X v Q

This is my judgment following a fact-finding hearing in private law proceedings. The subject children of these proceedings are AXQ, a teenage boy, and his younger sister, BXQ.

The father of the children is X their mother is Q. The father shares parental responsibility with the mother because he is named on their birth certificates.

By an application dated 14 September 2023, the father seeks a child arrangements order, for both children to spend time with him, to include regular unsupervised contact and overnight contact.

The parents were in a relationship and lived together between September 2003 and 2021. They were never married. There was a separation in April 2019 when the father left the family home, but the parties reconciled in December 2019 and the father moved back into the family home. They have remained permanently separated since April 2021.

They have an older son together named CXQ. He is now aged 19.

Since separation, the father had sporadic contact with the children, but this did not progress to overnight contact because the mother was concerned about the father’s behaviour and alcohol consumption. The mother has raised serious allegations of domestic abuse against the father.

The Cafcass safeguarding letter in October 2023 recommended that the mother should immediately suspend the contact that was taking place directly between the father and the children due to the allegations she had made of domestic abuse against the father and of his consumption of alcohol whilst the children were in his care.

In October 2023, Cafcass recommended that the Local Authority complete a Section 37 report following allegations that the children were scared of their father, but the Local Authority wrote to the court stating that a Section 37 report was not required.

Cafcass made a referral to the Local Authority, the London Borough of Southwark. The Local Authority agreed with Cafcass’ recommendation that the contact between the children and the father should be suspended for the same reasons.

At the FHDRA on 5 December 2023, it was directed that contact should take place on at least two occasions for two hours on each occasion between the date of that hearing and the following hearing. Such contact was to be in the presence of the parties’ mutual friend, Y. This direction was repeated at a subsequent hearing. Supervised contact has continued to take place and since then it has continued fortnightly as set out in the orders of 5 December 2023 and 27 June 2024.

At the hearing on 2 May 2024, it was established that a fact-finding hearing was necessary and proportionate in light of the mother’s allegations and the father disputing all the mother’s allegations in their entirety. The matter was set down for the three-day fact- finding hearing which took place before me on 14, 15 and 16 April 2025.

Following initial non-compliance with the direction for the father to undergo hair strand testing, he subsequently did undergo such testing and the order of 2 May 2024 records that the alcohol marker analysis of the father’s hair strand testing indicated chronic excessive use of alcohol during the period middle of September 2023 to the middle of March 2024. Thereafter, on 27 June 2024, the father was directed to provide updating hair strand test results for alcohol, and also for use of cannabis and cocaine. Again, there was non- compliance resulting in solicitor communications.

At the hearing on 15 January 2025, the father was again directed to provide a hair strand test sample for a period of six months for segmented alcohol and cocaine consumption. The father did comply with this direction, and the subsequent report dated 4 February 2025 indicated, again, chronic excessive use of alcohol in the period beginning of July 2024 to the beginning of January 2025. There were also traces of cocaine detected for three out of the five months that were tested, for the period between August 2024 and October 2024.

The father denies use of cannabis but admits to using cocaine, which he says he uses recreationally. I prefer and accept the evidence of the expert testing in respect of his misuse of alcohol and drugs.

It was not until the pre-trial review hearing on the 27 June 2024 that the father made allegations, for the first time, of domestic abuse against the mother. There is now a composite schedule of allegations before me. I permitted very limited amendments on behalf of the mother in respect of a correction of a date and the addition of a page and paragraph references in her written evidence.

The mother contends that the father has engaged in DARVO by making the allegations against her at the late stage that he did – DARVO being the acronym for the practice of denying, attacking and reversing victim and offender – which the mother contends constitutes further abuse.

I also permitted the mother to amend a witness statement which already contained evidence of an image of a black eye, but which was now produced with time stamps and further details surrounding the incident. I also permitted the father to change the date in respect of one of his allegations from July or August 2022 to September 2019.

A witness statement of the father was missing from the bundle but he and the QLR were provided with a copy and sufficient opportunity to consider it.

For the purposes of this judgment, I have read the bundle of documents provided to me, the updating documentary evidence filed during the course of the hearing as well as each party’s position statement. I heard the oral evidence of the mother, the father, the friend Y, and the mother’s sister, Z, who attended remotely via video link. I received written closing submissions on behalf of each party on 22 April.

The mother was represented by counsel. The father appeared as a litigant in person, but a qualified legal representative undertook the cross-examination of the mother on his behalf. Her conduct of the case was of a very high quality and was of enormous assistance to the parties as well as to me. I am extremely grateful to her.

There have been no responses by the father, in writing, to the mother’s allegations contained in two witness statements. There appears to have been no direction requiring him to respond, but nor did he seek to do so. I note that he was represented at some hearings, but no direction appears to have been sought in this respect. Nonetheless, given that he was a litigant in person at the hearing, I considered it only fair to afford him the opportunity to provide his responses in oral evidence at the hearing. He was afforded sufficient time to discuss matters with the QLR and to consider the witness statement of his which had was not contained in the trial bundle, before the hearing commenced.

