EF (No.1) (Finding of Fact Hearing), Re

This judgment follows a finding of fact hearing that took place in the context of the father, TC’s application for a Child Arrangements Order in respect of his daughter EF who was born in Nov 2024 and is therefore 1 year old. The respondent to the application is EF’s mother, WF.

The essential background to the proceedings can be briefly stated. The parties met in April 2023 and commenced a relationship. At this point, the F was working as a doctor in Scotland, but travelled back and forth to his home in South Wales. The relationship was turbulent and ‘on / off’ in nature. It is not clear to me precisely when the parents regarded themselves as being in a relationship, and when they did not. They certainly separated after EF’s conception in early 2024, had reconciled by the time of a holiday to France that summer, but had then seemingly separated again prior to EF’s birth. Both parents accept that a final and enduring separation occurred following an alleged incident on 22^nd January 2025.

EF has remained in the care of her mother and the mother has not permitted contact since this time. The father issued his application for a CAO on 14 April 2025, seeking an order that the mother makes EF available for contact. On the basis that he is not named on EF birth certificate, the F has also issued applications for a declaration of parentage and an order for parental responsibility.

The mother raised allegations that she was the subject of domestic abuse at the hands of the father at an early stage via a competed C1A form dated 22^nd April 2025, asserting that EF would be placed at a risk of harm if she were to spend time with the father. In accordance with the Pathfinder private law reform pilot operating in Cardiff, Cafcass Cymru completed a Child Impact Report prior to the matter being listed for a hearing.

The report is dated 2^nd June 2025, and outlines further detail in respect of the mother’s allegations. The Family Court Advisor completing the report, Miss Gemma Densley, recommended that a finding of fact hearing take place to determine the factual matrix on which further recommendations could be made. Miss Densley was unable to recommend that any interim contact takes place until such time that the court had considered the allegations.

On review at Gatekeeping 2, the matter was allocated to the case management track and listed for a hearing on 11^th July 2025, at which the court determined that it was indeed necessary to determine a range of allegations dating from September 2023 onwards, covering the following broad areas:

The father vehemently denies the allegations. His basic position is that the mother is controlling, manipulative, malicious, and the antagonist in the relationship. It is his case that the mother’s allegations have been fabricated to remove him from EF’s life. Given the way in which the father has litigated matters, I made it plain at the outset of the trial that the court would also consider whether the father has sought to use the proceedings as a vehicle to further abuse the mother.

The matter proceeded to trial commencing on the 20^th October 2025. The court heard oral evidence from both the mother and father, the maternal grandmother, Ms JF, the mother’s friend Miss PW, and the paternal grandmother Mrs DC. I note that the mother was represented by counsel, and the father proceeded as a LIP. A QLR was appointed by the court to undertake the father’s cross examination of the mother. Judgment was reserved to today, being the first opportunity that the court had to list the handing down.

A finding of fact hearing seeks to establish a factual matrix on which the court can base its assessment and analysis of matters pertaining to the child’s welfare. I remind myself that the burden or responsibility of proving a fact is on the party who asserts it. The test is whether I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that the facts are as asserted, what is called the balance of probabilities.

The court operates on the basis of a binary system of proof. Disputed facts are either proven on the balance of probabilities and found to have happened, or are not established to that requisite standard and thus are to be treated as not having occurred. Neither the seriousness of the allegation nor the consequences have any impact on the application of the standard of proof: Re B (Children)[2008] UKHL 35.

A failure to find a fact proved on the balance of probabilities does not equate, without more, to a finding that the allegation is false: Re M (Children)[2013] EWCA Civ 388.

The findings must be evidence-based; that includes facts and inferences that can be properly drawn from them, but not suspicion or speculation: Re (A Child) [2011] EWHC 517 (Fam).

All of the evidence must be considered and each piece of it in the context of the rest of it. There is a need to have an overview of the totality of the evidence and for the court to consider the broad canvas of the lives of the people involved:Re T (Abuse: Standard of Proof)[2004] EWCA Civ 558.

The question of how the courts deal with allegations of domestic abuse, including coercive and controlling behaviour, has been the subject of several recent authorities. Poole J summarised the key points in the matter of Re JK (A Child) (Domestic Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearing)[2021] EWHC 1367 (Fam):

“[18] This case concerns allegations of domestic abuse, including coercive and controlling behaviour. As such I must follow the principles and guidance at PD 12J of the Family Procedure Rules 2010, and the guidance given recently by the Court of Appeal in Re H-N and Others (children) (domestic abuse: finding of fact hearings) [2021] EWCA 448 (Civ). In that case at [25] to [27] the Court of Appeal noted that PD 12J remains "fit for the purpose for which it was designed" enabling the courts to recognise domestic abuse and thereafter how to approach such allegations in private law proceedings. In relation to the recognition of domestic abuse in the form of coercive and/or controlling behaviour the Court of Appeal said:

"[25] … there are many cases in which the allegations are not of violence, but of a pattern of behaviour which it is now understood is abusive. This has led to an increasing recognition of the need in many cases for the court to focus on a pattern of behaviour and this is reflected by (PD12J).

[26] PD12J paragraph 3 includes the following definitions each of which it should be noted, refer to a pattern of acts or incidents:

"'domestic abuse' includes any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive or threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are or have been intimate partners or family members regardless of gender or sexuality. This can encompass, but is not limited to, psychological, physical, sexual, financial, or emotional abuse. Domestic abuse also includes culturally specific forms of abuse including, but not limited to, forced marriage, honour-based violence, dowry-related abuse and transnational marriage abandonment;

'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."

