A & B (Children) (Private Law Finding of Fact Hearing), Re

Date of Judgment: 2 March 2026

Before:

RECORDER AMANDA BEWLEY

Re A and B (Children)(Private Law Finding of Fact Hearing)

BETWEEN:

FD

Applicant

and

MG

Respondent

This judgment was given in private. The judge gives permission for this version of the judgment to be published on the condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of this judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. Counsel instructed by the parties invited the court to publish this judgment.

The applicant is the father, FD, represented by Nairn Purss, counsel instructed by Karen W of Heritage Park Family Law

The respondent is the mother, MG, represented by Jyoti Wood of counsel instructed by Nick Gova of Spector Constant and Williams.

I. INTRODUCTION

1. This is a finding of fact hearing in private law proceedings concerning two children: child A, who is six years old, and child B, who is two. The parents of both children are the applicant father, FD, and the respondent mother, MG.

2. The applicant father is represented by Mr Purss, counsel. The respondent mother is represented by Ms Wood, counsel.

3. Proceedings were issued on 17 February 2025 on the application of the father for a child arrangements order for the children to live with him and spend time with their mother on a supervised basis.

4. In broad terms, at this finding of fact hearing I am invited to determine cross-allegations of controlling and coercive behaviour, physical abuse between the parents, and of three separate allegations of the father assaulting child A.

5. The positions of the parties are that each party invites me to make the findings they seek and dismiss the findings sought by the other.

II. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW

6. The parties met in 2014 whilst working together. They commenced a relationship in 2015 and were married in 2017. Child A and child B are the only children of the parents. The parties separated on 1 November 2024 when the mother left the family home with the two children, going to the home of her parents.

7. Both parents describe volatilities and dysfunctional elements in their relationship. One only has to look at the volume of messages sent between the parties, including at times when they were both in the same house at the same time – communicating via written messages rather than orally – to gain a picture of the fragility and dysfunctional nature of their relationship over a period of years. I have a bundle of over 1,200 pages, much of which comprises a selection of messages sent between the parties.

8. Following the birth of child A, the mother took on the role of primary carer for the parties’ baby son, and the father took on the role of breadwinner. I am told there were complications during the c-section birth of child A which affected the mother’s mobility and activities of daily living. Those complications also had an impact on her mental health. There were periods of time when the mother was appropriately either on maternity leave or had been deemed unfit to work due to anxiety and depression.

9. From the evidence, my findings will reflect that there were a lot of the issues between the parties during the relationship related to the family’s finances, with the mother wishing to lead a lifestyle beyond the family’s financial means, and this causing huge amounts of stress to the father who tried to meet his wife’s demands whilst explaining why the financial reality was not able to cope with those demands. The overall impression I formed was that this caused a lot of resentment from both sides: with the mother believing the father was being unreasonable, and the father struggling with not being able to meet the mother’s desires at the level she thought he should, which led to him suffering with fragile self-esteem. A complex picture of the relationship dynamics has emerged from the evidence, with abuse on both sides, and a worrying picture of the father’s behaviour post-separation, with there being incidents when the father has lost his temper and assaulted child A.

10. There was an incident in a taxi on the way back from Heathrow at the end of October 2024 when the father lost his temper with the maternal grandfather in front of the children. It is a matter to which I return later. It appears this was the final straw for the family and the mother left the father, taking the children with her, and moving in with her parents.

11. Following their separation, the parties were able to agree – with much difficulty – arrangements for the children. However, there was an incident over New Year 2025 during the father’s time with the children. On his return home, child A told his mother that the father had slapped him and pinched him on the arm. This was the third time that something physical happened between the father and child A which led to child A making allegations against his father. The mother acted to safeguard the children and stopped unsupervised contact between the father and the children.

12. The father issued proceedings, alleging that the mother had been physically abusive towards him and the children. The mother denied those allegations and raised allegations of her own against the father.

13. Cafcass prepared a safeguarding letter in which the recommendation was for supervised contact between the father and children, and consideration be given to holding a finding of fact hearing.

