Father v Mother

This judgment follows a fact-finding hearing concerned with allegations made in the context of Children Act proceedings as to the future arrangements of two children (Y and Z) who are aged eleven and six respectively. There is a third child, X, who is aged fifteen. By an order dated 18 March 2025, District Judge Hayes ordered that the no order principle applied to X consequent to her age as well as her wishes and feelings provided to date. X resides with Mother.

The parties attended the hearing. Ms Evans, Counsel, instructed by Duncan Lewis Solicitors, represented Father. Ms McDonald, Counsel, instructed by Spring Solicitors, represented Mother. I am grateful to them both for their clear and helpful submissions.

The hearing was listed before me as a composite hearing to be held over two days, with fact finding to take place on day one, followed by the final hearing. The final hearing was adjourned to a date in January 2026 as the section 37 report writer was unable to attend either day of the composite hearing. The one-day estimate for the fact-finding element of the composite hearing proved optimistic for the issues arising and the hearing was extended to two and a half days.

Special measures were put in place for the comfort of the parties.

Father was aided throughout the hearing by a Polish language interpreter.

A bundle was filed by Father’s solicitors running to over five hundred pages. I have read the bundle with care, including various witness statements and annexed exhibited documents, the Cafcass letter to the Court dated 4 November 2024, the section 37 report prepared by Bedford Borough Council, dated 24 February 2025, and the addendum section 37 report dated 13 May 2025. I have read disclosure from Bedfordshire Police running to 66 pages.

I draw upon the chronology filed in this matter, as well as upon information presented through section 37 reports and police disclosure.

Mother and Father are aged forty-seven and forty-two respectively. Their relationship commenced in or around 2008/2009, and they married on 14 May 2016. X was born in 2010, Y in 2014 and Z in 2019.

On 25 June 2018, police attended the family home at the request of a neighbour following concerns of a verbal argument between the parties consequent to Father returning home late during the night. Upon the police arriving, Father left the home to prevent a breach of the peace.

On 23 August 2022, the police were called to the family home. The children were present whilst Mother and Father were involved in a domestic incident, during which there were mutual allegations of assault. Police disclosure records, “the exact nature of what has or hasn’t happened, and more so has been witnessed, is not clear”. The parties separated the same day.

On 13 September 2022, Mother reported Father as engaging in abusive behaviour to the police. Police records disclose:

“[Father] has recently moved out and has been calling her names like “fucking bitch” and recording her when she cries. [Father] has also cut up her clothes in front of the children. [Father] was going to go round and collect all his belonging (sic) and threatened to take everything including the children’s clothes. The family had tried to intervene but [Father] has also been abusive towards them.”

On 2 September 2023, Mother complained to the police that Father had stolen her mobile phone in the early hours of the morning.

On 3 September 2023, Father sent a Facebook message to a daughter’s account which Mother understood to confirm an intention to publicly publish a video of the parties engaging in consensual sex.

Father contacted the police on 7 September 2023 complaining that his brother-in-law had threatened him. He informed the police that he was being constantly targeted by Mother and when she perceives him to be happy, she tries to undermine him by contacting his friends and his new girlfriends.

Mother applied for a non-molestation order on 2 October 2023.

Father was arrested on 30 October 2023 and interviewed in relation to two matters: (1) theft of Mother’s mobile phone, and (2) threatening to disclose private sexual images of Mother. He was interviewed under caution on the same day. He made an admission as to (2). He was released on bail. He is presently awaiting trial at Luton Crown Court in respect of the theft allegation.

Following his arrest, Father informed the police that Mother had raped him at the family home on 2 September 2023. He wanted the complaint recorded but did not support an investigation or prosecution.

Father applied for a non-molestation order on 1 December 2023. Proceedings concluded on 8 May 2024 with undertakings being provided by Mother in the same terms as Father gave in proceedings commenced by Mother.

On 23 August 2024, Father made his application for a Child Arrangement Order.

Both parties have filed a schedule of allegations, and I am to consider, on the balance of probabilities, whether those allegations are made out or not.

Father originally advanced three allegations. The third allegation was withdrawn before District Judge Gill at a Pre-Trial Hearing held on 22 September 2025. The order records that withdrawal was on the basis Father agreed with a live with order in Mother’s favour. He solely seeks a spend time with order in respect of Y and Z.

Mother advances seven allegations. One is concerned with physical abuse, three with psychological/ emotional abuse and three with risk of harm to the children.

In Re R (Children) [2018] EWCA Civ 198; [2018] 1 WLR 1821, at 1833E-F, McFarlane LJ (as he then was) set out the purpose of fact-finding in family cases:

It is important to observe that fact-finding is to determine what has happened in the past “as best as can be done” by a court. The parties were present at the events that form the allegations, not a judge. They have personal knowledge of relevant events. It is their decision whether they aid this court or obfuscate. This reality is reflected in the burden of establishing truth being placed on the party making the allegation. It is for that party to satisfy a court, on the balance of probabilities, that the occurrence of the event was more likely than not. This is a binary analysis in which each allegation is either found to be proved or not proved. Being proved means no more than a court being satisfied, on the whole of the evidence, that the case for the asserting party has been shown to be more likely than not.

Findings of fact must be based on evidence, including inferences that can be properly drawn from the evidence, and speculation must be avoided, especially where there is a gap in the evidence: Re A (A Child) (Fact-Finding: Speculation) [2011] EWCA Civ 12; [2011] 1 FLR 1817. However, as a matter of common sense, a court can consider inherent probabilities in deciding whether the standard of proof has been met: Re B (Children) (Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) [2008] UKHL 35; [2009] 1 AC 11.

Hearsay evidence is admissible but such evidence and the use to which it is put must be handled with the greatest of care. A court should look at hearsay evidence anxiously and consider carefully the extent to which it can be properly relied upon.

A court should be alert and alive to considering the entire narrative of the evidence rather than focusing on specific allegations. Each piece of evidence must be considered in the context of all other evidence. Evidence cannot be evaluated and assessed in separate compartments: Re T (Children) (Abuse: Standard of Proof) [2004] EWCA Civ 556; [2004] 2 FLR 838, at [33]. A court must exercise an overview of the totality of the evidence in order to conclude whether the case put forward has been made out to the appropriate standard of proof. A court must look at the wide canvas of all the evidence.

The failure to find a fact proved does not equate, without more, to a finding that the allegation is false.

A court does not have to adhere to a schedule of findings. It is open to a court to depart from a schedule where good reason and sufficient evidence exist. Doing so must not compromise fairness.

The evidence of the parties is of the utmost importance, and a court must form a clear assessment of their credibility and reliability. They must have the opportunity to take part in the hearing, a court being likely to place considerable weight on their evidence and the impressions it forms of them.

The principles outlined in R v. Lucas [1981] QB 720 are relevant. There can be many reasons why someone may lie including shame, humiliation, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear, distress, confusion or emotional pressure, and that just because a witness may lie about one aspect of their evidence it does not necessarily mean that they may be lying about other aspects.

A court should only take account of any lies found to have been told if there is no good reason or other established reason for the person to have lied.

In private law proceedings, a court must be aware of specific risk, such as a parent seeking to gain an advantage in the battle against the other parents. This does not mean that allegations are false. However, it does increase the risk of misinterpretation, exaggeration or fabrication.

A court must be mindful of the fallibility of memory and the pressures of giving evidence, as well as the emotionally charged atmosphere of contested family proceedings. The relative significance of oral and contemporaneous evidence will vary from case to case. A court must assess the evidence is a manner suited to the case and not inappropriately elevate one kind of evidence over another.

A court can take into account the demeanour of a witness or the way in which they gave evidence but needs to be careful in approaching this, noting that in the case of emotive evidence a truthful witness may stumble and struggle whilst giving their evidence, whilst an untruthful witness may give their evidence in a composed manner. A court may be assisted by internal consistency of evidence and considering how it fits with other parts of the evidence.

Where a court is required to assess the evidence given by competing witnesses on several issues, it is entirely possible for it to prefer the evidence of one witness on some issues and another witness on other issues. A court may conclude that the first witness is telling the truth about some things but lying about others, with the reverse being so for the second witness. Sometimes the correct finding will be a surprising one, but provided there is an appropriately robust explanation, it is entirely open to a court to make it.

Sometimes the burden of proof will come to a judge's rescue, but a judge ought to be able to make up their mind where the truth lies.

I have taken into consideration the principles outlined in Re H-N (Children) (Domestic Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearings) [2021] EWCA Civ 448; [2022] 1 WLR 2681 concerning domestic abuse allegations. Practice Direction 12J Child Arrangements and Contact Order: Domestic Violence and Harm is also relevant which provides key definitions of domestic abuse including coercive control.

I have also borne in mind that abusive behaviour has at its heart an imbalance of power in the relationship and that this is exploited by an abuser for their benefit. As is clear in case law, such as Re H-N, it is insidious in nature and requires sophisticated analysis, including an awareness of the potential for abuse to be maintained after separation and even where protective orders have been in force.

At the same time, I can properly draw a distinction between abusive behaviour and poor behaviour which falls short of being domestically abusive, hence the need for to focus upon those findings which will have a material impact on child arrangements if proved.

In respect of protected human rights, I am mindful of the rights protected by article 6 ECHR as incorporated domestically by the Human Rights Act 1998. I also have in the forefront of my mind article 8 ECHR and the principle of proportionality.

Both parties have filed three witness statements in these proceedings. The bundle additionally contains witness statements from both parties filed in respect of Father’s application for a non-molestation order in 2024.

Father contends that he has suffered various forms of abuse during the relationship. Mother’s acts are said to be rooted in significant misuse of alcohol. Father states that he noticed Mother’s alcohol problems at an early stage of their relationship and, because she has a high tolerance to alcohol, she was able to drink large quantities in one sitting. Mother would often ask him to go to the shops to buy alcohol late in the evening, even when she was going to work the next day. As Mother only worked two to three days a week, she was able to drink alcohol, usually wine or whisky, on most days, if not every day.

Early on the in the relationship, the parties would argue as to Mother’s alcohol intake. Arguments would be caused by Father refusing to go to the shops and buy Mother more alcohol, or when he asked her to stop drinking. Mother would frequently call Father names, swear at him, and hit him if she did not get what she wanted. The arguments became progressively worse over time.

Father confirmed that he worked ten-to-twelve-hour shifts per day, six days a week and sometimes on the seventh day, as he wanted to provide his children with a good life. He would return home from work and Mother would insist that he drink with her or buy alcohol for her. She drank between one to two bottles of wine a day. Father states that he then stopped drinking on weekdays and ceased drinking in the house as he believed this would discourage Mother from drinking. In the latter years of the relationship, Father confirms that he drank in the region of two beers a day at home after work to help him sleep. He states that his alcohol consumption at this time was a consequence of the pressures placed upon him by Mother. Although Mother was more aggressive when she had been drinking, Father recounts that often Mother was angrier when sober because she had not had a drink. He did not know the extent of Mother’s consumption, as he was out of the home for twelve hours a day, which allowed Mother to drink without him knowing and have enough time to sober up to avoid suspicion. Sometimes, when he returned home, he could smell alcohol on her or in the air. He would check bins to see if she had thrown away empty bottles.