[19] The Court of Appeal set out the harm to children that can be caused by coercive and controlling behaviour:

"[31] The circumstances encompassed by the definition of 'domestic abuse' in PD12J fully recognise that coercive and/or controlling behaviour by one party may cause serious emotional and psychological harm to the other members of the family unit, whether or not there has been any actual episode of violence or sexual abuse. In short, a pattern of coercive and/or controlling behaviour can be as abusive as or more abusive than any particular factual incident that might be written down and included in a schedule in court proceedings (see 'Scott Schedules' at paragraph 42 -50). It follows that the harm to a child in an abusive household is not limited to cases of actual violence to the child or to the parent. A pattern of abusive behaviour is as relevant to the child as to the adult victim. The child can be harmed in any one or a combination of ways for example where the abusive behaviour:

i)

Is directed against, or witnessed by, the child;

ii)

Causes the victim of the abuse to be so frightened of provoking an outburst or reaction from the perpetrator that she/he is unable to give priority to the needs of her/his child;

iii)

Creates an atmosphere of fear and anxiety in the home which is inimical to the welfare of the child;

iv)

Risks inculcating, particularly in boys, a set of values which involve treating women as being inferior to men."

The Court of Appeal endorsed the judgment of Hayden J in F v M [2021] EWFC 4 in which he referred to paragraph 60 the statutory guidance published by the Home Office pursuant to Section 77 (1) of the Serious Crime Act 2015 which identified paradigm behaviours of controlling and coercive behaviour, and said:

"'coercion' will usually involve a pattern of acts encompassing, for example, assault, intimidation, humiliation and threats. 'Controlling behaviour' really involves a range of acts designed to render an individual subordinate and to corrode their sense of personal autonomy. Key to both behaviours is an appreciation of a 'pattern' or 'a series of acts', the impact of which must be assessed cumulatively and rarely in isolation." [4].

[20] However, the Court of Appeal emphasised at [32] that:

"It is equally important to be clear that not all directive, assertive, stubborn or selfish behaviour, will be 'abuse' in the context of proceedings concerning the welfare of a child; much will turn on the intention of the perpetrator of the alleged abuse and on the harmful impact of the behaviour. We would endorse the approach taken by Peter Jackson LJ in Re L (Relocation: Second Appeal) [2017] EWCA Civ 2121 (paragraph 61):

"Few relationships lack instances of bad behaviour on the part of one or both parties at some time and it is a rare family case that does not contain complaints by one party against the other, and often complaints are made by both. Yet not all such behaviour will amount to 'domestic abuse', where 'coercive behaviour' is defined as behaviour that is 'used to harm, punish, or frighten the victim…' and 'controlling behaviour' as behaviour 'designed to make a person subordinate…' In cases where the alleged behaviour does not have this character it is likely to be unnecessary and disproportionate for detailed findings of fact to be made about the complaints; indeed, in such cases it will not be in the interests of the child or of justice for the court to allow itself to become another battleground for adult conflict."

Where it is found that a witness has lied, the court must consider R v Lucas (Ruth) [1981] QB 720 and bear in mind that a witness may lie for any number of reasons. The fact that a witness has lied about one thing does not mean that the witness must necessarily be lying about everything else. A lie should not be taken as of itself direct proof of guilt: Re H-C (Children) [2016] EWCA Civ 136, and a judge must consider the probative weight to be attached to the lies in the context of the totality of the evidence: Re CK (A Child: Fact-Finding)[2022] EWCA Civ 451.

There is a need for a balanced approach to the significance of oral evidence. The court must be mindful of the fallibility of memory and the pressures of giving evidence. The relative significance of oral and contemporaneous evidence will vary from case to case. What is important is for the court to assess all the evidence in a manner suited to the case before it, without inappropriately elevating one kind of evidence over another: Re A (A Child) [2020] EWCA Civ 1230.

The question of how the court should approach its assessment of demeanour was addressed by Peter Jackson LJ in Re B-M (Children: Findings of Fact)[2021] EWCA Civ 1371:

In family proceedings, evidence given in connection with the welfare of a child is admissible notwithstanding any rule relating to the law of hearsay: Children (Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence) Order 1993. 

The weight to be attached to a piece of hearsay evidence is a question for the court to decide: Re W (Fact Finding: Hearsay Evidence) [2014] 2 FLR 703).  Within this context, a serious unsworn allegation may be accepted by the court provided it is evaluated against testimony on oath: Re H (Change of Care Plan) [1998] 1 FLR 193.  It is very important to bear in mind at all times that the Court is required to treat hearsay evidence anxiously and consider carefully the extent to which it can properly be relied upon (see R v. B County Council ex parte P [1991] 1 WLR 221.

In the recent decision of Re H (Children) (Findings of Fact) [2025] EWCA Civ 993, Cobb LJ emphasised the importance of avoiding ‘a totalising approach’ in a case involving multiple allegations, warning against the temptation to conclude that “something must have happened” based on a collection of insufficient evidence.

Finally, I have also had regard to the May 2025 Family Justice Council guidance on covert recordings in family law proceedings concerning children. The court granted both parties permission to rely on recordings at the case management hearing on 11^th July 2025. The recordings fall to be considered as hearsay evidence and treated in accordance with the principles set out above.

In respect of recordings made by parents of each other, I note that the guidance warns as follows:

The evidence is set out within a core bundle of some 992 pages. It includes the witness statements, disclosure from the police, and transcripts of various recordings made by the parents and the police (including body worn camera footage and the father’s interview under caution). These transcripts were prepared by the solicitor for the mother and the father, and agreed as accurate in advance of the pre-trial review on 3^rd October 2025. Although the father sought to resile on this agreement at the outset of the trial and again during his evidence, he was unable to point to any meaningful discrepancies. In any event, I have listened to and watched the recordings alongside reading the written transcripts and am satisfied as to their accuracy.

Whilst I take into account everything that I have read and heard, I shall only refer to that which is necessary to explain my decision.

The mother’s oral evidence was calm and measured. She described events in the relationship with a sense of fact and lived experience. There was no indication that she sought to exaggerate or embellish her account, and there was consistency across her oral evidence, her written statements, the complaints made to the police, and the covert recordings.