I turn now to the law, which is accurately set out in detail in the closing submissions on behalf of the mother. I will not repeat it here, save to set out the broad principles that are to be applied.

On disputed facts, the burden of proof rests on the party who asserts the truth of an allegation. The burden must not be reversed; for example, in respect of any finding sought, it is not for the other party to prove his or her innocence nor to come up with alternative explanations. The standard of proof to be applied is this simple civil standard of proof, namely the balance of probabilities: Re B [2008] UKHL 35.I have had regard to that burden and standard of proof in making any findings or reaching any conclusions in this judgment.

It is not necessary for me to determine every disputed issue raised, only those which assist me in reaching my decisions.

Findings of fact must be based on evidence and not speculation: Re A (A Child) (Fact- finding hearing: Speculation) [2011] EWCA Civ 12. Where parties are alleged to have lied, I have given myself a Lucas direction in my approach to that evidence to the effect that witnesses may lie for a whole range of reasons and just because they lie in respect of one matter does not mean that they have lied about other matters: : R v Lucas [1981] QB 720

I found the mother’s evidence to be clear, coherent and consistent, both in terms of oral and written evidence. During the evidence and while sitting in court listening to the father’s evidence, she presented with congruent emotional affect. At times the hearing was clearly very difficult for her emotionally. She was tearful at times. I gained the impression that she was greatly distressed by the fact and extent of the father’s denial of the allegations and his attempt to reverse the situation to portray her as the aggressor. Overall, I considered her to be an honest witness who gave credible and detailed accounts of specific allegations which she particularised. These were not scattergun allegations; they were limited and focused. Many of them were rooted in external reality and by that I mean there were indeed factual, contextual incidents for her allegations, as acknowledged by the father and also the mother’s two witnesses.

I found Y and Z to be credible witnesses of truth. They each gave measured, thoughtful evidence and were very careful not to give evidence on matters that they were unsure about. I reject the father’s assertion that they were lying and had somehow been coerced by the mother into lying on her behalf. The mother’s sister was very candid in saying that she did have hostile feelings towards the father because of his conduct towards her sister, but nonetheless I am satisfied that her evidence was truthful, and the credibility of her account was not compromised in any way, as a result of her feelings towards the father.

I note that Y’s evidence was in the context of her having been a long-term friend of not just the mother but also the father. In fact, her friendship with the father pre- dated her friendship with the mother. I prefer the evidence of the mother and her two witnesses over the father on matters in dispute.

Whilst mindful that the burden of proof must not be reversed, it is significant in my judgment that the father failed to respond in any or any adequate detail to the allegations made by the mother. It is reasonable to have expected him to do so if he maintained that they were untrue. I found him to be an unsatisfactory witness who was evasive and untruthful in respect of material issues. I can discern no innocent or other explanation for his lies other than that he was deliberately seeking to deny and to escape responsibility for his actions in order to pursue his applications in respect of the children, and because he knows that any adverse findings against him are likely to impact negatively on his applications.

The mother’s actions in seeking to continue her relationship with the father despite the abuse, and her expressions of her love for the father even after the alleged rape, is not uncommon in victims of abuse. As the mother explained, she did not want the relationship to end, she simply wanted the father to address his alcohol misuse. She did not want the stigma of being a single parent and for her children to grow up in a broken family because of all the well-documented negative consequences which often arise for children in those circumstances. She explained that her self-esteem and her self-worth were, as she put it, “on the floor”, and all she wanted was to make things better and she wanted a partner and to keep the family together for the children’s sake. She did not want to end up in court in the way that matters have evolved. In my judgment, none of that serves to undermine the credibility of the evidence that she gave.

I also take the view that efforts by her to try to negotiate and bring about a halt to proceedings and to settle matters in correspondence through her mother to the father was because she simply did not want these proceedings to continue. That is entirely understandable. It has all impacted on her and taken its toll emotionally. The mother explained, and I accept, that she was seeking to settle matters to avoid proceedings and her mother was negotiating with the father on her behalf because her mother was worried about her.

I do not consider the mother to be a manipulative and controlling person who has lied about sexual and physical abuse by the father simply to stop him having a proper relationship with the children, as the father claims. I note that for a significant period the mother continued to allow the father to have direct contact with the children, and indeed unsupervised contact, despite her own experiences of abuse. It appears it was not really until professionals put a stop to it and Cafcass informed her that she was not safeguarding the children sufficiently by letting the father have contact, that those arrangements stopped. The mother described being told this by Cafcass as being one of the worst days of her life and that thereafter she was on high alert that anything she agreed to or engaged in negotiations with the father had to be sanctioned by the Local Authority, because she knew that otherwise she risked losing her children from her care. I accept her evidence on this.