He noticed Mother trying to hide alcohol from him, but he was able to guess that she was drinking because friends would inform him that they had seen Mother buying alcohol.

Mother worked as a childminder for a time from 2018. Father recounts that there were many occasions where Mother would still be sleeping when parents came to drop their children off. He believes that Mother was drinking in the presence of children when looking after them.

Initially, he did not believe Mother was drinking alcohol during her pregnancy with Y, but he kept finding empty bottles in the wardrobe and bin. He came to understand that this was the case when he caught her in the bathroom drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes with her sister-in-law. He spoke to Mother and explained that it was harmful to drink whilst pregnant and explained the dangers of doing so. He states, “we argued a few times about this because I was angry that she had such little care for the health and wellbeing of our unborn child.” Father details that Mother consumed cocaine during the last months of her pregnancy with Z. Whilst breastfeeding the children, Mother “would have a bottle of either [wine], whisky or vodka in her hand”. I note the specific reference to a “bottle” and not a “glass”.

Father believes Z has fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. He details that a midwife mentioned to him that Z may have been born with an impairment, though she was unsure as to what the potential cause was. He knows the cause of the impairment to be Mother’s excessive alcohol consumption.

In his witness statement dated 20 February 2025, Father admits hitting Mother on one occasion in spring 2022.

Father expressed his concern as to being blocked from contacting Mother and his daughters after leaving the relationship.

Mother states that she is the victim of an extremely abusive relationship, during which she suffered physical, mental and emotional abuse. Father worked a four-day night shift, and upon returning home he would drink alcohol and take drugs, claiming that he could not sleep. She states that there was not a day when Father did not drink alcohol, and when he was drunk, he was abusive. His behaviour fluctuated from hour to hour, sometimes he would talk normally to Mother, then he would shout at her and then calm down acting as if nothing had happened. He would throw food at the wall.

Father would “spit in my face in his outbursts of aggression, call me names and then record me crying, saying I was crazy, laughing at me and giving me the middle finger behind the phone.” She confirms that she cried all the time, being criticised and insulted. Father would gaslight her, use silence as a punishment and run smear campaigns against her. Both Mother and the children would be required to tiptoe around the house to avoid upsetting him. Father ruined every Christmas, Easter and birthdays because he was not the centre of attention, or the most important person that day.

Father would argue with everyone, and friends would not visit as they would end up arguing with Father having been provoked by him. Mother felt isolated from all her friends and family as Father would exercise control over when she could see them, and because he had soured relationships. She was only able to see family members over Christmas and Easter as no-one would invite the family to their house or wanted to visit.

Father alleges by his schedule of allegations, dated 26 February 2025:

Allegation iii) has been withdrawn.

Mother alleges by her undated schedule of allegations:

The hearing was conducted over two-and-a-half days.

On behalf of Mother, Ms McDonald applied to play a covert recording of Father made in May 2022. Upon reflection and being mindful of the recent guidance of Family Justice Council Guidance on Covert Recordings in Family Law proceedings concerning children (May 2025), Ms McDonald withdrew the application indicating that Mother was content to rely upon a transcript of the recording which was not disputed by Father as to content.

Father gave evidence over approximately six hours. During cross-examination on the morning of the second day he indicated that he felt unwell, explaining that he had recently suffered a heart attack. He was granted the time he required to be confident that he could proceed. He returned to the witness box and was content to continue with his evidence.

Allowance is given for understandable anxiety arising from these proceedings which are obviously of importance to Father. However, I consider that he was an unimpressive witness. On five occasions he deflected questions from Ms McDonald by responding with a question. On other occasions, when inconsistencies in his evidence were put to him, he appeared to answer with the first thought that came into his mind, or to deflect by saying matters were “a joke” or not serious. Counsel apologised to the Court, on instruction, for Father being disrespectful by the approach he adopted when giving evidence.

There was what I considered to be a telling event at the conclusion of day one. There is presently a criminal prosecution before Luton Crown Court concerning Father stealing Mother’s mobile phone in September 2023. At the outset of his evidence, he dismissively referenced the phone as being worth “fifty pence”. He placed himself entirely above the prosecution, unable to understand why it was proceeding, presenting no insight into the importance of the matter to Mother or that the Crown Prosecution Service considers there to be a realistic prospect of conviction and it is in the public interest to prosecute. Towards the end of his evidence on the first day, Ms McDonald took Father through various messages sent by the parties to each other where Mother sought the return of her phone. She asked Father to read a succession of messages he sent at 16.57 on 2 September 2023 (I recite them in the English language, though Father read the Polish language version). Initially, he informed Mother, “I’ll give you back your phone.” He repeated, “I’ll give it back”. There is then discussion as to where the handover will take place.

When reaching the point in the messages Ms McDonald directed him to, I watched Father smile as he read. I then saw him chuckle and proceed to quietly laugh to himself. This passage of the messages comprised (I cite the translation):

Father confirmed that he was mocking Mother when he sent the message. Two years later, in a court room, he still found these messages amusing. I find he exhibited pride that he had mocked his ex-wife and continued to find his response funny.

I step back and remind myself that at the welfare hearing, a judge will have to make an assessment as to whether two young girls have contact with a father who objectifies and demeans women both by the crudity of language – a phone in a woman’s rectum which even a stick could not retrieve – and by directing such language towards the mother of his children. I find these messages to be belittling in substance and exhibiting a prejudice against women. Father exhibited no real insight that such behaviour directed towards his daughters would be of significant concern.

Mother gave oral evidence over approximately three hours on day two. She was polite and thoughtful. I consider that she sought to be accurate and she made admissions such as her use of poor language towards Father. She did not attend day three because of childcare commitments.

Following the conclusion of submissions there was insufficient time for an ex tempore judgment. I confirmed a judgment would be handed down at a future date.

Father contends that from early in the relationship, Mother excessively consumed alcohol, primarily wine and whisky but also vodka. He was clear that arguments “would start” when he refused to go out and buy her more alcohol or when he would ask her to stop drinking. He recounts that Mother would frequently call him names, swear at him, and hit him if she did not get what she wanted.

I consider the allegation to comprise two parts, both of which are to be satisfied: Mother being intoxicated, and in her intoxicated state being physically and verbally abusive to Father. This is relevant to my consideration of an allegation by Father that Mother kicked him in August 2022.

Father’s position as regards “often” has been made clear both in his witness statement and his oral evidence. Mother drinks alcohol excessively nearly every day and has done so since at least 2010. His case was not advanced in the alternative: that Mother drinks excessively on occasion, or drinks excessively several times a year.

I find that alcohol has played a part in the lives of both parties. More so than both have accepted before me. The role of alcohol underpins several of the allegations and I address it at the outset of my assessment.

Mother undertook a hair strand and blood test. A report was prepared by Rebecca Willcock, reporting scientist, dated 28 April 2025. Ms Willcock observed Mother’s self-declaration that her hair had been bleached in January 2025, with colour change visualised at approximately 4 cm from the root cut of the hair sample. Ms Willcock opined that results in the corresponding hair segments may have been significantly lowered.

The results suggest that alcohol had not been chronically and excessively consumed by Mother between approximately the end of September 2024 to the end of March 2025. The phosphatidylethanol (PEth) result suggests that there has been abstinence or low alcohol consumption for approximately the month prior to sample collection.

A Carbohydrate Deficient Transferrin (CDT) test, used to detect chronic and excessive alcohol consumption for approximately four weeks prior to the blood sample being collected, was within the normal range suggesting that up to four weeks prior to sample collection Mother was not excessively consuming alcohol.

As to his first allegation, Father’s evidence in respect of Mother is stark; for over thirteen years she has had a serious alcohol problem resulting in her drinking “large quantities” nearly every day, usually wine and additionally whisky or vodka, with consumption in the region of one to three bottles of wine a day. She drank heavily throughout all three pregnancies and drank alcohol from a bottle when breastfeeding. Arguments arose because he refused to go out and buy more alcohol for Mother.

The Father’s written evidence supporting this allegation covers the years 2010 to 2023. He states, inter alia:

“... in most cases, [Mother’s] aggressive behaviour towards me was predominantly linked to her heavy drinking. When she was under the influence of alcohol, she frequently abused me verbally, and on some occasions, this escalated to physical abuse.”

“Upon moving in with [Mother], I noticed that she would drink either wine, whisky or vodka, nearly every day and would encourage me to do the same.”

“I started to notice [Mother’s] alcohol problems early on in the relationship as she would ask me to go to Tesco with her at 10 pm to buy alcohol despite her having work the next day.”

“[Mother] had a high alcohol tolerance and was able to drink large quantities in one sitting.”

“I believe [Mother} was drinking in the presence of the children she was looking after as part of her job.”

“[Mother] drank throughout all the pregnancies and also consumed cocaine during the last pregnancy with [Z]. As [Mother’s] intake became progressively worse, she struggled more and more to stop and her intake during each pregnancy increased as a result. Even whilst breastfeeding, [Mother] would have a bottle of either [wine], whisky or vodka in her hand ... I believe [Z] has Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder as she is displaying symptoms that are common for those suffering from this condition such as a small build and abnormal facial features.”

“I recall one incident when I came home from work and [Mother] was with her friends drinking alcohol whilst breastfeeding [Y] and I has to ask them to leave.”

“Throughout our relationship, when [Mother] was really drunk, she would neglect the children.”

“[Mother] would be aggressive to the children and call them names when she had been drinking. [Mother] never took the children to any appointments as she was too drunk to leave the house.”

“Any time there was alcohol at gatherings or parties [Mother] would always drink to excess, to the point her speech was slurred, and she would be struggling to walk. We would have the children with us during these gatherings but [Mother] did not care that they were witnessing her in such state.”

In his oral evidence, Father amended his stated position as to Mother’s care of the children:

“[Mother] was aggressive to me, not the children. She had never wanted to harm the children. She is not as bad as that.”

He also amended his evidence in respect of Mother being too drunk to leave the house, clarifying that whenever she was drunk he would leave home, or take the children to appointments, or do the shopping, whilst “she was sitting at home sipping drinks”.

Father confirmed when examined:

“[Mother] being sober was sporadic, mainly when her parents were visiting.”

“When I call home she answered drunk. Checked bins and could see. I knew the state she was in when I came home.”

“[Mother] claimed it was not a problem. She did not see it as a problem.”

“Would act differently now. I could not shake off the pressure. I knew she was drinking. Youngest child may have fetal alcohol syndrome, and she was taking drugs as well.”

When asked as to why he believed Z to suffer from fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, Father replied that he had received information from a friend that there was a possibility. He provided no further explanation save that “something will be found if a specialised test” was undertaken.

Mother denies the allegations that she had or continues to have an abusive relationship with alcohol.

I do not accept Father’s contention that Mother has abused alcohol for thirteen years. The assertion presented by Father is so riddled with inconsistency and implausibility that I find that it is advanced solely to denigrate Mother in these proceedings.