The mother fully engaged with all questions asked in cross-examination. She was able to explain why she remained with the father despite his concerning behaviour, describing how she had been made to feel to blame for his outbursts. The mother was also credible when challenged on not alleging that the father twisted her arm when the police attended on 13^th December 2024. The mother is not a person who has routinely had cause to call the police and make allegations, and I accept that her primary motivation on this occasion was to have the father leave the property rather than get him in trouble.

I do not accept that the mother’s decision to allow the father contact with EF up until 22^nd January 2025, or the fact that the mother is recorded as saying some positive things about the father’s care for EF, are indicative of her having fabricated the allegations or being an unreliable witness. I accept her evidence that she thought she could manage the father’s behaviour, and that she genuinely wanted to encourage the father’s relationship with his daughter. This is supported by her invitation to the father to continue to send voice notes to be played to EF, even after she had made it clear that she wanted no further communication with him. I bear in mind the context, namely that the mother was a new parent going it alone and trying to balance both the needs of her daughter and the overbearing and erratic behaviour of the father. Overall, she was an impressive witness.

The same cannot be said of the father. It is difficult to know where to start when detailing the troubling and unsettling nature of his evidence. His demeanour was one of unwavering defiance, and he was utterly fixated on denigrating the mother at any given opportunity. His attacks across his written and oral evidence included describing the mother as “twisted”, “cowardly and manipulative”, “narcissistic”, “nasty and nuts”, “paranoid”, “psychotic”, “devious”, and “a pathological liar”. He repeatedly returned to the mother’s “appalling attitude” and made insinuations as to EF’s paternity despite not actively contesting this. Perhaps most egregiously of all bearing in mind his vocation, the father sought to argue that the mother has a mental illness (specifically bipolar disorder) and asserted that “she has every diagnostic criteria for an anti-social personality disorder, she is clever and convincing and has no remorse.”

At times I was left unsure as to whether the father realised what he was saying and the impact of the same, such was the sense of compulsion. However, I ultimately concluded that it was a conscious and concerted effort to shift blame to the mother and reverse the role of victim and offender. He frequently asserted that he only ever acted in response to the coercive, controlling, and physically abusive behaviour of the mother. Even when confronted with video clips capturing the frenzied nature of his aggressive outbursts, such as those on the holiday in France, the father refused to accept that his behaviour could constitute abuse and suggested that “this is how most people would react given the situation that I was put in”.

A section of his witness statement is even titled “I accuse the respondent mother of inciting hatred and aggression to deliberately prevent me being a father.” The father’s evidence was marked by this mindset. He was incapable of accepting responsibility for even the behaviour he did not dispute, and minimised the allegations as “trivial” and “irrelevant”.

In addition, the father was frequently evasive and reluctant to give a straight answer. He offered little assistance to the court, particularly if he considered it might be contrary to his case or another part of evidence. For example, he was incapable of helping me with even the rough time of day (narrowed to day time or night time) when he attended at hospital to meet EF for the first time (a point that went to his behaviour post-birth), but was able to give me a detailed account about matters predating this and entirely inconsequential in comparison.

The father gave the impression that he considered himself above having to explain himself, stating that the court process was very upsetting to him as he was “used to working with caring doctors and nurses”. He routinely challenged counsel for the mother on the nature and relevance of her questions, suggesting at points that they were “terrible”, or “silly”.

On one occasion, the father even sought to undermine my recollection of his evidence. When asked about the voicemail that he left the mother on 11^th May 2025, he asserted, for the first time, that the mother had “manipulated the actual voice recording” and that the transcript was not accurate. This led the court to immediately request that the recording be played and a request that the father be precise about the part that he suggested had been manipulated. Having listened to the recording, the father’s response was that “I did not say that she had manipulated the actual voice recording”. When I told him that this was precisely what he had said just moments earlier, the father initially denied that this was the case, before eventually accepting that he had.

It follows that I found the father to be anything but an impressive witness. However, plainly this is just one component of my assessment of the father’s credibility, which must be considered with the totality of the evidence before the court in mind.

In terms of my assessment of the other witnesses that gave evidence to the court, this is perhaps better approached with reference to the evidence that they gave in respect of the allegations to be tried.

Both parties have permission to rely on recordings made of the other. Each recording was made covertly, in that the other party did not know it was being made. The court has watched and listened to each of the recordings, alongside reading agreed transcripts of the same.

The recordings made by the mother include three separate recordings made on the night of the father’s arrival in France in August 2024, as well as a recording made the following morning. In addition, the mother relies on a recording made on the evening of the alleged physical assault on 13^th December 2024. There is also a further recording of the father ranting and being abusive in the mother’s home on 2^nd November 2024, and the audio of a voicemail to the mother left by the father on 11^th May 2025.

There are no questions raised about the authenticity of any of the recordings or whether the recordings themselves have been the subject of manipulation. I bear in mind that, save for the voicemail, the recordings do not evidence the entirety of the interaction between the parents in that given moment. Each recording commences with the father already agitated and behaving erratically or aggressively, and I note that the father states that the recordings have been pitched deliberately to capture his reaction to the mother’s abusive behaviour.

In her oral evidence, the mother stated that she made the recordings at times when she felt trapped and unable get the father to leave the home or accommodation. Specifically in respect of the recordings made in France, the mother stated that she “felt helpless, and unable to do anything more to protect myself”. There is no evidence of the mother trying to provoke a certain response or reaction from the father that might act to incriminate the father, and it does not appear that she volunteered the footage to the police when they attended on 13^th December. I accept the mother’s evidence that she made the recordings to protect herself if she ever had to illustrate the behaviour of which she now complains. As Miss Scarsbrook said in closing submissions, the father’s evidence was at times exhausting, draining and difficult to follow – if this is an indication of what it was like to live with him, her desire to make recordings was understandable. That said, I do not consider it likely that the mother had in mind these proceedings at the point that the recordings were made, with only one post-dating EF’s birth.