It appears to me from all that I have heard and read, given the abuse that she has suffered and with the distance and time that she has had in order to reflect and come to terms with her experiences, this explains what might otherwise be viewed as inconsistent action on her behalf and these matters do not, in my judgment, serve to fundamentally undermine the credibility of her evidence.

I turn now to the specific allegations and my findings.

Allegation 1: “X created an atmosphere of fear and control at home. (a) X attempted to enforce adult time and shouted at the children. (b) X verbally abused me in front of the children.”

This allegation is proved. The mother provided compelling evidence of how both she and the children essentially walked on eggshells in anticipation of the father returning home and complaining about the children’s toys, the children messing up the home, and the noise the children made, particularly if they were playing on their iPads or watching television. She described their hurried attempts to tidy up, so as to please the father and not incur his anger, of her urging the children to tidy up, because otherwise there would be “murder”, as she put it, and how they all jumped when he came home. This was a regular occurrence, she said. He would shout and complain if things were not to his liking and he created a fearful atmosphere.

He was derogatory towards the mother, complaining about her not having done any housework even though she was herself in full-time work and having only just returned home, wasted no time in getting on with cooking the family meal. She said, sometimes, she barely had time to take off her coat before starting the meal, fearful that the father would return and shout. In contrast, she described how the father had a clear routine of returning home, going upstairs and changing his clothes first. In his oral evidence, the father confirmed this to be the case.

The mother was expected to also clear up afterwards, although I accept the father’s evidence that he did assist from time to time with the children’s bedtime routines such as brushing teeth and bathing them. The mother acknowledged this herself and agreed that the father would intermittently engage with the children and ask them, for example, whether they had had a good day at school.

The mother also acknowledged that the father did on occasions iron the children’s clothes and vacuum the house, but it was left to her to do the cooking, make the beds, do the clearing and washing up, with the father claiming that she did it “so much better” than him by way of justification for not undertaking these tasks himself.

Furthermore, the mother told me that the father spent a good deal of his time at the pub, and when at the weekends he purported to give the mother a rest, he would often take the children to the pub. She told me that everyone locally knew that her children always sat in the pub with their father, and even after he brought them home, he would return to the pub.

I accept the mother’s account of these matters. It is entirely consistent with the extent and regularity of the father’s intoxication on the evidence available to me.

The mother told me the father demanded relaxing adult time, by which he meant doing everything that he wanted and that it largely consisted of him being on the sofa on his own while the mother spent time trying to keep the children quiet. There was no appreciation by the father that the children also needed some down time, having had a long school day, and there was no acknowledgement by him of the mother being tired after work, having collected the children from school to bring them home. The mother had a demanding job, she was in fact a wealth manager. The father was also working in the finance sector as a trader. The mother appeared to me to be simply a woman who had been ground down and worn out. She told me she was running around desperately trying to hold down a job as well as looking after the children.

The father claimed that he did not force structure in the home, but that he was a bit stricter in comparison to the mother who he said was more lenient and did not try to do so at all. He reluctantly accepted in oral evidence that he may have shouted at the children. I prefer the evidence of the mother about the extent of this, which I consider went beyond what the father was prepared to concede.

He acknowledged that he told the boys to “stop crying like a big girl”. In my judgment, his behaviour was not simply attributable to different parenting styles. In my judgment, it is likely the father denigrated and taunted the boys in the ways described by the mother, accompanied by making faces at them and adopting silly voices mimicking that of a girl. The mother was understandably worried, in respect of the boys in particular, that the father’s attitude would only serve to shut down their emotions and leave them unable to express them, and that it would also embed in them misogynistic attitudes, all to the detriment of their emotional well-being.

The father was at pains throughout the hearing to portray the mother as someone who was extremely untidy to the point of being a problematic hoarder. In my judgment, this is an example of the kind of derogatory and condescending attitude the father demonstrated towards the mother. Unsurprisingly, with three children and two busy working parents, it is likely that the house was sometimes messy. It was a three-bedroom Victorian terrace, and the mother acknowledged that her wardrobe could “definitely do with a spring clean”. I prefer and accept the evidence of the mother and Y that she was not a hoarder. It is significant in my judgment that the father did not appear to consider that he had a role himself in trying to assist in keeping the house tidy. I prefer and accept the mother’s evidence that most tasks fell to her, and the father did not assist by undertaking, for example, DIY tasks, and that when the mother ended up doing those herself, he was dismissive of her efforts and he continually complained the house was a “shithole”.

The father was very clear in his oral evidence about the need for structure and complained that the mother did not do enough in this respect. In my judgment it is likely that the father did try to enforce adult time in the way that the mother described, in order to put in place the “structure” in the home that he considered necessary and what he said the mother was not able to do.