My starting point is Ms Willcock’s professional opinion that the liver function test (LFT) results were within the range of a healthy adult individual and are inconsistent with liver injuries found following long-term alcohol abuse. I observe that LFT results can be normal at many stages of liver disease. However, no evidence was filed identifying Mother as presently suffering symptoms of alcohol-related liver disease such as alcoholic hepatitis or cirrhosis. I take judicial notice that on the lower end of Father’s case, namely the consumption of one bottle of wine a day over approximately thirteen years, Mother has been consuming in the region of nine to ten units of alcohol a day, with women being recommended to consume no more than fourteen units per week. For thirteen years, Mother consumed at the lower end of Father’s case, sixty-three units a week, or four and a half times the recommended consumption, with no identifiable adverse impact upon her liver over time. On Father’s case that Mother drank three bottles of wine a day, this amounts to one hundred and eighty-nine units which equates to thirteen and a half times the recommended weekly consumption. I do not consider it necessary to identify the additional units flowing from Mother being said to additionally drink whisky and vodka.

In examination, Father accepted that Mother attended midwife appointments for all three children. When reminded that no professional midwife, health care worker or doctor had raised concerns in respect of Mother and the children in respect of alcohol abuse or its effects, Father replied, “they did not live with [Mother].” Health care professionals are attuned to alcohol misuse in mothers with young children, and in identifying fetal alcohol spectrum disorder because though the health problems arising are permanent, their early treatment and support can help limit their impact on a child’s life. No professional has raised concerns in respect of any of the children to date, and I observe that Z is aged six and attending school. There is no evidence before me that Z has problems with her balance, movement, vision and hearing, or with her learning such as with concentration or memory, or with her speech communication, or physically with her joints, muscles, bones, or organs such as her kidneys and hearts.

I am mindful that someone dependent on alcohol may be able to function relatively effectively in their daily life. I have borne this possibility in mind when considering Mother’s evidence that throughout this period she was able to hold down demanding part-time employment whilst also bringing up three children. However, I do not accept that even as a high-functioning alcoholic, Mother could hide the significant alcohol abuse identified by Father not only from health care professionals but also from her employers and those teaching her own children. I note that towards the end of the time covered by the allegations, Mother was employed as a teaching assistant at a school, where staff could be expected to be alert to issues impacting the safety of children. No concerns relating to alcohol abuse have been raised with social services by anyone engaging with Mother and/or the children.

Father could provide no cogent explanation as to why Mother required him to go out to buy alcohol because she considered it improper for a mother to buy alcohol from a shop but was also herself purchasing alcohol in quantity and hiding it from him.

By his February 2025 statement Father details:

“I do not know the extent of [Mother’s] consumption at this time as I was out of the home for about 12 hours each day which allowed [Mother] to drink without me knowing and provided her enough time to get sober enough to avoid suspicion.”

When challenged as to his oral evidence that Mother would sober up before he returned home from work, Father replied:

“She would have enough time to sober up, but I could smell alcohol. I had to air the flat.”

I consider the inconsistency is most clearly exemplified by Father’s statement of February 2025 where he detailed:

“My father passed away in November 2023. However, just before he passed away, he disclosed to me that in 2018, when he came over from Poland to stay with my family for two weeks, he saw [Mother] would drink two to three bottles of alcohol every day whilst I was at work and she begged him not to tell me.”

In his oral evidence, Father identified his father’s visit as being in the summer of 2018. This is around the time several people say the family went on holiday to Greece, relevant to one of Mother’s allegations. At the time Mother was working as a childminder, with children attending the family home during the day. Her own children were then aged eight and four. They were either at home during the school summer holiday, or at school or nursery. I am required by Father to accept, on balance, that Mother was caring for other people’s children, and likely her own, during these two weeks, whilst consuming two to three bottles of wine a day, which she was purchasing either daily or in bulk without Father’s knowledge and hiding in the family home, openly and heavily drinking in the presence of her father-in-law, without her father-in-law expressing concern not only as to her alcohol consumption but the risk she was posing to children including his grandchildren, and that no parent who dropped off or collected a child smelt alcohol that Father says was so noticeable that he was required to air the house when he returned home from work. Additionally, I observe that Z was born in the early summer of 2019 and has not been diagnosed with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder or any other effect from Mother’s heavy drinking around the time of pregnancy. I find that Father’s purported recollection of his conversation with his own father is no more than a fabricated device to diminish and denigrate Mother.

When asked why he had not sought independent help for Mother, despite being worried about her drinking when pregnant, Father initially replied that he thought about taking this step but he was a “young man at the time”, “not mature enough”, and “too much in love with her”. His oral evidence is to be considered in the context of his February 2025 statement where he confirmed he reproached Mother for having such little care for the health and well-being of their unborn child because of her drinking. I find that no independent help was sought not because of his young age, and I note he was aged twenty-six, thirty-one and thirty-six respectively at the birth of each of child, but because Father is not truthful as to Mother abusing alcohol. I find that at the hearing, when glaring inconsistences were made clear to him, he reverted to either defensively replying with a question to counsel, a deflection he adopted on five occasions, or by saying the first thing that came into his head with the incoherent answers reinforcing the clear inconsistency and implausibility in his evidence. His explanation of being a young man aged thirty-six at a time when on his evidence his wife had been abusing alcohol to his consternation for approaching a decade and when he had chided her for having “such little care” for the health of their unborn child, was one of several examples of Father simply saying the first thing that came into his head when the implausibility of his case was put to him.

I note that X has been active on social media and has made no reference to Mother having misused alcohol or regularly being intoxicated. I observe that X has chosen to stay with Mother.

Whilst Father has exhibited an undated message sent to his phone by Y stating that Mother hit her, accompanied by a photograph, there is no exhibited message from Y as to her mother having long-standing alcohol issues.

Observing the burden and standard of proof, I conclude that Father’s case as advanced is incoherent, implausible, and untruthful. I find Father’s case as to Mother’s abuse of alcohol to have been advanced solely as a means of denigrating Mother. I address other instances of Father’s efforts to denigrate Mother elsewhere in this judgment.

I record that when Ms McDonald pressed Father on the inconsistency of Mother requiring him to buy alcohol because she did not want to be seen as a mother buying it, and her buying quantities of it in his absence, Father shrugged his shoulders and replied, “we can leave it, she was not drinking”. He appeared by his answer to nonchalantly accept there was no substance to the first allegation. Father was given time to seek advice outside the court room from Ms Evans and provide instructions. On return to the hearing room Ms Evans confirmed that Father did not mean to be disrespectful to the Court.

Father must understand that denigrating Mother erodes her trust in him. He will have to endeavour to rebuild her trust as he seeks to develop a working and emotionally rich relationship with his daughters. He will also have to take constructive steps to build a relationship with Z in circumstances where he openly and regularly states that both her development and appearance are adversely impacted by fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. In advancing this false assertion, he has denigrated Z. He exhibits little, if any, insight as to how his continued advancing of this unevidenced proposition may negatively impact upon Z.

Mother accepts that she drinks alcohol. In her oral evidence she suggested she only drank on special occasions such as Christmas, Easter and birthdays but, on balance, I consider she was truthful when self-declaring for the hair strand and blood tests that she consumes on average a bottle of wine a week. There may be occasions, as for many people who usually adopt a sensible approach to drinking alcohol, that she has drunk to excess, but I accept that her weekly consumption is and has usually been within the recommended range for women. I have considered whether she is a high-functioning alcoholic, but observe both the LFT results, and the nature of employment she has held over the years, whether as a childminder in regular daily contact with the parents of children or working in schools. I accept that her earlier employment also required skill and concentration. I find, on balance, that even if she were a high-functioning alcoholic, she could not hide for approximately thirteen years the levels of alcohol consumption asserted by Father. I find that she was not regularly asking Father to buy her alcohol from the shops when intoxicated. I conclude that any request for a purchase of alcohol would have been made in the course of general discussion about shopping which is part and parcel of family life, and Father has sought to greatly exaggerate this to portray Mother as not understanding boundaries in respect of drinking and having an abusive relationship with alcohol.

An expert witness statement dated 4 April 2025 by Natasha Thompson, reporting scientist, opined that the results from Father’s hair strand and blood tests did demonstrate excessive consumption of alcohol between approximately the middle of September 2024 and the middle of March 2025, though they did not demonstrate excessive consumption between 28 February to the 27 March 2025. The results indicated a decrease in alcohol consumption during recent weeks before sampling.

Prior to testing Father self-declared that he had not drunk alcohol for a month but had previously been drinking twenty cans a week.

Father accepted before me that when residing with Mother he was drinking two cans of beer during the week, more at the weekend, but this was only during the last three years of the relationship. Prior to this he was athletic, engaged in sports and only got into drinking through Mother. He would drink two beers simply to relax before going to sleep.

However, in his oral evidence he accepted being drunk at events, though he subsequently clarified that he would be drunk “but not to a great extent”. He denies ever being intoxicated in front of the children.

When asked about the hair strand and blood tests results identifying him as drinking excessively, he responded by saying that excessive is relative and that he was drinking three to five beers a day in the months before the tests. He then immediately amended his position to drinking two to three beers a day. He asserted that he had not drunk any alcohol in the twenty-eight days before the tests, though he accepted the test results did not agree with his contention.

Mother states that Father was a heavy drinker, who on occasion required her or X to inform his employer that he was unwell and could not attend work when he had drunk so much that he could not function normally. Mother’s evidence is that Father was drunk every day and his drinking had adverse consequences not only for her but also for the children.

I have read messages between Father and a friend of both parties, ‘E’, where E informs Father that he should stay strong and she will speak to Mother. Father replies “I try to be strong [Mother] keeps saying that we are not together” with a crying emoji. E replies:

“I will speak with her I know this is so difficult but u just need to be strong for ur girls but deffo cut the drink out so u have a clear head” [Emphasis added]

Father responded:

“I know”

I observe Father’s inconsistency as to drinking two cans to help him sleep, with his assertion that he “stopped drinking on the weekdays and if I wanted a drink on the weekends I would go to the pub or a friend’s house”.

I have read X’s posts on her Tik-Tok account. Father asserts that they were posted consequent to manipulation from Mother. I address this allegation below, but I find to the requisite standard that they are a true reflection of X’s thoughts and concerns. X has a lived experience of residing with Father. I find that X was truthfully recounting her personal history when posting in respect of Father, “but he would blame his alcohol problems on me”.

On balance, I find that Father was regularly drinking more than two cans of beer a day during the relationship. X was addressing her lived experience when expressing concern that Father was blaming his alcohol problems on her. This is strongly suggestive of a greater quantity of beer being drunk by Father than he has admitted in these proceedings.