The father relies on four recordings made over three days in January 2025. The first is dated 19^th January 2025. The father contends that this recording was made inadvertently, in that he intended to record a song for EF whilst he was caring for her and left it running whilst he cooked supper for the mother. In its original form, the recording runs to 41 minutes, but much of that was silence and a shortened version was agreed between the parties. The father relies on the recording as evidence of his ability to care for EF and tend to her needs. The father also highlights that it captures the mother saying positive things about his care for EF and her trust of his ability to do so, notwithstanding the allegations she makes about his behaviour prior to this date.

I note that, most obviously, the recording does not actually capture the father singing a song for EF at any point. The father does not suggest that this has been edited out, and presents the 41 minute recording as complete. During his evidence, the father suggested that the recording commenced in the kitchen, and followed him taking food to the mother in her bedroom. He then suggested that the consistent white noise in the background evidenced that the phone remained in one place throughout the recording. Ultimately, I am not satisfied with the father’s account as to how or why this recording came to be. When considered in conjunction with the recordings made just days later on the 21^st January 2025, I consider it likely that the father created it with a view to capturing something of the mother, most probably what he considered to be her in an intoxicated state, as he suggests that she was in written evidence.

Turning then to the recordings made on 21^st January 2025, the father states that his intention was “to record memories”. In his witness statement in support of his request to rely on them, he describes the videos as evidencing the following: “I am looking after my daughter whilst [the mother] is unconscious with an empty bottle of alcohol on the floor. The second recording demonstrates that [the mother] does not wake at the sound of our baby crying because she was intoxicated.” [B113]

The videos show the mother hunched and asleep on a sofa. The first video captures EF, but then pans directly to the mother with the father stating to EF “It’s mummy asleep” and “Is that your tummy? No, it’s mummy snoring!” The second video is a matter of seconds long, and records EF crying whilst the mother remains asleep, even though EF remains held by the father.

I am entirely satisfied that the father made both recordings with a view to capturing evidence that might be held against the mother. I am satisfied that the sole purpose of the first video was to capture the mother asleep and to infer that this was through intoxication. This was not the father capturing a happy family memory. As the father himself accepts, the purpose of the second video was to suggest that the mother did not wake at the sound of EF crying (although it is so brief that it could not possibly be held to evidence as much). That EF was present and used as a prop in both is an aggravating factor. EF was safe in the father’s care, and the mother is shown to be doing nothing but be asleep. I consider the making of these videos with the intention that he had to be an unwarranted invasion of the mother’s privacy and abusive in nature.

The final recording relied upon by the father is made in the early hours of the 22^nd January 2025 after the incident in which the mother alleges that the father kicked open the bedroom door. The father titles the MP4 file ‘Drunk [mother] last night I was allowed to see my EF’. It records the parents speaking in hushed tones on account of EF also being in the room asleep. The mother repeatedly tells the father that she wants him to go, whereas the father tells the mother “You’re drunk” and insinuates that the mother was the cause of the incident.

As is clear from the title of the video and the nature of the father’s questioning of the mother, I am satisfied that it was the father’s intention when making the recording to capture the mother in what he considered to be an intoxicated state with the intention of using it against her. There is no other reason for him to have made this recording – the mother is in bed and entirely calm, and EF is asleep. The father seeks to lead the mother to accept something that she denies, both in terms of her being drunk and damage to the kitchen. When he fails in his endeavour, he calls the mother nuts, a coward, and a liar.

In his oral evidence, the father revealed for the first time that following on from the recording detailed above, he made a further recording that he had opted not to disclose. It is his case that he remained in the living room of the property after the exchange, and he accepted that the mother would have thought that he had left the property. The father then returned to the bedroom, whilst both the mother and EF were sleeping, and made a video “watching the baby”. The father stated that he felt compelled to return as he was carrying out an ‘observation’ on the mother, such was his concern for her state of intoxication. When challenged, the father disagreed that recording somebody who believes they are asleep and alone in their own home is inappropriate, “not when I had spent the last two nights in her bed on my own.” The father then later resiled from the suggestion that he had caught the mother in his recording of EF, although they were plainly next to one another and there is an obvious question about what the father sought to achieve by making a recording of EF in the dark and whilst she was asleep.

I consider that the videos made by the father on 22^nd January can be properly categorised as an example of distorted and obsessive thinking, a form of harassment, and abusive. Once more, these were a substantial and unjustified invasion of the mother’s privacy. They stand in stark contrast to those made by the mother, which record the father actively engaging in extreme and abusive behaviour, and say much about the father’s motivations at this point of the relationship. The father’s decision to hold back the second recording made on the 22^nd January also raises the concern that the father has not behaved transparently, and that he has approached the question of disclosure with a particular narrative and outcome in mind.

The mother’s statement alleges a range of abusive behaviours prior to EF’s birth, all arising through a loss of temper on the part of the father.

In terms of physical abuse, the mother alleges that the father would throw items at her, including a cake mould, a carpet steamer, and food. This is an allegation that she repeated to the police both on 23^rd January 2025 [F930] and 8^th February 2025 [F961], although here she refers to the father throwing a vacuum cleaner rather than a carpet steamer. This is a minor discrepancy that does little to detract from the consistency of the allegation.

In respect of the cake mould, the father accepted in his written evidence “gently throwing” this at the mother after she had bullied him about washing it. He states that he apologised for throwing it, although distanced himself from this in his oral evidence, stating that his apology was for the argument rather than the act. The father denied throwing the carpet steamer.

I do not accept that the father would have ‘gently’ thrown the cake mould at the mother in the context of an argument. I accept the mother’s account that “he lost his temper, became angry, and threw it at my face”. Whether the mould was made of a soft material or not, it was an aggressive act and indicative of a loss of control. The mother’s allegation had no sense of exaggeration, and I note that she does not allege that she was injured either when the father threw the mould or the carpet steamer / vacuum. I find that the father threw items at the mother on more than one occasion.

