant to know his whereabouts when at work and when out socially with friends and, should the applicant be unavailable to messages or call back, the respondent mother would emotionally manipulate the applicant and accuse him of being unfaithful with customers while at work.

This allegation lacks particularisation for me, first, in respect of going through his possessions. In cross-examination, the mother does accept she looked at his iPad, but says she was offered it and his Facebook page was open. The court does not know what led to her looking at the iPad and it seemed a one-off, although the mother does, when referring to the fake Facebook accounts mentioned for the first time in her last witness statement, that she found these accounts on his iPad.

There are references in the mother’s statements to going to Topps Tiles, which is not where the father worked, but where he bought things for work and had friends, but I generally accept the mother’s accounts for each of her visits to Topps Tiles. There is no particularisation as to when she followed him to work. The father accepted, as I have said, in cross-examination, they would text each other, but there was no evidence by way of text as to the mother constantly texting and calling to know where he was, or particularisation as to the times when this happened.

I do note that in police disclosure in August 2018, he did answer there was mutual stalking and harassment taking place, but there is also no particularisation, in my judgment, of what is meant by emotional manipulation, although I heard the father say he has issues with mental health, which was confirmed, in my judgment, by the GP’s letter, which refers to his suffering mixed anxiety and depression. Also, there were no examples of accusing him of being unfaithful with customers. In addition, when father was asked by the police as evidenced in the disclosure at page 342 in an interview on 5 August 2018, he said there had been no control or isolation. Therefore, considering the evidence before me and the allegation as set out, the father has not proven this on the balance of probabilities.

Turning to allegation 2, that the respondent on several occasions throughout the relationship caused physical injury to the father, most notably in June 2018 - it has not been changed on the schedule, it still says 2019 - where the father says she scratched my neck, which led to bleeding. The applicant further recalls the respondent slamming his arm in a car door, which caused significant bruising as is exhibited in his statement.

I have already considered the incident in June 2018 as part of the mother’s allegation 1. The mother accepts she grabbed hold of the father to stabilise herself and scratched him on the neck unintentionally. Given the photographs exhibited by the father dated 11 June 2018 show significant scratches to both sides of the father’s neck, and given my view is that it was more than simply stabilising herself, and although she does not accept she kicked his knee, she does accept lashing out and hitting father at other times, and I find that when they were shouting and swearing at each other and the father grabbed her by the top, dragging her out of the house, as per her allegation 1, that she did scratch the father’s face and hurt his knee, and so I find that the mother caused injury to the father on 11 June 2018.

In relation to the second part of the allegation, that the mother slammed father’s arm in a car door, I found there were significant inconsistencies in the father’s evidence, in particular as to whether the injury was caused by his arm being trapped in a car window or a car door. The father may be confusing incidents from during a volatile relationship, but the inconsistency is significant, in my judgment. The mother accepts she caused the bruising, but she gives a different explanation. Given a clear lack of consistent details from the father about how the injury occurred, and this is the event he says led to the wing mirror being broken with him leaning on it, I prefer the mother’s explanation as to the injury to his arm, caused by the father trying to reach into her car and her putting the window up, although I note it is not one of her allegations, although it does seem to me serious.

In my judgment, it would have been an odd thing for the mother to make up in such detail that the father tried to force her off the road (and despite there being no contact between the vehicles, which I do not find her written and oral evidence to be inconsistent in relation to), and then blocked her in on a dead-end road off the A13. Given we have independent evidence of him blocking her in on another occasion and using his van, I accept the father would try to force her off the road and block her in. I also accept, as on another occasion, he would have reached in and tried to grab her keys. The photos of bruising to his arm are, in my judgment, consistent with him reaching in, and I do not accept that he would have used two hands to push down the window, even with his strength, rather than his arm. I do not find that the mother slammed the father’s arm in the car door to cause this injury, and as I say, I find it was caused as per the mother’s account, but it does raise concerns for the court, given the volatility of the parties and how injuries are caused as a result of their interactions, and certainly how that might impact on the child’s welfare.

Stepping back and considering allegation 2 in its entirety, on the balance of probabilities, I find there was physical abuse perpetrated by the mother against the father throughout the relationship, given my findings regarding the incident in June 2018, and bearing in mind the mother’s admission of hitting the father at Topps Tiles and the video in which she appears to be trying to throw a punch at the father, but I do not find there was physical abuse as per the father’s account in July 2018.

Finally, although no findings are sought regarding allegation 3, given the mother’s admissions and the court’s view it is not necessary or proportionate to make those findings, it will be recorded in the schedule that the mother accepted those incidents occurred in the terms that she accepts: she left the child on the floor of Topps Tiles and said words to the effect of, “Let me know when she needs picking up”, and that she left the child unattended in the car at Topps Tiles, between 2 and 5 metres away from the mother, and the mother lashed out at the father and struck him. The court notes the second incident, although the child was not immediately there, was in the immediate vicinity of the child and the court also finds that both of these incidents are likely to have caused the child emotional harm.

Overall, I have made some findings in respect of the allegations before the court, but not in respect of all of them. Much of this is down to lack of evidence, and in some cases where I am told there is evidence, for example, the tracker, it is just not before the court, and so the person making the allegation has not proved the matters on the balance of probabilities. I also note that the events are all historic, they are at least all six years ago or more, but I note that the dynamics of the parties are such that they argued when they came together, and their fights were not just verbal, but became physical to such a degree they caused each other injury.

My findings also include how the father did try to control the mother during her relationship by his reports to the police and by affecting her movements from his property. I am concerned about that, and would like that recorded in the recitals, that although the findings made relate to historic events, they evidence the dynamics of the parties’ relationship, and that both parties have experienced domestic abuse from the other, and so the court wants to be sure that any future orders made as a result of these proceedings are in the child’s welfare interests and protect both parents.

I do note that father said in his C1A that the parties have always lived separately, and so there is no risk of further violence, but given the findings I have made, I do not think the fact that they do not live together is enough of a protective factor. That is my judgment.