Being mindful of the efforts Father has made to hide his alcohol consumption in these proceedings I find, on balance, that throughout much of his relationship with Mother he regularly drank to excess and twenty cans a week is at the lower limit of his consumption. I consider his initial response in oral evidence that he drinks up to five cans of beer a day as more likely than his drinking two to three cans, but I conclude that his slip of acknowledging five cans may be a conversative figure, as he has gone to great lengths to shield his consumption from this Court. I note his acceptance that he drinks whisky with friends. I am not required to decide a figure as to his daily consumption of alcohol. It is sufficient that I find that he regularly drank to excess during the relationship and his consumption of alcohol was heavy by recommended standards.

I conclude that he was regularly intoxicated, and such intoxication exacerbated his poor, aggressive and abusive behaviour towards Mother and the children. I address later in this judgment a foul and aggressive rant he engaged in having returned home from drinking whisky with friends in May 2022.

I am concerned that Father’s position is that his consumption of alcohol was driven by Mother, that he initially only drank alcohol to please Mother and that the purported increase in his alcohol consumption in the last three years of the relationship was due to the pressures placed upon him by Mother. I observe his self-declaration for the hair strand and blood tests undertaken, made well over two years after the relationship ended, confirmed that he was consuming twenty cans of beer a week. I conclude that he is not exhibiting insight into his consumption of alcohol and the impact such consumption has upon his relationships with others. He has engaged in blaming Mother for his own excessive use of alcohol, evidencing victim-blaming.

As this issue is related to the parties’ consumption of alcohol, I address their respective evidence as to the other using cocaine.

Father states that Mother is a long-time user of cocaine and, on many occasions, he had to speak to her about her addiction. He thought she had stopped taking cocaine but then caught her taking it on occasion: “I would often see her sniffing and there was white powder on her nose, and I therefore know she had continued to use cocaine.” Father details that Mother later admitted to him that she “addicted and could not stop”. He also contends that Mother consumed cocaine during her pregnancy with Z.

Whenever he asked Mother to stop taking cocaine, she would threaten to kick him out of the house and involve social services. Father states that he was terrified of the thought of the children being removed from the family home, and so he “would try not to question or bring this up”.

Mother’s denies Father’s assertions as to her taking cocaine. Rebecca Willcock opined that following the hair strand and blood tests no illicit drugs were used by Mother during the time period investigated.

I am again mindful that no health professional has identified concerns as to Mother using cocaine during or after pregnancy. No concerns relating to the use of cocaine have been raised with social services by anyone engaging with Mother and/or the children. No concern by an employer has been identified in these proceedings.

Being mindful of my conclusion as to Father’s evidence in respect of Mother’s abuse of alcohol being advanced solely to denigrate her, and there being no corroborative evidence supporting his contention as to her use of drugs, I find on balance that he is not being truthful in respect of Mother ever having taken cocaine. I conclude that this is another attempt to denigrate Mother.

Natasha Thompson opined that the results from Father’s hair strand and blood tests did not demonstrate the active use of cannabis and cocaine between approximately the middle of September 2024 and the middle of March 2025.

Father was adamant both in his written evidence and in his oral evidence that he had only ever taken cocaine once in 2018. He was reminded in cross-examination as to his self-declaration for his hair strand and blood tests that he had taken two lines of cocaine on 30 June 2024, to which he replied that he had “forgotten“ about this occasion. He provided no explanation as to why he resumed taking cocaine in 2024, or the circumstances in which he took it. He simply stated that he had forgotten about it.

I do not accept Mother’s contention that Father was a heavy user of, and addicted to, cocaine. However, on balance, I conclude that Father is a social user and has used it more regularly than on two occasions in 2018 and 2024. He has provided no cogent explanation as to why he took two lines in 2024 after six years of abstinence. I am not required to identify the number of times he has taken cocaine. It is sufficient that I find Father to have been a social user of cocaine between 2018 and 2024.

Mother accepts that she directed bad language towards Father towards the end of the relationship and that at this time she called him bad names. The burden is placed upon Father to establish that the use of bad language was abusive, not simply poor behaviour.

In his witness statement dated February 2025, Father recalls an argument in spring 2015:

“I recall an incident in 2015 during spring when [X] was around 5 years old. [Mother’s] brother invited us to his house for a barbecue. During the course of the barbecue [Mother] had consumed a lot of alcohol. After the barbecue ended, we walked home and shortly after entering the home, [Mother] told me she needed more alcohol. I told her that she had enough during the barbecue and we have the children to take care of. I then informed her that I was going upstairs to take a short nap. [X and Y] were in the living room watching TV. In previous situations like this where she was really drunk, I would go to [Y’s] room and barricade the room with a chair, and I did the same on this day. [Mother] however managed to push her way into the room. I was lying down on the bed and she grabbed me by my shoulders and started shaking me. I told [Mother] to calm down and asked her to leave me alone. [Mother] then grabbed the chair which was previously by the door and hit me with it. I got up and grabbed [Mother’s] arms to stop her from hitting me and I admit that I slapped [Mother] on her face to stop her from being aggressive. I am ashamed I used physical force but was struggling to stop [Mother]. This was the first and last time I ever raised my hand at [Mother]. During this incident the children were downstairs and although they did not witness it, they would have heard it. [Mother] left the room and went outside with the children. I could hear [Mother] on the phone to her brother. She explained that I refused to buy her alcohol and that she followed me into the bedroom and grabbed me. I also heard [Mother] tell her brother that I grabbed her arms and hurt her and as the phone was on speaker, I heard her brother question why she touched me after I said I could not drink anymore.”

Before me, Father conceded that he too was drunk, and he wanted to sober up when he returned home. Subsequently, he clarified his evidence as he was drunk, “but not to a great extent, felt unwell and wanted some rest”.

In his oral evidence, Father described Mother entering the room whilst he was asleep, having pushed through the barricade. He was lying on his front and continued to remain in this position after Mother had shaken him awake. In his witness statement he detailed that he then told her to calm down and asked her to leave the room, and it was then that she picked up a chair and hit him. His oral evidence before me was, “when I refused to buy alcohol for her, she hit me on the back with the chair”. He was adamant that he remained on his stomach throughout the conversation and remained so until he was hit by a chair. He explained, “after hitting me, the chair was on the floor. I hit her. I should feel embarrassed by being beaten by my ex-wife. Embarrassing for a man.”

Mother denies Father’s version of events.

I observe internal inconsistencies in Father’s written and oral evidence. He blames Mother for being drunk at the party and wanting more alcohol on returning home. He accepted in oral evidence that he was also drunk but then sought to limit the extent of his inebriation. He was inconsistent as to whether he went to bed because he was tired or because he wanted to sober up. He was inconsistent as to whether he spoke to Mother when he woke up and asked her to calm down or, alternatively, he refused Mother’s request that he buy her more alcohol and this led to the assault.

I do not find it credible that Father was required regularly to barricade himself in a bedroom when wanting to sleep because Mother was aggressive when intoxicated. As I have previously found, Father is not truthful as to Mother’s alcohol consumption. I do not find it credible that when faced with an angry wife who had shaken him awake and who was either expressing anger or demanding that he go to the shops to buy her more alcohol, he remained lying on his stomach until he was hit was a chair. I find that this event did not occur. Father is again untruthful.

The parties were not in agreement as to the year they went on holiday to Greece, it being said to be in either 2017 or 2018, but I am satisfied that their evidence relates to the same holiday. I observe that three witnesses state the holiday was in 2017 and Father recalls it being in 2018.

Father recounts in his February 2025 witness statement:

“In 2018 we went to Greece and [Mother’s] mother, father, brother and sister-in-law also came with us. On our second night we were all in the swimming pool. [X] became tired and started to cry. I approached [Mother] and asked for the villa keys so I could take both girls back to the room for a nap. [Mother], who was already drunk by this point, started swearing and refused to give me the keys. [Mother] was holding the key and her drink in the same hand. I tried to take the key from her and in doing so her drink spilled on her. She did not shout at me on this occasion which I was surprised with, but I assumed it was because there were other people around us. I took all the children back to the villa while [Mother] stayed behind at the pool. When [Mother] returned to the villa, the children were asleep. [Mother] was extremely angry, and [Mother] picked up the hairbrush from the table, came towards me and smacked me on my head. The hairbrush broke into two pieces due to the impact. [Mother’s] mother and father were in the villa next door to us and upon hearing the noise the [Mother’s] father came to our room. [Mother’s] brother and sister-in-law were in a villa slightly further away and therefore did not hear the commotion. I left the room and went outside for some fresh air. I could hear [Mother’s] father asking what happened and [X] informing him that [Mother] hit me. I also heard him question [Mother] and ask if she knows what she is doing to the family and what would happen if I were the one to hit her instead. [Mother] laughed at this, and I believe this is because she is aware that I would never do that. Later that night I decided that I had enough of [Mother’s behaviour] and grabbed my passport and went to the airport. I did not take the kids with me as I left in a hurry, and I knew they would be cared for by the rest of the family who went with us. I asked if there were any available tickets back to the UK, but the first available ticket was the next day. I was sat at the airport when [Mother’s] father contacted me and asked me to return to the children. He reassured me that he would speak to her and that she would not be drinking anymore for the remainder of the holiday. In light of this I took a taxi back to our villa. [Mother] was still drinking for the remainder of the holiday; however her consumption was much less and [Mother’s] father was keeping a close eye on her and we were therefore able to enjoy the rest of our holiday.”

Mother states that Father was upset because he had not been able to locate her as she had taken the children to a playground. When they finally met up, Father poured a beer over her head in front of family members and dozens of people by the hotel swimming pool. Later, he packed his things and walked a few hours to the airport and then returned to the hotel in the morning

Written evidence was presented by two of Mother’s nephews who are broadly consistent as to the parties sitting on two sun loungers arguing, with Father being angry, standing up and pouring beer over Mother beside a swimming pool. Father then walked away, leaving Mother crying. Neither nephew attended the hearing, and accordingly their evidence has not been tested. Father denies that the nephews were present by the pool side, or in the alternative that events “did not look as it was”. On balance, I do not accept that the nephews have lied as to their presence at the incident. It is not said that they were not present on the family holiday. They were aged 17 and 13 at the time of these events, so they can be expected to recollect events, if not necessarily the context. In the circumstances, I give some weight to the nephews’ evidence in my assessment.

A striking factor of Father’s evidence, which he has been unable to coherently address, is as to why, with some six or seven years elapsing between this incident and the preparation of his witness statement, he was able to recall with clarity that Mother was holding keys and her glass of alcohol in her hand when he tried to take the keys off her, that she spilled the contents of the glass on herself, but did not shout, or do anything else. It was an unremarkable event that would have taken no more than a matter of seconds to conclude.

On balance, I accept Mother’s recollection of events. I find that Father is aware of his own personal behaviour in Greece, evidenced by others, and has sought to address it in his own favourable terms. He exhibited controlling behaviour by being unhappy that Mother had not informed him as to where she was, became angry, and denigrated Mother by undertaking a public show of disrespect by pouring a drink over her. I find that throughout this incident his anger was visible to others, that he intended to belittle his wife, and considered her ultimately to be in the wrong by not keeping him informed of where she was. I find this is part of his wider behaviour, identifiable on the evidence before this Court, of efforts to regulate Mother’s everyday life by controlling her. His actions over the course of the day can properly be considered as self-centred, controlling and abusive, and with no thought for Mother and their children.