I am satisfied that the father was verbally abusive towards the mother, complaining, for example, that she was a “lazy bitch” and calling her “vile and horrible”, telling her that she had no friends and that nobody liked her, including her mother and sister. I am satisfied that on occasion the mother responded to the abuse out of frustration, particularly in respect of the father’s drinking. She told me that she would on occasion say to him, “All you ever do is go out and get drunk.”

There were clearly arguments between the two. The father acknowledged saying to the mother, “All you do is get stoned” and claimed the mother did so every day. In his oral evidence he claimed, for the first time, that the mother was “high” every day during her pregnancy. I note that this was not put to her in cross-examination. I reject the father’s evidence of this as untruthful. I prefer the evidence of the mother who candidly acknowledged that, early on in the relationship, she did smoke cannabis and became intoxicated on occasion, but that is not something which continued once she had assumed the responsibility of motherhood.

The father placed strong emphasis on what he alleged was the mother’s continued drug taking and his repeated criticism of her being “stoned”, both of which I find to be untrue. In my judgment it is more likely than not that he was abusive towards her, as she claimed. The arguments appear to have centred on the father’s drinking, their stretched finances and the mess in the house that the children made. When the mother would cry because of the arguments, I accept her evidence that the father would taunt her about turning on the

Allegation 2. “X raped me and attempted to rape me on various occasions.

These allegations are proved. The mother’s evidence was consistent, credible and compelling, providing, as it did, considerable contextual and credible detail. In contrast, the father’s evidence was inconsistent and very contradictory. He was also deliberately evasive at points during his evidence. He started out with a flat denial of all aspects of the mother’s account before dissembling under cross-examination and shifting the account that he gave. He claimed that the mother was simply making up the allegation to prevent him seeing the children. However, that cannot explain her motivation because, as I have already mentioned, she continued to allow unsupervised direct face-to-face contact for a considerable period.

Furthermore, I take into account that she informed her sister about this incident in 2019. I note the father did not attempt to challenge this aspect of her evidence. She informed her sister a year after the incident, which is entirely consistent with the mother’s account that she could not bear to discuss the incident. Most notably, this occurred four years prior to the father’s application and the mother communicating allegations of domestic abuse to a social worker in 2022, some 18 months prior to the application.

The mother’s account is that on the drive to the [location], where the rape took place, whilst the mother drove, the father was grabbing her legs and that she knew he wanted sex. In evidence, the father moved from flat denial to falteringly accepting that there was some flirtatious behaviour by him in the car and subsequently, but he says it was no more than that because it would have been dangerous to have engaged in what the mother said occurred in the car whilst the mother was driving.

The mother’s case is that the father grabbed her roughly and rubbed himself against her once they had reached [location] and she was putting the food away in the kitchen. The children in the area had gone out on their bikes, save for [REDACTED]. The father grabbed her bottom and her breasts and pushed her up against the cupboard, making it very clear that he wanted sex. I accept the mother’s evidence that she repeatedly told him to leave her alone and she said, “No means no.” She called him a sex pest and was concerned about the children being around. She was sobbing and crying and shouting, “No means no!”

She told me that she had no idea that the father had taken [REDACTED] to her sister’s immediately before the incident. In my judgment, that supports her case that he did so because of his sexual intentions towards her and to ensure that the children were out of the way.

[REDACTED] was indeed with the maternal aunt. The father grabbed her from behind, said the mother, and threw her on the bed. He held her down and pulled her pyjama bottoms down and forced himself into her, inserting his penis into her vagina. She described hearing the click of the bedroom door and seeing her son’s face as he stood there in a red Liverpool football top, which she told me was so distressing that she could picture it to this day. Her son ran off to her sister’s caravan. The mother was extremely distressed while giving this evidence and I am satisfied she was recalling a genuine account of her experience and the shock that accompanied it. I am entirely satisfied that the father knew that he was forcing sexual intercourse on the mother against her will. I am satisfied that he raped her.

Immediately afterwards, the mother called her sister to bring [REDACTED] home to her. Her sister’s evidence confirms that the mother called her, crying and asking the sister to bring [REDACTED] back to her. She found the mother sobbing, and the mother held [REDACTED] and hugged her. The sister said that this was an awkward situation and embarrassing, and she felt uncomfortable. There was no attempt by the sister to embellish the account, she was very careful to confine her evidence to telling me only that which she could directly recall. For example, she said that the mother had not mentioned anything to her about the rape at the time, but that she did so approximately six months to a year later.

If the mother and the sister were colluding to tell lies, as the father alleges, it would have been easier and better to say that the mother had made a contemporaneous complaint, but the sister did not do so, and nor did the Q. Q described how it was an embarrassing situation for the mother to talk to her about. She confirmed that CXQ had come running to her, and when she asked what had happened, he just said, “Ugh, ugh, ugh, I just caught my mum and dad having sex.”