The mother then raises three specific episodes of emotional and verbal abuse. The first relates to a trip to the South West that the parents took in June 2023. The mother alleges that the father became angry over the directions to take, and “started shouting and called me an idiot, and then driving really fast and then slowing, to almost stop abruptly on the motorway. He was clearly trying to frighten me and it worked.”

The father accepts that there had been “a couple’s argument over directions” and that “it was brief and petty with no harmful consequences”. I prefer the evidence of the mother, which was convincing and the clearly the product of lived experience. I am satisfied that the father’s perception of ‘a couple’s argument’ is distorted and very likely to downplay the reality. I accept the mother’s evidence that she did not separate from the father when they arrived at their location because he apologised, and at this point loved the father and wanted to remain in a relationship with him. The court well understands the dangers of judging decisions relating to abusive relationships with the benefit of hindsight. This was still a new relationship, and the mother clearly wanted it to succeed.

The second episode relied upon by the mother under this broad heading relates to the behaviour of the father during the holiday to France in August 2024, at which point the mother was six months pregnant. It is covered extensively by both the written evidence and the recordings made by the mother, and it is not proposed to rehearse the detail at length here. In short, the mother alleges that the father lost his temper following his arrival at the holiday accommodation that she had booked further to a difficult journey from the UK. She describes him losing control, shouting, punching walls, and throwing things. He is said to have thrown his iPhone on the floor and breaking it.

The recordings made by the mother of the first night of the holiday are compelling. There is no question that the father is in a prolonged and uncontrollable rage. He is seemingly furious about anything and everything, from the quality of the directions provided by the mother, the standard of the accommodation, and the fact that he had left his rucksack in the taxi that had transported him to meet the mother. The mother is blamed for it all. Some of the things said by the father include:

“I fucking hate you.”

“Imagine I hit you, I would have done it a long time ago now… be even more fucking ugly.”

“I don’t give a shit about you anymore. You should fucking die.”

“You are a fucking loser.”

“Your work is pathetic compared to mine.”

“You are going to be alone. Get used to it.”

“Die in your sleep wont you.”

“I’m sorry you’re pregnant.”

“Don’t worry, I’m not going to touch you. If I did you’d be in a fucking world of trouble.”

The recordings also capture loud repeated occasions of loud banging and slamming. I note that the father also makes references to having “smashed my knuckles apart.”

Although I am conscious that she is making the recording, the mother does not really respond to the father’s tirade, far less do anything to keep it going.

Incredibly, the father’s case is that his behaviour was justified by the mother’s behaviour on the day of his journey to France, and by her failure to provide him adequate support and directions to find the holiday accommodation. In respect of the latter point, this is directly contradicted by the evidence in the bundle that the mother provided the father with the address for the accommodation via Whatsapp on more than one occasion. In respect of the alleged behaviour by the mother prior to the father’s arrival, the father was given the express opportunity to provide Whatsapp communications evidencing this by the court at the hearing on 11^th July 2025, but failed to do so, opting instead to use his second statement to focus on unrelated issues.

In his oral evidence, the father accepted that he was “fuming and upset after all the effort I had made” but denied that he had been verbally abusive. He stated:

“I think the shouting in the recording is how most people would react given the situation that I was put in… she leads me to the apartment, I’m fuming, I’m tired, I accidentally left my laptop in the taxi, lost all my work, I’m fuming and that was her fault… No I don’t accept being verbally abusive. I was angry but proportionate.”

The father was specifically asked whether calling the mother a ‘useless piece of shit’ was abusive. He responded that “I wouldn’t say that’s abusive. It’s a horrible thing to say no doubt, but to say that’s abusive compared to what she’s said to me… this is a reaction. It was organised by her and she was useless in that situation.”

I accept without hesitation the full extent of the mother’s account of the father’s behaviour on the evening of his arrival. The father arrived at the property in a rage and his experienced a concerning and prolonged loss of control. There is no question that his behaviour was abusive – both verbally and emotionally. The father’s refusal to accept this is at the extreme end of denial and delusion. I am satisfied that the mother, six months pregnant and in a foreign country, would have been left scared and feeling extremely vulnerable. I also accept that the father punched walls (causing the smashed knuckles), and threw items including his mobile phone. Whilst the father sought to suggest that his phone was already broken, I note his repeated reference to the cost of this as part of his fury at the mother, including stating “There you go. It won’t turn on anymore. There you go. £1,000 and £1,000 phone… there you go, £2,000 you cost me today.” I also note the father’s oral evidence that “If I break my phone in a reaction, how is that abuse to the mother? She caused the reaction, if I broke my phone, you are picking holes in my reaction, have you ever been in that situation?” I find it more likely than not that he smashed it on the floor in the way that the mother describes.

The mother alleges that the father’s behaviour continued to the next morning, and relies on a recording made capturing further anger and aggression. Loud and repeated banging can be heard, which the father suggests is him trying to close the door. If this is the case, he was plainly attempting to do so with significant force. In response to the mother’s request for the father go out, he tells her to “fuck off”, and later calls her “fucking useless.” I am satisfied that the father’s conduct constitutes further abuse of the mother.

The third episode relied upon relates to the father’s conduct around the time of the mother’s induced labour and C-section in November 2024. Here, the mother’s account is supplemented by the evidence of her friend and eventual birth partner, Miss PW. Certain aspects of the complaint are accepted by the father, including him telling the mother to apologise for not improving her attitude the night before the C-section. The father also initially accepted calling the mother ‘disgusting’ on the morning of the C-section, although later resiled from this. The father also accepted not attending the hospital on the evening/night after EF’s birth when invited to do so, and that it was possible that he did not attend the hospital until 8.30pm the following day, as the mother suggests and I accept was the case.

I accept the mother’s evidence that the father was angered by her decision to rely on Miss PW as a birth partner, despite having given the father every opportunity to take on the role himself. I also accept that the father had called the mother ‘disgusting’ as part of this argument, and that he put this above the opportunity to meet EF at the earliest possible opportunity.