I do not accept, on balance, that Mother broke a hairbrush by hitting Father, and her being excessively intoxicated on this holiday. I consider this evidence to be fabricated to turn an incident in which he is aware that he acted disgracefully into one where his intoxicated wife assaulted him.

I observe the regularity of Father’s evidence that Mother’s family were supportive of him, and concerned as to her behaviour, as evidencing the truth of his statement of events. It is a theme repeated throughout his evidence. As I have found Father to be untruthful as to events in Greece, I reject this element of his evidence. I do not accept, as advanced by Father, that Mother’s family supported him over his wife. His presentation that Mother’s family support him knowing how poorly she behaves consequent to the problems that she has is another means of denigrating Mother.

Father’s behaviour on holiday is informative generally as to his conduct during the relationship. He was angry with Mother by the second day of the holiday for not keeping him informed as to where she was, demonstrated his anger, and then made a show of leaving the hotel and heading to the airport late in the day. I observe that in a Tik-Tok post, which I address below, X identifies a pattern of repeated behaviour by Father of leaving the house for days and returning with flowers. I find that Father considers his leaving home or a hotel to be a means of punishing Mother and the children by his absence.

Father recalls an incident in 2022 where he was lying on the sofa and Mother walked into the living room and demanded that he go out and buy her more alcohol. He refused, stating that she was already drunk, and that it was not appropriate for him to buy her more alcohol. Mother is said to have then grabbed the coffee table, looked around to see if the children were present, and then hit him over the head with the table. He described either fainting, or being knocked unconscious, eventually settling on the former in his oral evidence. When he recovered, he got up and spoke to Mother’s brother about her behaviour. He received the response that nothing could be done. He then found cocaine in the house and threw it away. He did not want an argument with Mother so left the family home. Approximately two months later, he visited his GP as he had a high-pitched noise in his ears which he attributed to the blow. He was prescribed ear drops. Mother denies this event ever happened.

I have previously made findings as to Mother’s alcohol consumption and I have found that she was not asking Father to buy alcohol for her. I conclude, on balance, that a GP being informed that a person was hit on the head by a coffee table and was experiencing high pitched noises in their ear, would require further investigation beyond the prescription of ear drops. The Father is not truthful in respect of this event, which I find did not occur.

Father states that on Monday 22 August 2022 he organised a barbeque for Mother and the children. X, who was then aged twelve, wanted to take the family cat outside and Father explained that she should not do so because it is a house cat. X was persistent and took the cat into the garden. Father explained that from the beginning of the day, the atmosphere did not feel right. Mother and X were sitting on the sofa on the side of the garden. The cat ran away, resulting in an argument between Father and X, with X calling him names. Father turned to Mother and questioned how she was permitting X to speak to him in such manner. Mother and X started laughing, calling Father a “son of a bitch”, and a “fucking dick”. He was told to “get the fuck out if I did not like it”. Mother and children went into the house and locked Father out. He slept outside on the sofa bed. Mother came into the garden the next morning and told Father to clean everything up. She kicked his leg, scratched his arm, tried to snatch his phone and demanded that he leave.

Shortly afterwards, Father received a phone call from a friend who asked him to come to his garage and help with a body car repair. Father returned home a few hours later, and Mother started yelling at him to leave the house, or she would call the police. Both Mother and X were laughing at him. Father ignored them and went into the garden to continue cleaning. The police arrived and questioned him. He provided a voice recording on his phone as to events the night before; both parties by this time were recording each other. Father was asked whether he wanted Mother arrested, but he declined as he did not want to negatively impact the children. He was advised by a police officer to leave the property for a couple of days to allow the situation to subside. He slept in his car for a few days before going to reside with his sister and to make an application to the local authority for housing. The relationship ended with Father leaving the family home.

In his witness statement accompanying an application for a non-molestation order, dated 26 February 2024, Father addresses this incident. He recounts X being disrespectful and rude, which led to an argument. He asked Mother to intervene, but her response was to laugh at him and to allow X’s disrespectful behaviour to continue. Later, X informed him that Mother had given her permission to use rude words. The argument escalated, Mother took the children into the house and locked the door. Father slept on the garden sofa and the next morning went to work. There was no reference to receiving a phone call from a friend and helping him at a garage.

Mother states that Father returned home at 9pm with food and started to cook a barbeque. She informed him that it was too late for the children, but they all went outside into the garden. X took the cat, which she placed on her lap. This did not please Father who sought to take the cat away and hit X very hard on the knees. Mother took the children indoors and Father was aggressive. He said to Mother that she was to pack all the food that he had bought and to close the door. Mother tried to talk to Father the next morning, but he was still being aggressive and called her a “bitch” and told her to “fuck off”. Mother was to attend a job interview that morning, which Father was aware of, but he left the house instead of looking after the children as previously agreed. Mother had to find someone to step in. Father returned to the family home after her. He had not been at work, as he was on night shifts. He took a beer and went into the garden, where he started shouting at her again. She asked him to tidy the garden and tried to take the beer from him. She did not kick him, but he said “stop kicking me” for no reason. She now understands that he was recording her. She closed the garden door and called the police.

Police were called to an incident at the family home on 22 August 2022. The crime report confirms:

“Location of the property is a 3-bedroom semi-detached property [...] between the stated time and date the couple have been having a BBQ whereby an argument took place over the eldest daughter being abusive/rude towards the male. This escalated to the female and male party arguing. It has then been alleged that the male party spat at the female party.”

“Spoken to a [...] who stated the female party has approached her in the past and cried to her about relationship with the male party.”

The police attended at 3pm and remained for 40 minutes. Father is recorded as waiting outside the property for the police to attend and informing the police that Mother had kicked him. There is no record of him reporting that Mother scratched him. The police listened to the recording from the night before where Mother can be heard “screaming incredibly loudly”. The voice recording confirms Father asking Mother why she kicked him. For the purpose of the allegation, it is not Father’s evidence that Mother was intoxicated when she kicked him.

On balance, I prefer Mother’s evidence to Father’s, save that I find that Mother kicked Father on 23 August 2022. I do not accept that Father would calmly accept his daughter disobeying him, or calmly react to invective directed towards him by Mother and X. I find that the relationship was beset with animosity by this time, with regular and highly vocal argument, and that Father was the primary driver of the toxic atmosphere, evidenced by his behaviour addressed elsewhere in this judgment. I find that Father was aggressive to Mother, decided to sleep in the garden and hindered Mother’s efforts to attend an employment interview the following day, which increased animosity between the parties. Father does not contest that Mother called the police. I address the allegation of spitting later in this judgment. By kicking Father, Mother was engaging in poor behaviour, not abusive behaviour. She was not intoxicated when she kicked Father and so this element of Father’s allegation is not proved as the first limb is not satisfied.

Father makes a very serious allegation that Mother raped him in the early hours of 2 September 2023. Mother states that she was the victim but does not raise this as an allegation in these proceedings.

I recite Father’s evidence at paragraph 40 of his February 2025 witness statement:

“On 1 September 2023, I worked from 6am to 4pm after which I visited my girlfriend till 8pm. I returned home and spent a couple of hours with my friends. Just after 12am I noticed [Y] was still active on Facebook Messenger. I was concerned as to why [Y] was still awake and called [Mother]. [Mother’s] speech was slurred and I knew she must have been drinking. [Mother] suggested I come to the house. I took a taxi and arrived around 1am. Upon my arrival, [Mother] gave me a whisky with cola. As I unlocked my phone [Mother] must have caught a glimpse of my home screen which was a picture of me and my girlfriend as [Mother] suddenly became angry and tried to snatch my phone from my hand. [Mother] ended up taking my debit card from my phone case and was attempting to destroy it. I got up and told [Mother] I was leaving for our children’s sake as I did not want to argue. I left the house, before realising the buses were unlikely to be operating at this time and that I had no money for any form of transport as [Mother] had my debit card. I messaged [Mother] asking “what should I do now”. [Mother] asked me to return to her house. When I arrived [Mother] appeared calmer than before and offered me another drink. I had two glasses of this and began to feel dizzy. [Mother] told me to lie down and have a nap. I went upstairs to my daughter’s bedroom where I had slept for years prior to our separation. I’m not sure how long after but I woke up from my nap as I could feel something on me. [Mother] was sitting on me and I realised I was completely naked. I went to sleep topless as usual but had my trousers and underwear on, however, when I awoke I was naked. I was shocked and angry and tried to get [Mother] off me but she was persistently trying to remain on top of me. I did not know what she was trying to do but I believe [Mother] was trying to rape me as she had undressed me. [Mother] threatened to destroy me if I did not end my relationship with my girlfriend. Upon hearing the noise [Y] walked in and saw [Mother] sitting on top of me. I told [Y] not to worry and to go back to sleep and after she left I managed to push [Mother] off. I got up, put my clothes back on and was looking for my phone but could not find it. I suspected [Mother] took my phone and asked her to return it otherwise I would take hers, but [Mother] refused. I went to [Mother’s] bedroom and took her phone. I told her I would return her phone if she returned mine but she continued to refuse. I walked downstairs with her phone in my hand to leave the house and [Mother] followed me and grabbed me from the back. I was near the end of the stairs at this point and as [Mother] had grabbed me she ended up falling on her knees. [Y] came and started to cry. Upon seeing this I decided to leave without my phone and left [Mother’s] phone on the window ledge.”

I observe that in his February 2024 witness statement, Father details that Mother became aware of his new relationship in July 2023. He contends that it is from this date that Mother became angry and “began plotting to disrupt my life”.

Mother denies Father’s version of events. She contends that Father came to the house wanting to have sex with her. He was blocked from her phone and was looking for different ways to reach her. He was drunk and had taken drugs. She did not want him in the property, and he left, but he returned. Y was not present, as she was at a sleepover with a friend. Father then raped her, stole her phone and ran from the house.

I observe relevant evidence contained in the police disclosure.

On 4 September 2023, Mother was interviewed in respect of a Domestic Abuse Risk Assessment (DARA) following two allegations she made against Father: that he had stolen her phone and had made threats to release a video of a sexual nature that was made consensually when they were in their relationship. As to the second allegation, Mother’s signed witness statement to the police dated the same day details:

“... we had recorded a video of us engaging in consensual sex and he sent a Facebook message to my daughter’s account because he knows I would see it, on Saturday 3^rd September 2023 he sent, “IF YOU LEAVE ME, I’LL DESTROY YOU, I’LL SHOW TO EVERYONE WHAT YOU’VE DONE, KARMA IS A BITCH, YOU’RE A TEACHER NOW, I WILL SHOW YOU ONE DAY EVERYTHING THAT YOU’RE MUM WAS DOING.” I have referenced these messages as [...] as part of my statement.”

On Father’s chronology, this message was sent the day after he alleges Mother raped him. The message clearly conveys anger at Mother leaving him, and the threat to destroy her flows from her leaving him.