The mother told me, and I accept, that she blocked the event out of her mind. It took a long time for her to process what had happened, and that would seem to underscore the gravity of her experience, and the fact that the father downplayed the incident and tried to make her think that she had imagined it. In my judgment, this is an example of the gaslighting the mother pleads in allegation 3. She was only able to recall the incident when she went to counselling. She described feeling so much shame to have to discuss it there and again here in the courtroom. She said that she was somewhat desensitised now to what had taken place.

Given such a serious allegation, it is significant in my judgment that the father made no attempt to provide any written response to this. In my judgment, his account in oral evidence was simply made up as he went along. There were significant inconsistencies. After denying that it took place at all, he shifted his account to saying that he was unsure whether or not they had sexual intercourse, before then asserting that they were attempting to have sex, and then changing his mind once again to say that all they had done was engage in foreplay.

I prefer the evidence of the mother that en route to [location] they were not engaged in flirtation, but rather the father was touching her by grabbing her leg, and it would have been clear to him that this was not something she wanted. She said that it made her feel uncomfortable, she knew what his intention was, and she was concerned about the presence of the children.

Later in his evidence, the father acknowledged that there was some touching during the caravan incident, but that it was more foreplay as opposed to being aggressive. He changed his account thereafter to state that he thought the child, CXQ did see them attempting to have penetrative sex, and that there was “some nudity”.

It is noteworthy that the father asserted in his oral evidence that during cross- examination of her the previous day, the mother had said that she was face down on the bed at the time. The father ran with this point and persisted in advancing a case that she must therefore be lying about the incident, because it would not have been possible for her to have seen her son’s face when she was lying down. However, this is not what the mother said in written or oral evidence. Rather, she said she was grabbed from behind and pushed forcefully onto the bed. The mother said the father’s response to her distress was simply to say, “What are you talking about? I saw my mum having sex with a man when I was four years old.” The father acknowledged that he did say to the mother that all children see their parents have sex. There was no explanation or context for why he would have said this, and in my judgment, the only context in which it makes sense is that the mother’s allegation is true.

The father has raped the mother on at least two other separate occasions, according to her evidence, which I accept. She told me that she would wake up on various occasions in the middle of the night and find him on top of her. On one occasion, he was inside her and she had to push him off, but he claimed not to have remembered what he had done the next morning but apologised to her.

Expert evidence confirms that the father continues to drink to excess, and he also takes cocaine. The father’s misuse of alcohol was a particular source of significant difficulties within the relationship. The father’s concessions relating to this are contained in recitals to the order dated 15 January 2024. The fact that the father acknowledges he urinated around the house demonstrates the loss of control of his bodily functions as a result of the extent of his intoxication. I accept the mother’s evidence that the father never even remembered urinating around the house – he was so intoxicated – and that he did not accept that he urinated on her birthday present until she showed him the urine on the boxes.

Allegation 3. “X gaslit me to distort my reality and isolate me from my family and friends.

X proposed to me in 2016 but later denied this in 2020.

X sought to isolate me from my family and friends by using gaslighting to distort my reality.

X claimed he had no memory of raping me and attempting to rape me.”

These matters are proved. I accept the mother’s evidence that the incidents of abuse were denied by the father, and he would say that he could not remember them, or claim that it did not happen, or that the mother was too insensitive, or that he did not mean it quite the way that she had said. Instead of discussing matters, he would tell the mother to get over it, close down discussions and walk away, telling her to stop going on and complaining and that she was always whinging.

In my judgment, the father did not so much isolate the mother from family and friends as alienate her to an extent, deliberately, and this constitutes abuse. It impacted upon the mother’s friendships and relationships negatively. The mother told me that the father would repeatedly tell her that her sister and her mother did not like her and made her mistrust them until she was able to clarify things with her family and the father subsequently apologised to her sister for the things that he had said. It got to the stage where the mother

The father created an atmosphere in the home that even Y, who they had been friends with for such a long time, tended to only come round once the father had left the home. The father made her friends and family uncomfortable, and they would have visited more frequently otherwise. They tended to come to visit her when the father was in the pub.

The mother’s evidence that the father proposed to her immediately following the birth of BXQ is corroborated by the account given by Y. The mother was clear and consistent in her evidence that the father did not make a whole show of getting down on one knee, but that three or four hours after the birth of , he came and cuddled the mother and said, “Will you marry me?” The mother appeared to find it particularly distressing that the father should continue to deny this. Ultimately, the father’s own oral evidence was that he

I reject the father’s assertion that he did not go as far as proposing to the mother. To all intents and purposes, what he communicated to her was clearly a proposal, which he has continually denied since then. Y confirmed the mother’s account that the father had asked the mother to marry him. She said this was all in the context of the parents being very happy following the birth of BXQ, and that prior to the birth the father had actually told Y he was going to ask the mother to marry him. Y told me she had a discussion with the father about whether he was going to wait until BXQ could become a flower girl. Y said that after the birth, he confirmed to her that he had proposed.