In the absence of medical evidence or confirmation of the advice provided to the mother at the point that she was induced, I do not make a finding that the father placed undue pressure on the mother to not have a C-section contrary to the views of her obstetrician.

In terms of Miss PW’s evidence generally, she presented as an an entirely credible witness that was doing her best to assist the court. In cross-examination, the father asked her about paragraph 10 of her statement and the suggestion that the father would complain about or criticise the mother on occasions when she was not present. Miss PW gave the example of a discussion between the parents as to EF’s name, after which the mother went to the bathroom. Miss PW stated that the father took this opportunity to criticise everything the mother had said and speak about her in a negative way.

I am satisfied that the father’s behaviour in and around EF’s birth continued the theme of him putting his needs and frustrations above those of the mother in a way that was emotionally harmful to her at a very vulnerable moment in her life. In particular, I consider the father’s decision not to visit the mother and EF until 8.30pm on the day of her birth was likely an act of defiance intended to undermine the mother and cause further anguish.

The allegations made by the mother that post-date EF’s birth are condensed within a relatively short period of time.

The first relates to an incident of alleged verbal abuse on the day that the paternal grandmother first met EF. It appears that the father and paternal grandmother were aggrieved that Miss PW and the midwife were also present at the time of the paternal grandmother’s visit, leading to the father calling the mother “manipulative and controlling”.

The father argued that this was justified as the mother should have cleared the way for the paternal grandmother to visit uninterrupted. In a text message sent on the day, the father states “You controlled the day to be awkward and my mum sees right through nasty nutters like you.” In oral evidence, the father stated that it was his “expectation that the mother would respect the grandmother meeting her granddaughter. This was an important event, and the mother showed complete disrespect for that.”

I accept the mother’s evidence that she had no control as to when the midwife attended that day to tend to both EF and the mother’s C-section wound. I also accept it as entirely reasonable that the mother should have the support and company of a friend on hand, bearing in mind that she was separated from the father and otherwise living alone. The father’s reaction was unwarranted, abusive, and controlling.

I note that the paternal grandmother Mrs DC, gave brief and unremarkable evidence on this point. She did, however, confirm that the visit took place within a fortnight of EF’s birth, contrary to the suggestion that the mother had caused undue delay in it being arranged.

The next allegation made by the mother relates to the father shouting at her when EF was approximately 3 weeks old. The mother states that the father was angered over his inability to find a breast pump, ranted over EF’s crib, and called her “a Newport chav and a pathetic useless piece of shit amongst other unpleasant names”. The mother relies on contemporaneous text messages in which she puts this precise allegation to the father and states that it must not happen again (C221/C222). The father does not deny this is what happened or was said, instead responding “After you told me to leave in the middle of the night, because I don’t like the way you disrespectfully talk to me.”

In his oral evidence, the father denied that this constituted an admission that he had behaved in this way. He also disputed that it would have been harmful to EF had he done so, on the basis that “a baby doesn’t understand those words at 4 weeks old.”

I accept the mother’s account that the father subjected her to verbal abuse on this occasion, and that he was entirely indifferent to the presence of EF. The text exchange is credible supporting evidence – I note the recording of him calling the mother a ‘useless piece of shit’ previously. The father’s assertion that this would not have been harmful to EF highlights how little insight he has into his own behaviours and the impact of them on others.

The next allegation in time relates to the events of 13^th December 2024. On this occasion, the mother alleges that an argument occurred in the middle of the night relating to the bottle warmer. The father became angry, and the mother asked him to leave. The father proceeded to follow the mother to her bedroom, grabbed her arm, twisted it, and forced her to the floor. The mother then contacted the police, who arrived shortly after the father finally left the property.

The mother relies on a short video taken prior to the alleged assault, in which she can be heard to tell the father to leave whilst standing at the top of a staircase. The father is heard to say “I hate you I hate you I hate you.” The video then indicates the mother moving into her bedroom, before it appears the camera is dropped and the recording comes to an end. I note that the mother states that she recalls dropping the phone at the point that the father took hold of her arm.

The father disputes the allegation, stating that it was the mother who had assaulted him and initiated violence. I note that mother accepts that she pushed the father away when he came too close to her, before then retreating upstairs. The father points to the fact that the mother was explicitly asked whether she had been assaulted or hurt when the police attended that night, to which she replies that she had not. In his oral evidence, the father stated that he was angry with the mother as “she had assaulted me”, and despite initially suggesting that he had not followed her upstairs, accepted that the video indicated that he had. He also sought to suggest that the video does not evidence that he followed the mother into her bedroom, when it plainly does.

The father notes an apparent discrepancy between the mother’s account to the court and to the police, and that provided to Miss Densley of Cafcass Cymru as part of her safeguarding enquiries. In the body of her report, Miss Densley states that the mother had told her that the father had pushed her to the bed, rather than the floor. When clarification was sought, Miss Densley noted that the domestic abuse specialist who completed the DASH ric had recorded the mother stated that she had been pushed to the floor, rather than the bed. Miss Densley was unable to recall which account the mother provided to her given the passing of time.

Having listened carefully to both parties, I consider that the totality of the evidence supports a finding that it is likely that the father assaulted the mother in the way that she describes. Her oral evidence was particularly compelling and credible. She did not seek to exaggerate the circumstances, or shy away from the fact that she pushed the father when he was shouting at her. This was also the case when she did inform the police about the incident on 23^rd January and 8^th February. Her account has essentially remained consistent throughout, including within her s.9 police statement found at E817. I do not consider the discrepancy in the accounts given to the police and Miss Densley to be material, even if Miss Densley were able to confirm that the mother had indeed told her that she had been pushed to the bed.

I accept the mother’s explanation for not telling the police about the assault on the day, as she was frightened by their involvement and the potential repercussions. This is entirely understandable given the circumstances and her desire to maintain calm around EF. The way in which the recording ends is consistent with the mother’s account of having her arm twisted and dropping the phone. Equally consistent is the evidence demonstrating that the mother called the police the very next minute after the recording ended. I am satisfied that being just four weeks post C-section, this incident would have caused the mother pain and discomfort.