Father was interviewed by the police on 30 October 2023 and is recorded as admitting to sending his daughter a Facebook message intended for his wife threatening to disclose private sexual images. Father is further recorded as saying that he did not intend to send the images but had threatened her to make her feel “scared”. Father informed the police that he has many sex videos of him and Mother at the home address but no longer has these on his phone.

Father first raised being a victim of rape after his arrest on 30 October 2023. In his interview from 19.53 to 21.22 that day, Father is recorded as confirming:

“During interview, [Father] stated that on 02/09/23 at approx. 01.00 hours, he had a call from [Mother] and he believed she was drunk. He said he was concerned for his daughters so [Mother] said he could come around the house, and they had a drink, and then started to argue as [Mother] saw a picture of his new girlfriend on his phone. He says that she then took his bank card and broke it and then he left. He said that he was waiting by the bus stop down the road and realised that he had 2% phone battery and no money, so he called [Mother] and she told him to come back to the house. When he went back, they had another drink and he said that he started to feel dizzy which is unusual for him. He now believes that she may have put something in his drink. He went to his daughter’s room and slept for about 30 mins before being woken up by [Mother] who was having sex with him which he said he didn’t consent to as he was sleeping but enjoyed it as it was his wife but remembered he had a girlfriend so pushed her off him. He said he then realised his phone was missing from the bed side table, so he started asking her where it is and went into her bedroom and took her phone as a bribe to give him his phone back. He said he had no intention of leaving the house with the phone, he went downstairs and she started shouting at him so he left and put her phone on the window seal before exiting. He then returned the next day as he received a message from his daughter to say she had found his phone on the table. He went back to the address and left with his phone and with an old phone that belongs to him.”

Father is recorded as informing the police that he was often around Mother’s house, “they drank together, had sex often” but now that he had a new girlfriend, he wanted “the relationship and activity of his ex-wife to cease”. This is not consistent with Father’s attitude in the Facebook message where his anger is directed to his concern that Mother is leaving him.

Elsewhere in the disclosure it is recorded:

“[Father] has alleged during his suspect interview [...] that he has woken up in his daughter’s bed with his ex-partner on top of him with his penis in her vagina. He didn’t consent to this, but he was enjoying the sex, he then realised he had a girlfriend so pushed her off. He only wanted this recorded on police systems.

As he is not willing to complete a statement or [Achieving Best Evidence] interview, attend court or support this investigation, there is no [realistic prospect of conviction].”

I consider it striking, that having made a serious allegation, Father only wanted the police to record it, but he did not wish to pursue the complaint. I conclude that Father wanted a serious allegation recorded against Mother as a tit-for-tat for him having been arrested in relation to the Facebook message. Whilst he continues to underplay the importance of the allegation that he stole Mother’s phone, I find on balance that he was concerned at being interviewed in respect of threats to disclose private sexual images. He was seeking to have something hanging over Mother. I observe at this juncture that he adopted this approach twice in his oral evidence: that he has suggested to his solicitor that Z be examined for fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and that he could take proceedings against Mother and X who he believes were responsible for his being assaulted by a group of persons in the street. I conclude that both observations were left hanging over Mother during the hearing. It is a device Father uses against her.

I am mindful that rape is a serious offence, and a witness in civil proceedings should properly be treated respectfully, with patience, and to feel safe and heard. However, at the conclusion of the hearing and upon reflection, I consider Father’s evidence on this matter was, simply, all over the place. I conclude it is an entirely untruthful narrative.

When he was reminded as to his admission in respect of threatening to disclose private sexual images, his initial position was that he did not express himself clearly as he was interviewed without a Polish interpreter. He subsequently accepted that the police offered him an interpreter and he was content to proceed at interview without one. He then said his solicitors were making a complaint and then agreed that no complaint had been made. He indicated that a complaint may yet be made. The interview was conducted over two years ago.

As to events when he arrived at the property, he explained that he travelled by taxi to the family home because Mother was drunk when talking to him on the phone and he was concerned about his daughters’ safety. However, he accepted a drink off her when he arrived because “she was behaving normally enough to have a conversation”, despite his previous concerns. He was reticent as to whether he had been drinking before his arrival, though he accepted he would take a taxi if he had drunk one beer. He denied bringing beer with him, stating that he had previously drunk whisky with friends. When inconsistencies were put to him as to how long he was asleep, he blamed his solicitors. He confirmed that he went to sleep in his underwear and trousers, and Mother had managed to remove all his clothing without waking him up. The clothes were entirely removed from him, so he was naked. When reminded that this element of his evidence was not recorded by the police, he stated that he did mention it. He explained that his penis was inside Mother’s vagina when he woke up. When reminded that he told the police that he was enjoying it, but his evidence to the Court was that he woke up shocked and angry and tried to get Mother off him, Father replied that he informed the police that he was enjoying it as “a joke”. When asked why he would make a joke about such a serious matter he replied, “when talking about [the rape], I made a joke. It was a normal conversation about what happened that night.” He accepted that he said he enjoyed the experience and that it was a joke because “she was still my wife”.

I find that Mother places the welfare of her children before herself. I do not find that she drinks to excess when they are alone with her. I find that there was no phone call. As Father observes elsewhere in the papers filed with this Court Mother had blocked calls from his phone. He was required to send the threatening message to Mother via a daughter’s Facebook account because Mother had blocked him. Father’s evidence that he phoned Mother, was concerned that she was slurring in conversation, that he phoned her from a bus stop and then returned to the house for the second time is untruthful. On balance, I prefer Mother’s evidence that Father came to the house wanting sex, and she refused. I find the Facebook message establishes that over a year after the relationship ended, Father was still angry at the end of the relationship: “If you leave me, I’ll destroy you.”

I do not find, on balance, that Father was truthful to the police when stating that he was often around Mother’s house, “they drank together, had sex often” but he wanted it all to end because he had a girlfriend. Mother has been consistent that she wanted the relationship to end for some time before Father left the house in the summer of 2022.

Mother did not possess a drug ready to use to ensure that Father would fall asleep at her home enabling her to strip him of all his clothes without his being aware, and initiate sex with him when he was asleep.

I find this allegation to be a malicious fabrication. The request for the police to ‘record’ the incident and no more was manipulative on the day when Father was to be interviewed under caution in respect of two offences where Mother was the victim. That Father was reduced to explaining that inconsistencies were consequent to a joke he made about what occurred during the rape exemplifies that the allegation was at the police station no more than an effort to manipulate and its continued pursuit in these proceedings is solely a means to denigrate Mother.

Having accepted Mother’s evidence that whilst intoxicated Father attended the house wanting to have sex with her, I am concerned that he exhibited entitlement, a personality trait that I address in my conclusion.

I am concerned that in pursuing this fabricated story Father has given no thought as to how his daughters will engage and deal with this allegation if it becomes known to them. Again, Father’s ongoing desire for conflict with Mother, requiring that she be cross-examined in his presence as the perpetrator of rape, was pursued with no thought as to how it may impact his relationship with his children.

It is a significant concern that a threat to disclose a sex video involving Mother was made with the clear exhortation to a female child, “I will show you one day everything that you’re (sic) mum was doing.” As addressed in my conclusion to this judgment, Father gives no thought as to how he can protect and enhance the lives of two young females during their formative years. He considers it perfectly acceptable to convey threats to Mother through a social media account belonging to one of his children and to intimate to a female child that he would provide her with a recording of her mother having sexual intercourse. He exhibits little, if any, insight into his worrying behaviour.

I do not find this allegation proved.

I deal with this allegation in short terms. The children have lived experience of Father’s action in the family home. They have lived with his behaviour.

Several posts placed on Tik-Tok by X were exhibited by Father. He explained that X’s account was shown to him by a niece, and he saw pictures of X with abusive posts directed at him. He confirmed that he was shocked, upset and embarrassed that multiple strangers had seen the videos. Father explained that his niece informed him that she asked X why she had created these videos and had been informed that Mother has told her to create them.

I cite the posts and hashtags in the order they appear in the bundle. It remains unclear as to whether they are in chronological order:

“maybe in another universe my dad will appreciate me” #daddyissues

“I’d rip out the pages about us” I wish you well with your new family, tata (daddy) #daddyissues #daddydaughter

“but he would verbally abuse me and my mum” I hate you dad #domesticviolence #domesticabuseawareness

“but he would blame his alcohol problems on me” I hate you dad #domesticviolence #domesticabuseawareness

“but he would leave the house for days [illegible] leaving us with nothing and coming back with flowers” I hate you dad #domesticviolence #domesticabuseawareness

“but he would shout at me and my sisters for any little inconvenience calling us worthless etc” I hate you dad #domesticviolence #domesticabuseawareness

“but he would beat my mum in front of me” I hate you dad #domesticviolence #domesticabuseawareness

“me begging my dad to love me after he threw a fan at me breaking my finger and bruising my face in the process”

I do not accept Father’s evidence that X informed his niece that she was directed by Mother to create the Tik-Tok content. He explained in his first statement filed in this case that it was after viewing X’s Tik-Tok account that he applied for a non-molestation order. In his witness statement accompanying the non-molestation order application in 2024 there is reference to his children’s social media accounts, but the contention advanced is that it is Mother using these accounts to post “false and damaging messages which paint a picture of me as an abuser” and “her posts describe me as a hostile and abusive individual and create a distorted image which can be incredibly damaging to my personal and professional reputation.” In 2024, Father’s stated case was that Mother was writing the posts, not X. There is no reference in his accompanying statement to a niece introducing him to the account, or X informing the niece that Mother encouraged her to create the content. The present version of events is significantly inconsistent with the version presented to the Court in 2024, a time when the conversation with the niece is said to have occurred because Father has explained that it was after his conversation with his niece that he sought the non-molestation order.

I find that Father blocked X from contacting him and was not himself blocked as he contends. I observe several messages sent by X to Father’s then partner, “J”, when seeking to locate Mother’s missing phone. X writes that Father has blocked her on Messenger and would not accept her calls.

A second example of manipulation arises from Father’s brief engagement with the order of District Judge Hayes permitting indirect contact, dated 18 March 2025. Email contact with Y and Z resulted in two emails being received from both girls, though understood to have been written by Y, one of which Father declares was actually written by Mother, because it is said to be different in substance to the first email:

The second email was sent in reply to an email sent by Father on 7 April 2025 in which he wrote, inter alia:

“...

I want to tell you that I have my own house and I prepared the room for you. I got a big bed and tv in the bedroom so when you visit me you will have lots of space and feel comfortable.

I miss you so much and I am waiting for the day we can meet again, go to many fun places and have lots of fun together.

...

I am sending you the picture of the room I have prepared for you and one of my current pictures so you don’t forget how daddy looks.

...”

In her addendum section 37 report, which post-dates the second email, Ms Afolabi reports that Y has explained that she struggles to know how to respond to Father’s emails, which can result in delayed replies. Y was clear in expressing that she does not wish to have any face-to-face contact with Father, regardless of the setting, and stated that she prefers communication to remain strictly via email. I note that Y did not oppose email contact. Z did not express a strong view about contact and is content to follow whatever Y says with regard to having contact with Father. Ms Afolabi opined that while it is understandable that the children may feel a sense of loyalty towards Mother, it remains unclear to what extent, if any, their views have been influenced by Mother.