14. Since 14 June 2025, the father’s time with the children has been weekly for 2 hours at a contact centre.

15. The proceedings have been timetabled through to this finding of fact hearing.

III. THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK

16. Peter Jackson LJ said, “superfluous citation of authority or lengthy recitation of inessential evidence” is to be avoided (Re B (A Child)(Adequacy of Reasons) [2022] EWCA Civ 407). In this matter, both parties are legally represented and the law in respect of finding of fact hearings where there are allegations of domestic abuse, including controlling and coercive behaviour, is well-known to the Court and to the representatives. Nonetheless, I outline some key elements of the legal framework.

17. Domestic abuse is defined under Practice Direction 12J as:

“Behaviour is ‘abusive’ if it consists of physical or sexual abuse, violent or threatening behaviour, controlling or coercive behaviour, economic abuse, psychological, emotional or other abuse, and it does not matter whether the behaviour consists of a single incident or a course of conduct”

“Coercive behaviour means an act or 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”.

18. The definition of domestic abuse captures various forms of abuse as recognised by the court in Re H-N [2021] EWCA Civ 445: “Although the principal focus in this judgement has been on controlling and coercive behaviour, it should be noted that the definition of domestic abuse makes reference to patterns of behaviour not only in respect of domestic abuse refers to [as] a ‘pattern of incidents’, not only in relation to coercive and/controlling behaviour, but to all forms of abuse including physical and sexual violence. Our observations therefore apply equally to all forms of abuse”.

19. In F v M [2021] EWGC 4, Mr Justice Hayden placed emphasis upon the paradigm behaviours identified in Section 77(1) of the Serious Crime Act. The courts were reminded of the need for evaluating patterns of behaviour in which the significance of isolated incidents can only truly be understood in the context of a much wider picture.

20. The court should have regard to the intention of the perpetrator and the impact of the behaviour alleged (Re H-N [2021] EWCA Civ 445): “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”. The court also included assistance in understanding controlling and coercive behaviour which again put an emphasis on the cumulative effect of a series or pattern of acts.

21. I caution myself against placing too much reliance on a witness’s recollection of events. Mr Justice Leggatt in Gestmin SGPS SA v Credit Suisse (UK Limited) [2013] EWHC 3560 §15-21, outlined some of the difficulties affecting allegations and oral evidence based on recollection of events which occurred several years ago, and the unreliability of human memory. Leggatt J included the following within those paragraphs:

“Memory is especially unreliable when it comes to recalling past beliefs. Our memories of past beliefs are revised to make them more consistent with our present beliefs. Studies have also shown that memory is particularly vulnerable to interference and alteration when a person is presented with new information or suggestions about an event in circumstances where his or her memory of it is already weak due to the passage of time.”

22. In LCC v The Children [2014] EWHC 3 (Fam) §9, Peter Jackson J (as he then was) had this to say, albeit about recalling events surrounding injury and death, I consider it relevant to my assessment of the parents’ evidence who are invited to recall events which would be traumatic, if they happened as alleged:

“to these matters I would only add that in cases where repeated accounts are given in events surrounding injury and death the court must think carefully about the significance or otherwise of any reported discrepancies. They may arise for a number of reasons. One possibility is of course that they are lies designed to hide culpability. Another is that they are lies told for other reasons. Further possibilities include faulty recollection or confusion at times of stress or when the importance of accuracy is not fully appreciated or there may be inaccuracy or mistake in the record keeping or recollection of the person hearing and relaying the account. The possible effects of delay and questioning upon memory should also be considered, as should the effect on one person of hearing accounts given by others. As memory fades, a desire to iron out wrinkles may not be unnatural – a process which might inelegantly be described as “story creep” – may occur without any inference of bad faith.”