The father, by comparison, was an unreliable witness unable to help with basic details about the events of the evening. He was again fixated on finding reason to blame the mother, stating that she was sleep deprived and pushed him without any provocation. I consider it likely that the father would have responded extremely badly to being pushed away by the mother, and would have seen red in the same way that he had done previously. Support for this comes from his acceptance that he was angry, and his repeated statements that he hated the mother.

It is with this context that the mother states that it was against her better judgment to invite the father to attend at her home on Christmas Day and Boxing Day 2024. I accept that this decision came from a genuine desire to do the right thing by EF. In respect of Boxing Day, the mother alleges that the father became angry and raised his voice asking for a paternity test, something that he had mentioned on and off during the pregnancy. It was the mother’s belief that his “his main aim in disputing paternity seemed to be to upset me.”

The mother’s account of the father’s behaviour on Boxing Day is supported by the evidence of the maternal grandmother, Ms JF, who was present at the home. In her written evidence, she recalls the father losing his temper, and describes seeing “his arms become very stiff and then his hands went into a fist. He stuck his chin out and he became very aggressive towards [mother].” Ms JF states that she was particularly worried as the father was bending over the cot that had EF in whilst shouting. Unsurprisingly, Ms JF states that she told the father to leave, which he did.

Ms JF was an impressive witness. She described with clarity her alarm when the father’s behaviour started to change, and how she thought that she had to keep an eye on things. She stated that the change was “sudden, like the click of fingers”. Ms JF was entirely credible when describing how she would never forget it, and how she had been left feeling as if she was “pumping on adrenaline.” When the father criticised her for getting involved in the dispute, her response was one of exasperation and particularly compelling:

“Nobody, nobody would stand back and watch that. You were pointing, jabbing, leaning over the baby, leaning into my daughter’s face, jabbing and shouting. You stood away and clenched your body, and then you started.”

The father denied that this was true, although accepted that he had been really upset as he had not been named on EF’s birth certificate. As such, he had told the mother that the best present she could give him for Christmas was a new birth certificate. The father stated that Ms JF had made up her account, and was a liar.

I have absolutely no doubt that the mother and Ms JF’s accounts were entirely accurate and truthful. I find that this was another occasion in which the father lost his temper and became verbally and physically aggressive towards the mother, all in the presence of EF.

In terms of the paternity issue generally, the father accepted that he had queried this from an early stage on the basis that the mother had gone travelling with another male in February 2024, which would have been around the date of conception. The mother referred to a midwifery safeguarding document that was created following the mother’s pregnancy being booked in on 2^nd May 2024. This records that the father was present and questioned “whether he had been in attendance” at the conception if the estimated due date was correct. This had resulted in an argument and the mother requesting that he leave, which he did.

The father initially stated that the record was wrong, and that he had not questioned paternity at this appointment. He insisted that there was no argument about paternity at all, and that he was not asked to leave, but then accepted that there had been some discussion about this at a desk outside. When asked why a ‘safeguarding log’ had been created, the father stated that “the mother is very good at manipulating people into believing her” and that it was his assumption that she had spoken to the midwife after he had left. The father also disputed the midwife’s recording that the mother was ‘quite fragile’.

There is no basis on which to conclude that the safeguarding document is as materially incorrect as the father suggests. I find the recording of the father’s behaviour entirely consistent with his approach to matters relating to the mother’s emotional welfare. I am satisfied that the midwife was sufficiently alarmed by the father’s behaviour to discuss matters with the deputy nurse for safeguarding, and to warn the community midwife should the father attend any future appointments. I am satisfied that, like on Boxing Day, the father raised this as an issue so as to upset and denigrate the mother.

I also have regard to the fact that Ms JF notes in her witness statement that the father would routinely tell her “that he didn’t know if he was the father and expressed doubt about him being the father and his belief that [mother] had been unfaithful. He would express such drivel all the time, even though [mother] was my daughter and the mother of his child.” Ms JF added that the father was “habitually rude and unpleasant about [WF] to me, her mother, when [WF] was not with us.” I note that this chimes with the evidence of Miss PW that the father would seek to undermine the mother in her absence. I am satisfied that the father would attempt to denigrate the mother to her close support network, although I accept that his reason for doing so was not explored in evidence.

Ultimately, the father’s evidence was that he obtained a paternity test confirming that he was EF’s father, communicating the results of same to the mother by text message on 2^nd January 2025. The father was extremely vague about how and when this test was undertaken, bearing in mind that it had seemingly not been administered days earlier on 26^th December. He suggested that he had ordered a test kit online, but was unable to recall the name of the testing agency – “something DNA”. However, in his interview with the police, the father provided an inconsistent account, initially saying that he had not had a test because the mother had refused, but then saying “I may have done something off the record, and I know she’s my child, but I’m not gonna put any of that on record because legally, to get an official policy test, you need to have the consent of the mother.” That contradicted with his oral evidence to the court that he had received the mother’s consent to take the test that led to the result in January.

The picture was complicated further in the father’s closing submissions, when the father stated that “if she [the mother] wants a test, I will get one.” Taking the evidence in its entirety, I am entirely unclear as to whether the father has indeed undertaken a paternity test, and if so, on what basis. As I indicated to the father at the hearing, I intend to direct that he files a copy of whatever he says he has. For the record, the mother is clear that EF is the father’s child.

The final allegation that the mother makes prior to the parents’ final separation relates to the events of the 21^st and 22^nd January. In short, the mother states that she had returned from a brunch with two friends and their respective babies. The mother then fell asleep following a supper cooked by the father. When she woke, she noted the kitchen was in a mess and went to her bedroom, placing EF in the crib. She describes how “for no reason that I have been able to think of, the applicant then came up stairs and he was clearly angry.” The mother states that she shut the door before he reached it and locked it, following which the father kicked it open “breaking the lock and flinging the door into the room.” She states that the father then returned and started to place wine bottles around her bed whilst pointing at her with his phone. The mother relies on a photo of what she states is the damaged door lock, found at E887-E888]. I note that her account to the court is consistent with that which she provided to the police on 23^rd January and 8^th February.