I am required to consider Father’s allegation on the balance of probabilities. There is a change in tone in the second email, but I consider that that may be expected from Y, who is the author of the email and was aged ten at the time. I also observe that Father’s second email introduced his wish for the girls to come and stay with him, which was absent from the first email he sent which was limited to meeting up and having fun. It was not Father’s case before this Court that the email was inaccurate as to Y not liking kebabs, that he left her in the bath to go to the shop to buy beer or that Y would have a recollection of him sat on the sofa drinking beer and taking up space on the sofa so that she could not sit on it.

To the extent that he asserts Mother’s manipulation of X and Y as adversely impacting on his relationship with them, I am satisfied that the allegation is not established on the balance of probabilities.

Father unilaterally ceased engaging in indirect contact with Y and Z. His position when reading the email of 14 April 2025 was to blame Mother; not to consider his own historic acts and the experiences of his daughters. He made no effort to slowly develop his relationship with Y and Z. Instead, he ceased indirect contact with them for some six months. At the conclusion of the fact-finding hearing, I was informed that there was an agreement between the parties that indirect contact by email resume between Father and his two youngest children. I find it telling that Mother was willing to permit indirect contact to resume, considering it to be in the best interests of her daughters.

I find that Father has little if any insight into his behaviour. He no contrition for his denigrating and abusive behaviour towards Mother and the children. He appears simply unable to understand that until the girls can trust him, they may well not wish to engage with him or will want to raise their concern as to his past behaviour with him. He has, to date, entirely failed to engage with and understand the genuinely held observations of X and Y. I note that the no order principle has been applied to X, who wants to reside with her mother, and has expressed her lived experience. I observe that X and Y had not resided with Father for approaching three years at the time of the second email. On Mother’s unchallenged evidence Y and Z had not stayed with Father at his home since September 2023 and were not happy when they were there. I conclude, in respect of Y, that Father showed no real insight into the concerns that may arise for a young child who has witnessed his abusive behaviour, has not stayed with him for approximately eighteen months at the date of the second email, and is being informed that he has prepared a room for her at his new home in which she can stay. I find, on balance, that the second email genuinely reflects Y’s views and consequently it was not written as the result of manipulation by Mother.

This allegation is not proved.

Mother contends that she is the victim of an extremely abusive relationship in which Father would be drunk and assault both her and her daughter X, as well as be verbally abusive.

Father denies that he acted in such a manner.

Mother’s allegations are in general terms, with limited reference to specific instances. An example can be found in her first witness statement: “There was not a day when [Father] did not drink alcohol. When he was drunk, he would call me names and often hit my head with his.” Specific allegations as to assault are made in respect of the holiday in Greece, and the assault on X at the August 2022 barbeque a day before Father left the family home.

Curiously, Mother denies the events when Father states she broke through a barricade and hit him with a chair. This is the one instance where Father accepts that he hit Mother. I have found this incident did not occur.

On 4 September 2023, Mother was interviewed in respect of a Domestic Abuse Risk Assessment (DARA) following two allegations she made against Father: that he has stolen her phone and had made threats to release a video of a sexual nature that was made consensually when they were in their relationship. Mother is recorded as answering “only once” to the following two questions asked in the assessment:

“How often does (...) use physical violence towards you, such as pushing, slapping, punching or kicking?

How often does (...) use or threaten to use weapons such as household items, knives or guns to hurt you?”

Mother could not recall providing these answers to the police officer. The substance of the questions was clearly wider than the two complaints made, as evidenced by an earlier question, “is there previous domestic abuse and harassment history?”

Being mindful that the burden of proof rests upon Mother in respect of this allegation, I find that the answers are accurate as to events. I conclude that the marriage deteriorated over time, and I find that Father drank alcohol excessively. His mood swings, coupled with losing emotional control, were accompanied by abusive behaviour including physical intimidation, isolating behaviour, verbal aggression and denigration. I also find that Father used silence as a punishment.

However, when considering the allegation of physical assault, I observe that save for the assertion that Father would hit her with his head, her evidence is presented in general terms as to being subject to physical violence. I conclude that Mother was being truthful with the police. To the requisite standard, I find that Father has physically assaulted her once during their relationship and it was by striking her with his head.

I note that Mother’s specific assertion that Father would spit at her during arguments. Having considered the evidence before me with care, I find that Father spat at mother during the arguments straddling 22/23 August 2022. Mother’s complaint as to being spat at is recorded by the police when they attended the family home on 23 August 2022 and whilst Father had the opportunity to present his version of events, there is no record of his denying this act. I find the act of spitting at a woman to be an offensive, denigrating act. I further find that it was committed in front of the children.

On balance, I consider it more likely than not that when losing control and arguing with Mother, the act of spitting is one utilised by Father and I find it proven that the August 2022 incident was not the only time he spat at Mother. I accept her evidence that Father would spit in her face during outbursts of aggression. I further find that this was a regular occurrence. I am not required to identify individual dates when such act was committed. It is sufficient that, on balance, it took place between the dates of the allegation.

I observe Father playing to the police a recording of his wife made during the August 2022 incident. I find, on balance, that Father would make recordings of his wife when she was upset and crying, and this was a means of belittling and denigrating Mother. I find that Father would laugh at Mother when she was crying, call her crazy and give her the middle finger when she was visibly upset. This is offensive, demeaning and abusive behaviour.

On balance, I prefer Mother’s evidence as to Father taking out his anger and aggression on property and appliances. The transcript of the aggressive rant in May 2022 is an example of the fury he can build himself up to. I find that having lost his temper Father smashed, over time, an internet router, ripped cables out of another device, smashed the TV set-top box, broke the key in the lock of the door leading to the garden, has thrown food at a wall and twice smashed a hole in the bedroom door.

I accept Mother’s evidence before me that she feared permanently leaving Father consequent to threats made to her that he would break her face, destroy her life and burn down the house if she did so. Ultimately, the relationship ended with Father leaving the family home. In making this finding, I observe the transcript of Father’s aggressive comments in May 2022, and the content of the Facebook message sent to one of the children in September 2023. When angry, Father intentionally uses intimidatory and violent language towards Mother.

On balance, I conclude that Father adopts a similar intimidatory and abusive approach to his eldest daughter, X. I have found Mother’s evidence, on balance, to be preferred in respect of events in the garden on 22 August 2022. I find that Father did, in anger, hit X very hard on the knees and try to take the cat away from her.

I have found X’s captions on Tik-Tok to evidence her life experiences of not being appreciated by her father, of being subjected to verbal abuse by him, of being shamed as the cause of his alcohol problems, of being subjected to shouting for any little inconvenience, of being rejected and then love bombed, and of being called ‘worthless’. One of X’s social message posts identifies a young girl who still wants to be loved by their father but is struggling from having suffered abuse and rejection at his hands. Before me, Father has shown no insight into how his behaviour has impacted X; he sees no more than conspiracy between mother and daughter directed against him.

I also find that the children, as well as Mother felt required to take care not to upset Father as they were fearful to avoid further aggressive outbursts. They self-regulated their behaviour when he was present in the family home.

I find this allegation proved.

In assessing this allegation, I consider evidence before me beyond that provided by Mother’s testimony.

Mother has exhibited to her March 2025 witness statement a letter Father received following a complaint made by co-workers in 2015. She explains that Father provided it to her as she was aiding him to deal with problems at work. The letter is signed by members of the company valeting team and was sent to the Managing Director of Father’s then employer:

“We would like to make a formal complaint about the rude and bullying behaviour of [Father].

[Father] is very arrogant and patronising towards us.

He has no people skills, cannot communicate effectively; manage conflict positively; work productively with others to find solutions and reach agreement; and work with integrity and ethics to motivate and inspire others. Instead He treats the whole valeting team with no respect.

He treats us like we are his servants or slaves and should do all the work ourselves (he claims he’s our supervisor so he doesn’t have to work or help, even during busy periods).

In addition, he made threats about losing our jobs, claiming he has the power of choosing new employees as well as letting them go.

We have been left feeling hurt by [Father’s] attitude towards us. Finally, we have taken this step to inform you about his behaviour, which has been causing us distress.

We feel the workplace should be somewhere you can rely on being treated fairly and with respect – not somewhere you dread going very day because you feel bullied or victimised.

Sir, we cannot work well in this kind of environment.

We hope you could intervene and settle this matter, Sir, before it gets worst.”

Father did not dispute that the complaint was made in this form. I am mindful to handle hearsay evidence with care, and I have considered whether it can properly be relied upon. The document was exhibited by Mother who explained the circumstances in which Father received it. I conclude that I can properly place some weight on the document, and that is a snapshot in time of Father’s behaviour with others. The substance of the complaint is an example of Father’s domineering and unfeeling interaction with people, which is identifiable elsewhere, such as his denigration of Mother, X and Y. I find that Father likes to hold or exert power over people. I observe his efforts to shape the way he was questioned at the hearing before me, being unwilling to answer certain questions, using deflection and being disrespectful.

I observe police disclosure of an officer talking to a family neighbour and being informed as to Mother discussing her unhappiness with the relationship and its impact upon her.

I find, on balance, that Father was disinterested in Mother’s friends and family, save to the extent of seeking sexual relations with a female neighbour as evidenced by exhibited phone messages, and his antipathy impacted upon Mother’s confidence in socialising with her friends and family, beyond religious days or birthdays. This left her feeling isolated, lacking self-worth and feeling that her life was solely dedicated to her husband and children. I prefer Mother’s evidence that Father would deliberately act in a poor manner at gatherings held by friends and family of Mother. I accept Mother’s observation that Father would sour her relationships with others. I conclude that Father exhibits controlling behaviour, likes to be at the centre of attention, and was disinterested in engaging in relationships that are centred around Mother. He was content to visit his friends on his own, as confirmed several times in his evidence. I find that isolating behaviour flowed from his exhibition of controlling behaviour.

This allegation is proved.

I have previously found Mother to be credible as to this incident.

This allegation is proved.

This allegation relates to an incident in May 2022. Mother states that Father was drunk and angry during the night having come back from a friend’s house. She went downstairs to the kitchen to calm him down as she was concerned he would wake the children up. When she entered the kitchen, he commenced yelling at her, calling her names and saying that he would strangle her. She recorded some of Father’s comments.