The mother’s case is that the father sought to isolate her from her family and friends, by gaslighting her to distort her reality. The father accepted telling the mother that she had no friends, and that nobody liked her. The mother’s evidence is corroborated by that of her sister, Z. Z confirmed that Mr Butcher would regularly phone her after he had had arguments with the mother, saying, “Your sister’s a lunatic,” and calling the mother names and undermining her.

This all constitutes gaslighting. It is a form of emotional abuse that the father deployed, in order to manipulate the mother to doubt her own sanity, perceptions, and reality. It involves denying, distorting, or misrepresenting facts and situations to confuse and control the victim. I am satisfied that these elements are established by the mother, on the balance of probabilities.

I accept the submission on behalf of the mother that having found the rape allegation established and given the father’s denial of the rape and attempted rape of the mother and the manner in which he has advanced his defence in respect of this allegation, the father’s conduct has not only been unnecessarily traumatising for the mother, but also compounds the gaslighting.

Allegation 4. “X verbally and physically abused CXQ in June 2019”

X called CXQ a ‘horrible, flash little cunt’.

The father has accepted that he said this, and on the evidence before me, it is proved. The mother’s case, which I accept, is that the father was angry with CXQ and pointed at him and said, “That is one horrible, flash cunt, the way he behaved in front of my family.” CXQ sobbed to his mother about the father’s behaviour and how he was dragged into the cab to come home, even though he wanted to stay at his nan’s. The father attempted to contextualise this by reference to CXQ’s behaviour, which he found unacceptable. There is absolutely no justification in any circumstances for the father to have abused his child in this way.

X frightened CXQ by his abusive behaviour in an Uber.

X became physically abusive to CXQ.

I prefer the evidence of the mother that the father was clearly intoxicated at 6 PM when he telephoned her. The Uber arrived home at 10 PM and it is likely that in that four- hour period the father continued to drink excessively and was significantly intoxicated upon his return home. She told me that CXQ had informed her that the father was abusing him in front of the paternal family and during the journey home. There was the added credible detail CXQ provided to the mother, that he had had to apologise to the Uber driver for his father’s behaviour in the cab.

On the father’s account, there clearly was an incident which occurred between the father and CXQ in the Uber on their way home from a family event at the paternal grandparent’s home. The father stated that there was some dispute over his son stealing

The mother told me in detail, and readily acknowledged, that CXQ had stolen £50 from the holiday money that the father had set aside in 2018. The father ended up accepting in his oral evidence that in fact the stealing of the money incident took place a year earlier. I am satisfied that he was simply seeking to conflate these unrelated issues, deliberately and dishonestly, in order to avoid a finding in respect of this allegation.

On the father’s evidence, the dispute started whilst at his parent’s home and he conceded that he was loud when he returned to the family home. The mother gave details of how she heard CXQ hammering and crying at the door at around 9 or 10 PM. She was not expecting them home because earlier in the phone call the father had informed her that he was going to stay with the children overnight at his mother’s home. The mother said that she jumped in the middle between the father and CXQ in the hallway of the home when the father tried to physically attack CXQ. Her account provided compelling detail of how the father was trying to grab CXQ, even though the mother was in the way and she was clear that he would have hit the child if he could have.

I note that the child was only aged 12 at the time and the mother told me that the father had “scared the life out of CXQ” and the child was left traumatised. I accept the evidence given by the mother.

The child explained to the mother that the incident arose because the father said CXQ had embarrassed the father in front of his family and said that they could not stay at the paternal grandparents’ home. This accords to an extent with father’s own account of when an argument commenced. CXQ told the mother that the father thereafter “ripped” into him verbally in the cab.

Having flatly denied the allegation, the father later accepted that he could not recall trying to grab the child. It is possible that he did not recall this because he was drunk and staggering, as the mother says. On the evidence before me, it is likely that the episode did continue, in the taxi on the way home. The father accepted his conduct was “a little over the top”, as he put it, but in my judgment it was more than that, and resulted in him frightening CXQ by his abusive behaviour.

I accept the evidence of the mother, as the more credible witness, that she witnessed the father becoming physically abusive towards CXQ by lunging at him.

Allegation 5. “X uses substances to excess”.

X lost his job in 2017, in part due to excessive alcohol consumption.

The father accepts that he was sent home for being intoxicated one Friday, but denies returning to the workplace thereafter. I prefer the evidence of the mother that, in part, the father lost his job for being drunk but also because he returned to work when he should not have, and inputted data at a time which contravened his employment regulations. In my judgment, the mother’s account is likely to be the more credible, especially as the father accepts that he asked her to speak with his lawyer because he did not want to, and he did not understand what the lawyer was saying about the termination of his employment. The mother spoke with the lawyer and told me she was informed that intoxication at work was a sackable conduct, and that, combined with the late data input, is what led to the father losing his employment.