The father’s case is that the mother was drunk, and that he sought to gain entry to the room because he had safeguarding concerns for EF. In his witness statement, the father states that he “deliberately and gently waggled the flimsy old latch receiver off” and that he did not kick or force the door in the way the mother suggests.

This is notably at odds with two further accounts given by the father. First, in his police interview under caution, the father states that he removed the lock receiver intentionally from the inside of the room before taking it downstairs. Second, in a text message to the mother the next day, the father alleges that it was she who broke the door by slamming it. The father added yet further detail in his oral evidence, suggesting for the first time that he had opened the door by leaning into it, and that the door had been jammed by the mother. The father was insistent that each version was correct, but just phrased differently. He refused to accept that the accounts conflicted in any way.

The father also gave inconsistent evidence with regards to the state of the mother’s intoxication. In his police interview, the father states that the mother had spent five days drinking “all day and all night”, but describes her “sipping wine over hours but not to excess” in his witness statement. In his oral evidence, the father acknowledged that it was not the case that the mother was permanently intoxicated at all.

I am satisfied that the cause of this incident was most likely the father’s anger at the mother having been out that afternoon and consuming alcohol. This is in keeping with the videos that he recorded earlier in the evening of the 21^st January, the intention of which I have considered already. However, I make it plain that there is no evidence before the court that the mother was drunk or incapable of caring for EF on the evening / night in question. I accept the mother’s evidence that she had consumed very little, and was otherwise just tired through being the mother of a newborn baby. To be clear, I do not accept that the recording made by the father after he had entered the room to be indicative of the mother being intoxicated either – she is perfectly clear in telling the father to leave, she does not appear to be slurring or otherwise incoherent, and she has the wherewithal to remain quiet in fear of waking EF. I consider that this video is actually further evidence in favour of the mother’s account, with her referring to the father having torn the door off, and that the door is broken. The father simply denies the door is broken, rather than putting forward one of his many explanations for what had happened.

With considering the father’s mindset that evening, I find it likely that the father did enter the bedroom in a fit of anger as described by the mother. Her oral evidence was consistent and persuasive, whereas the father’s account was anything but. In addition, I am satisfied that the photographs of the door frame quite clearly indicate damage consistent with a blunt act of force. I do not accept the father’s suggestion that the frame was already chipped or had paint peeling. It is far more likely that this was as a result of the father using force – by a kick or otherwise – to open a door that was locked from the inside. The force and violence of his action would plainly have put the mother and EF at a high risk of harm had they been behind the door at the time.

The mother alleges that the father has ignored her wishes and continued to seek to communicate with her after the end of the relationship in a way that constitutes harassment. A timeline of relevant events is as follows:

The father denied that he had ignored the requests of the mother, made either directly or through her solicitor, or the advice of the police. He also disputed that his voicemail suggested that he would not pay child support if he was not allowed contact. When it was put to him that this was coercion and financial abuse, the father replied “Coercive? I will do anything I can to see my child. It’s not a malicious thing to do, to use any tactic you can to see your child again.”

In addition to the above, it is accepted that the father suggested to the paternal grandmother to take a box of formula feed around to the mother’s home further to an update provided by the mother on 2^nd April that EF was taking this alongside breastfeeding. This was despite the warnings provided by both the mother and the police about attendance at the property, warnings which the paternal grandmother also knew had been given.

I do not hesitate to find that the father sought to harass and intimidate the mother by the nature and frequency of his correspondence over this period. Taken together, the communication represents a concerted effort by the father to coerce the mother into agreeing to his demands to see EF. His direct threat to report the mother for council tax fraud, to expose her with ‘damaging’ videos, and to frustrate any child support claim, were particularly abusive acts designed to undermine the mother and make her subordinate to his will.

Finally, I turn to the question as to whether the father has sought to use these proceedings as a vehicle to perpetuate further abuse on the mother. I have already set out the numerous ways in which he has sought to denigrate her, from straightforward insults to insinuations as to her fidelity, to suggestions that she has a drink problem and wider mental health difficulties. I note that the father repeatedly sought to rely on evidence from third parties that had little to no relevance on the matters that the court had indicated it needed to determine, such as the statement of the father’s friend Mr. KL, which referred to a time in June 2023, some 18 months before EF was born, when the mother was intoxicated and embarrassed herself. The father also included sections to this effect in his own evidence. I consider this to have been an attempt to humiliate and embarrass the mother in the eyes of the court.In addition, the father has sought to broaden out his attack with reference to the wider maternal family, suggesting that he has concerns about EF’s wellbeing and safety around them, that the mother’s brother has mental health issues, and that the maternal grandmother has ‘alcohol misuse issues’.

For these reasons, I am satisfied that the way in which the father has litigated the proceedings has been itself abusive in nature and an extension of the controlling and coercive behaviour identified elsewhere. It is incumbent on the court to ensure that the father’s conduct and engagement for the remainder of the proceedings is regulated so as to ensure the mother is protected from further harm.

It follows that I find the father to have abused the mother in several different ways during the course of the relationship, post-separation, and within these proceedings. The father has exhibited a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour towards the mother, escalating in its intensity since the birth of EF. The course of conduct has included verbal abuse, threats, volatility and aggression, and attempts at financial control. I am satisfied that the behaviours were intended to punish and frighten the mother, and to make her subordinate. In addition, the mother was the subject of occasions of physical abuse. I am satisfied that she was left emotionally and psychologically harmed because of the father’s actions, and that EF has been exposed to the same. All of this is relevant to the question of safeguarding, and a thorough risk assessment must now be undertaken before the court can consider the next steps in the proceedings.