I read the English language transcript of the recording, the contents of which have not been challenged, into the judgment. Father has the benefit of the Polish language transcript:

“Fuck, 15 thousand, fuck, she took out credit cards, fuck, and fucked around, fuck, and who knows who the bitch fucked, the one who is surely better than me ! “You can start, my husband’s not here”. Fuck, you fucking whipped bitch. “Yeah, do me like that, you’re better than my husband”. Shit, I’ll get a chair and smash your head in with it. Fuck, you fucking bitch. I could have strangled you then, bitch. My world would have been so fucking different. Bitch, strangle you, fuck with my bare hands. Normally, fuck, strangle you like a normal fucking zero. How can you fucking tell your husband, fuck with your husband and talk shit about [00:00:55 difficult to understand]. Bitch, then, normally with my own hands, fuck, fuck you up, fuck you up. You fucking bitch. We were on the fucking holiday, we rented a fucking house, and during that time fuck, the bitch, fuck, tells me she fucked me for thousands of pounds. You fucking bitch. We were standing outside that fucking Tesco, shit, you begged me not to leave you, you fucking bitch! I’m not scared, I can shout so fucking loud I’ll be in the anti-terrorist prison in no time. I don’t give a fuck. You fucking bitch. I kept finding one fucking card after another. Fuck, she fucked everything up for me, fuck. While I was giving her the fucking money to pay it back, that fucking bitch was spending it! Who knows with who, and then I had sex with her and she said “Fuck me, you’re better than my husband.” You fucking whore, were fucking around, you fucking bitch, I’m going to kill you, whore. I’ll fuck you up. I don’t give a fuck about you. Not at all. So, it’s fucking over. It’s fucking over. I don’t give a fuck about you.”

Mother states that this aggressive and intimidatory rant, and I consider this an appropriate description, accompanied by violent language was directed at her with Father standing close by her in the kitchen.

Father denies Mother’s version of events. His position is that he was emotional, having been made aware that Mother had been unfaithful. He was speaking to himself in the corridor upstairs and not in the kitchen. He had no idea where Mother was. When using the word “you” Father explained that he was “so emotional that after catching her cheating on me for the second time, I did not know if I was talking to myself or to God”. He stated, “I was so emotionally messed up that I was not able to recall whether I was talking to myself or to someone else”. When referred to the direct threat, “I could have strangled you then bitch”, Father informed me, “I did not say that. I was so upset that I might have been looking at her picture or talking to God, I did not say that to her face.”

It is appropriate that I observe that no evidence has been placed before the Court as to Mother having had affairs outside the marriage, and she denies this.

Counsel directed my attention to various words repeated in the transcript. Ms Evans relied on the reference to “she” and Ms McDonald to “you”.

I remind myself that the burden of proof rests on Mother. The intermingling of “she” and “you” is noted, but the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt. I have previously found Father to be a man who is aggressive and intimidatory when angry. He has no concerns as to being verbally aggressive in front of Mother and is content to record her when she is upset and crying.

I am required to consider whether, having been informed that his wife has had an affair, he would, on returning home at night, place himself in a corridor upstairs and verbalise his concerns in such an aggressive, and violent manner, whilst talking to God or having a photograph of Mother in his hands, and not in the presence of Mother. I conclude, on balance, that Father would not be so measured as to place himself away from Mother when so emotionally angry. I prefer Mother’s evidence that upon Father’s return home he was extremely angry, and Mother was aware of a commotion downstairs. The couple met in the kitchen, and Father engaged in an aggressive, violent and intimidatory monologue leaving Mother scared. This is a clear instance of domestic abuse.

If I had accepted Father’s account, which I do not, on his own case he engaged in an aggressive, violent and intimidatory monologue that Mother could hear as well as the children who were in their bedrooms upstairs.

I find it telling that in cross-examination of Mother, she was criticised for not preventing X, and more widely the children, from swearing. This concerned an incident in 2022 when X is said to have called Father a ‘Motherfucker’. Without addressing what is learned in the school playground and the use of swearing as an exhibition of independence by adolescents, the advancing of this complaint in the knowledge of Father’s tirade of swearing, which on his own case took place in the upstairs corridor close to the children’s bedrooms, is informative. I consider it controlling behaviour: ‘do as I say, not what I do’.

I observe Father’s messages to a female neighbour, P, where he asked her to have sex with him, and asked whether she has any other friends who are free and likes sex. The messages below are in English language translation, with the original Polish language messages exhibited:

These messages were sent before Father reacted with significant anger and threatened to strangle his wife when he understood she had engaged in an extra-marital affair. Concern arises as to entitlement with Father exhibiting double standards and the application of special treatment in the relationship that he does not consider should be enjoyed by his wife.

I direct various words used by Father in his rant to be recorded in the schedule to the order:

“bitch”;

“whipped bitch”;

“fucking bitch”;

“a normal fucking zero”;

“whore”; and

“fucking whore”.

Also to be recorded are the threats:

“I’ll get a chair and smash your head in with it”;

“strangle you ... with my bare hands”;

“fuck you up”; and

“I’m going to kill you, whore”

This allegation is proved.

I have previously found that Father hit X on the knees in the garden on 22 August 2022.

I observe that X does not specifically detail that she has been the victim of physical assault at the hands of Father in her Tik-Tok posts. However, this is not determinative, as X was not compiling a comprehensive list of allegations for court proceedings.

Save for the August 2022 assault, I consider Mother’s evidence as to Father hitting X to have been advanced in very general terms.

I am mindful of the relevant standard of proof and find, on the evidence before, me that Mother has not established that on balance Father has physically struck X save for on striking her on 21 August 2022.

This allegation is proved in respect of Father physically striking X on her knees in the garden of the family home on 22 August 2022.

This allegation is not proved in respect of Father physically hitting X at other times.

Additionally, related to this allegation, I prefer Mother’s evidence on balance and so find that Father would constantly shout at X, call her “fat”, and inform Y that she was his favourite daughter over the other two children. I accept that this has caused X personal concern, as evidenced by her Tik-Tok recordings. I am satisfied that it is open for the Court to depart from the schedule on this issue and there is good reason to because it exhibits Father’s denigrating and belittling behaviour towards X, and sufficient evidence exists as to such behaviour.

I find proved that Father would denigrate and belittle X by calling her names and stating that he preferred another child over her.

Mother states that Father attended the family home in September 2022 to remove his personal property. He sought to take a fan that X wanted to keep in her possession, and they fought over it. They were both holding the fan and were pulling at it. Mother contends that Father deliberately let go of the fan and it hit X in the face.

Father’s position is that there was an incident involving a fan, but it did not occur in the manner alleged by Mother. He was gathering his belongings, when X approached him and asked that he repair a broken fan. Father informed X that he did not have his tools with him, and so he would take it to his new home and look at it there. X wanted him to repair it immediately, as she could not sleep without it. Father informed her that he could not fix it at that time but would take it home. X then tried to pull the fan out of his hands. It snapped and hit X in the face.

X referred the matter to her school. I accept Mother’s position that the school were content not to proceed with the matter as Father was no longer residing at the property.

I note X’s caption on Tik-Tok, “me begging my dad to love me after he threw a fan at me breaking my finger and bruising my face in the process.”

I acknowledged that the burden of proof falls upon Mother, but I record that Father’s evidence as to the origins of the dispute and how he came to holding the fan to be highly implausible. It would require X to be aware that he was moving his property out of the family home and so the family unit was being broken up, ask him to fix a fan, be informed that without tools the task could not be completed, request that the task be undertaken in any event, and then pull at a broken fan to stop it being removed from the house. I consider it more likely than not that Father was seeking to take the fan with him and X objected.

However, I do not find, on balance, that Father deliberately let go of the fan to hurt X. I accept that both Mother and X honestly perceive this to be the case. It is much more likely that in the struggle the fan slipped from his fingers. I conclude that Father engaged in poor behaviour by physically preventing X from taking possession of the fan, but such behaviour falls short of being domestically abusive.

Stepping back and considering this incident at the present time, two concerns arise. The first is that neither Father nor Mother presented evidence that Father showed any concern to X when she was struck in the face by the fan. Father’s silence on this issue is noticeable. His evidence was solely directed to justifying his actions. The second, significant, concern is one that flows throughout Father’s case. It is he who is seeking the Child Arrangement Order. He wants contact with Y and Z. He sought contact with X. Yet, when reading X’s Tik-Tok post that she is begging her father to love her, I find that he was, and continues to be, so engrossed in continuing conflict with Mother that he has proven oblivious to the impact his behaviour has had on X. I remind myself that he blocked X from contacting him. A child’s public request for a father to love her was simply ignored.

This allegation is not proved.

I have read the evidence presented in respect of this allegation with care. I accept Ms Evans’ submission as to the lack of clarity as to the incident. On balance I do not accept that Father has hit Y.

I find that Y, along with the other children, have had to self-regulate their lives to avoid verbal and intimidatory abuse from Father.

This allegation isnot proved.

The definition of “domestic abuse” is in paragraph 2A of PD12J. Behaviour is “abusive” if it consists of, inter alia, violent or threatening behaviour; controlling or coercive behaviour; or psychological, emotional or other abuse. It does not matter whether the behaviour consists of a single incident or a course of conduct.

‘Coercive and controlling behaviour’ is defined in paragraph 3 as:

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

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

The same provision defines “harm” as:

“Ill-treatment or the impairment of health or development including, for example, impairment suffered from being a victim of domestic abuse or from seeing or hearing the ill-treatment of another, by domestic abuse or otherwise.”

I conclude that Father is a perpetrator of domestic abuse. Mother and the children are victims of that abuse. Father has exercised controlling behaviour, his threats to Mother if she were to leave him constitute coercive behaviour, he sought to isolate Mother from her friends and family, he has denigrated both Mother and X, and by his controlling and coercive behaviour he has required Mother and the children to self-regulate their lives to avoid verbal and intimidatory abuse from him.

Father exhibits little, if any, insight into the trust he is required to build up with Mother and the children to healthily engage in the lives of the children. He has not exhibited an understanding that the building-up of his relationship with the children requires him to work at their pace, not his, as evidenced by his reference to having a room ready for the children to stay in his second email message at a time when the children had not stayed with him for some eighteen months. He exhibits little, if any, insight into the lived experience of the children who self-regulated their lives consequent to his excessive alcohol consumption, anger and rages, domestic abuse, and denigration of Mother as well as his trait of rejection followed by love bombing. I have found that they had to tiptoe around his mood swings and violent outbursts. I accept Father used silence as an intimidatory weapon towards Mother. His belief that remarks directed to Mother as to a phone in a woman’s rectum which even a stick could not retrieve was funny is a significant concern. Father is seeking engagement in his daughters’ lives. He has come to Court to secure that engagement through a Child Arrangements Order. He wants a spend time with order in respect of both Y and Z. Ultimately, this Court will be required to consider the girls’ welfare. At the final hearing Father can properly be expected to have given thought to how he can protect and nurture the lives of two young females during their formative years, when they may attract predatory and mocking males who objectify them and may seek to control their behaviour, when he himself adopts abusive, mocking and very unpleasant attitudes towards women. What care, protection and support can he offer them? This concern may form part of the welfare assessment.

At the present time, Father shows little understanding as to his role in continuing conflict with Mother and the consequent lack of trust arising. There has been no acknowledgement to date in these proceedings of his own behaviour during the relationship. His pursuit of the alcohol abuse and rape allegations in this matter was no more than a means of continuing to denigrate and abuse Mother.