The father accepts all the other allegations in the schedule at 5 (b) to (g) in respect of his excessive use of substances. That is to say, X collected the child from nursery intoxicated; during lockdown X’s drinking escalated; he broke Covid rules to drink in the street; X drank to excess while the children were in his care; X would be so intoxicated he would urinate around the house at night; X urinated on CXQ’s first Christmas present; X disrupted the mother’s sleep and she had to guide him to the toilet each time he got up drunk in the night to prevent him from urinating indiscriminately over the house. As I have mentioned, the father admits those allegations.

On the evidence that the mother has provided I find all these matters proved by her to the requisite standard of proof.

I note that throughout his oral evidence, the father continued to try to minimise the extent of his abuse of alcohol.

Allegation 6. “X physically abused me.

In October 2017 X struck me, resulting in a black eye.

In September 2019 X pushed me into the bath and strangled me.”

I have seen the date stamped photograph of the black eye. I accept that evidence as providing strong support for the mother’s allegations. The father’s account that he could not recall a black eye despite living in the home with the mother lacks credibility. He does not dispute that the mother did have a black eye but claimed that it was from the incident relating to the bath, which is an incident that occurred in 2019. The time stamp on the photograph demonstrates that the photograph of the black eye was taken two years prior to that incident. The fact that the father had no concern at all as to how the mother had received a black eye, is in itself telling. I find the allegation proved.

The allegation in respect of the bath in 2019 is proved on the mother’s account. This is another example of the mother’s allegations being rooted in external reality because the father accepts that there was an incident involving an argument by the bath. His account is that there was a massive struggle, and it was the mother who was abusing him, and he was trying to hold her off. He claimed they lost their balance and fell into the bath and that he fell on top of her, but not by design. He later told me that he may have put his hand on her neck to restrain her. They both agreed the incident arose out of an argument about the mother having previously thrown away a foot file that the father wanted to use.

I prefer the account given by the mother that the father was angry about her having thrown away the foot file. There would be no reason for the mother to have caused an argument about this, given that it was she who had thrown away the foot file. I accept the mother’s evidence that the father had his hands around her throat and was screaming at her and that she could not breathe. She accepts that she bit him on the chest and may well have caught his finger also in a bid to get him off her.

Allegation 7. “X coerced me into having an abortion against my wishes in March 2020

X pestered and harassed me to have an abortion against my wishes.

X refused to attend the abortion appointment with me.

When I miscarried, X was abusive to me.

X would demand sex while I was bleeding following the miscarriage.”

These allegations are proved. The mother’s account is compelling and corroborated by the evidence of Y. I accept the mother’s evidence about the pressure that the father applied, and that an abortion was entirely against her wishes. This allegation requires to be understood in the context of what the mother told me about having an abortion many years previously, which she told me she had regretted her entire life. I am satisfied the abortion was not an agreed matter even if the mother may well have started to make arrangements because of pressure from the father. The father refused to go with her for the abortion and her friend Y was going to accompany her, but she told Y that she would not go through with the abortion and that she was prepared to have the child on her own. Y confirmed that the mother did not want to have an abortion.

There was no discussion in my judgment, the father simply told the mother he did not want any more children. This resulted in the mother crying. The father pressured her to the extent that he wore her down by asking her every day whether she had made the call to book the abortion. The mother did not end up having an abortion as, very sadly, she miscarried the day before she was due to attend for the abortion procedure. The mother had hoped that having this fourth child might have improved things and provided some cement in the relationship between the parents, at a time of particular difficulty.

The father’s evidence on this was concerning. It seemed to me that at various points, including during the cross-examination of Y and the father’s own oral evidence, the father was in fact questioning the truth of the mother being pregnant at all. This illustrates, very powerfully in my judgment, the mother’s allegation of how the father gaslit her.

The mother described in quite harrowing terms how she bled, with the foetal matter slipping down her legs and how she carried it around in her pocket for a while thereafter. She attempted to show it to the father, to gain his attention.

The father’s callous treatment of the mother in respect of this whole incident is reprehensible and highly emotionally abusive of the mother, while she was miscarrying and in pain. She told me his attitude was that she was going to have the abortion anyway and therefore it was not significant. The father’s own oral evidence confirms this, when he told me that he was very busy at work (I note that he was actually working from home) and he dismissively said that they decided not to have another baby anyway and that he was neither happy nor sad about the miscarriage.

He accepted in his oral evidence that the mother had tried to show him something of the miscarried foetal matter, but he did not want to look. It might be understandable that he would not want to look, but I note of course that he was less squeamish about having sex with the mother while she was menstruating. What is significant here is that he offered the mother absolutely no comfort or attention whatsoever, during what was clearly a traumatic incident for her and which caused her considerable distress to recall while giving evidence.

In respect of this allegation, the father’s own evidence is consistent with that of the mother, and supports it. He told me he agreed that he showed a lack of empathy around the situation, and I accept the mother’s account that the father did not want to know and said “Ugh, move that away from me”; that he refused to attend the abortion clinic with her, and was entirely dismissive while she was bleeding. He told me he was too busy working. The father’s callous attitude beggars belief.

I accept the mother’s evidence about the father demanding sex while she was bleeding following the miscarriage. The father himself acknowledged that he did not mind having sex whilst the mother was on her periods. In my judgment, on a balance of probabilities the

Allegation 8. “X economically abused me.

X controls resources for the children by demanding receipts for the children’s items or he refuses to pay if no receipt is provided.

X refused to remove his name from our joint bank account in November.

X did not increase his household contribution for 13 years and became angry when this was pointed out.”

I do not find this allegation proved. The mother had her own bank account, and her salary went into that account. She had access to a joint account with the father. She said that she paid for nearly everything. The reality is that the father has never contributed financially optimally, as could be reasonably expected of him, even if he was not earning as much as the mother. When the mother entered into a relationship with him, the father was still living in his parents’ home and had no independent property. From the outset there was an imbalance, which the mother accepted, of her providing accommodation for him because he moved into her flat, and also of her paying out more than he did. Although not happy about it as household expenses rose over the years, and however disappointing frustrating and upsetting it was for her, it appears to me that she simply acquiesced to the status quo of the situation continuing and she was able to meet the children’s needs in circumstances where the father refused to pay his full share. She told me she would rather pay for things herself than face continuous contact with the father quizzing her about payments. The mother was free to earn her own money and was not economically dependent on the father.

In the end the father accepted that he had not progressed matters, in respect of removing his name from the joint account after some initial effort. However, when I asked the mother about this, she acknowledged that she too could have taken steps to remove her name from the joint bank account but did not do so. There is no suggestion that the father disproportionately took out monies from those accounts.

These complaints by the mother were not matters deployed by the father as a means of emotional and psychological control and exploitation and it does not amount to economic abuse. In my judgment, the father was simply mean. He refused to make payments and therefore he did not prioritise the welfare of his children on occasion, although it has to be acknowledged that the father has been paying child maintenance.

The mother complains that he refuses to tell her what his wages are and so that she does not know if he is paying the correct amount. The mother could have approached the child maintenance authorities to clarify the matter but has not done so. The father has been paying approximately £800 a month, and he also purchased the family car, which all goes to his credit.

Allegation 9. “X has engaged in post-separation domestic abuse which is characterised as deflecting his abusive behaviour denying it and attacking me by reversing the roles of victim and offender.”

This is the DARVO situation to which the mother alluded in her oral evidence. I accept the submission on behalf of the mother that, essentially, the father’s conduct in these proceedings in denying and deflecting from his culpability to the extent that he has and his assertion of abuse allegations against the mother is part and parcel of ongoing abuse of her.

This is particularly so when considered in the context of my findings relating to the father’s allegations against the mother:

The first allegation the father makes against the mother is that she “during an argument, threw a pair of secateurs at my head.” In oral evidence the father said this occurred when BXQ was about three years old.

In my judgment there were occasions when, as a result of the father’s conduct, the mother responded with anger, frustration and verbal abuse herself. She told me that she did so in order to defend herself. I am quite satisfied that there were arguments between them and on occasion the mother responded in this way.

In my judgment it is likely that there may well have been an incident involving secateurs which the mother is unable to recall. She acknowledges that she did possess secateurs and that she would use them for gardening, but she says she would never have brought them into the house, much less all the way upstairs to the bedroom and thrown them in the way that the father has described.

In my judgment, any such incident is likely to have taken place in the context of an argument relating to the father’s conduct and the mother’s conduct was nowhere near as serious as the father claims.

There is no date stamp on the photograph that the father produces of an injury sustained by him as a result of the secateur incident, and in my judgment, if his account were accurate there would have been far more serious injury caused by the incident that he alleges.

The second allegation is that the mother would verbally abuse him, she would shout and snarl and would “get right up” into his face. The father has proved this allegation. The mother essentially admits to retaliating to the father’s unacceptable behaviour at times, in particular when he was intoxicated, yet again. There were clearly repeated arguments between the couple as a result of the father’s regular excessive alcohol consumption and consequent state of intoxication. It appears from all that I have heard and read that the children were exposed to these arguments.

The father himself accepted that there were arguments over alcohol and the mother telling him to stand up to his family and that he was not man enough. The cause of the arguments is consistent with the mother’s written statement. I repeat that there is no parity between their respective behaviour. It is not required of the mother that she should sit and say nothing and do nothing in the face of the father’s repeated abuse and unacceptable conduct.

The third allegation the father made against the mother was the bath incident in which he alleged that she assaulted him, and I have already addressed this.

That concludes my judgment.