23. Mr Purss reminded me of the case of BY v BX [2022] EWHC 108 (Fam) which was the judgment following the remitted finding of fact hearing which came before Cobb J (as he then was) after the appeal under neutral citation Re H-N [2021] EWCA Civ 448. I was taken specifically to paragraph 26 of that judgment wherein Cobb J distilled the principles upon which findings of fact are made:

i) The burden of proof lies, throughout, with the person making the allegation⁷. In this case, both the mother and the father make allegations (in some respects overlapping) against each other on which they seek adjudications;

ii) In private law cases, the court needs to be vigilant to the possibility that one or other parent may be seeking to gain an advantage in the battle against the other. This does not mean that allegations are false, but it does increase the risk of misinterpretation, exaggeration, or fabrication⁸;

iii) It is not for either parent to prove a negative; there is no ‘pseudo-burden’ on either⁹to establish the probability of explanations for matters which raise suspicion;

iv) The standard of proof is the civil standard – the balance of probabilities. The law operates a binary system, so if a fact is shown to be more likely than not to have happened, then it happened, and if it is shown not to cross that threshold, then it is treated as not having happened; this principle must be applied, it is reasonably said, with ‘common sense’¹⁰;

v) Sometimes the burden of proof will come to the judge's rescue: the party with the burden of showing that something took place will not have satisfied him that it did. But, generally speaking, a judge ought to be able to make up his/her mind where the truth lies without needing to rely upon the burden of proof¹¹;

vi) The court can have regard to the inherent probabilities of events or occurrences¹²; the more serious or improbable the allegation the greater the need for evidential 'cogency'¹³;

vii) Findings of fact in these cases must be based on evidence, including inferences that can properly be drawn from the evidence and not on suspicion or speculation¹⁴; it is for the party seeking to prove the allegation to “adduce proper evidence of what it seeks to prove”;

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

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

x) It is, of course, not uncommon for witnesses to tell lies in the course of a fact-finding investigation and a court hearing. The court must be careful to bear in mind that a witness may lie for many reasons, such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear, and distress. I am conscious that the fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything (see R v Lucas[1981] QB 720); I have borne firmly in mind what Lord Lane CJ said in Lucas, namely that:

“To be capable of amounting to corroboration the lie told out of court must first of all be deliberate. Secondly it must relate to a material issue. Thirdly the motive for the lie must be a realisation of guilt and a fear of the truth. The jury should in appropriate cases be reminded that people sometimes lie, for example, in an attempt to bolster up a just cause, or out of shame or out of a wish to conceal disgraceful behaviour from their family. Fourthly the statement must be clearly shown to be a lie by evidence other than that of the accomplice who is to be corroborated, that is to say by admission or by evidence from an independent witness."

xi) That my function in resolving disputes of fact in the family court is fundamentally different from the role of the judge and jury in the Crown Court. As the Court of Appeal made clear in Re R[2018] EWCA Civ 198:

“The primary purpose of the family process is to determine, as best that may be done, what has gone on in the past, so that that knowledge may inform the ultimate welfare evaluation where the court will choose which option is best for a child with the court's eyes open to such risks as the factual determination may have established” ([62] Re R).

A point which I myself considered in F v M [2019] EWHC 3177, in a judgment which was referenced with approval in Re H-N (see §69/70).

xii) At all times, I must follow the principles and guidance at PD 12J of the Family Procedure Rules 2010.

24. Ms Wood referred me to the cases of Re A, B and C [2021] EWCA Civ 451 which considered the application of the R v Lucas direction, and the caution which is required if a party seeks to assert that the explanation for a person’s lie is because they are guilty of the thing alleged, and reliance is being placed upon the lie as direct proof leading to the making of a finding. The guidance in that case was:

“… when the tribunal is invited to proceed on the basis, or itself determines, that such a direction is called for, to seek counsel’s submissions to identify: (i) the deliberate lie(s) upon which they seek to rely; (ii) the significant issue to which it/they relate(s), and (iii) on what basis it can be determined that the only explanation for the lie(s) is guilt.”

25. I have considered the evidence in its totality. Simply because I do not mention a piece of evidence or argument made does not mean I have not considered it when coming to my findings in respect of this matter. This judgment is already very long, and it would be totally unwieldy if I were to consider each argument or point made, and every piece of evidence. This judgment must be read as a whole: it will be insufficient to read sections without regard to the whole when understanding the rationale for the findings I make. The findings fit together in the larger picture and thus need to be viewed in that way. I wish to make it clear that where I have made findings in this judgment, I have done so applying the law as set out herein.

IV. THE EVIDENCE

26. There is a bundle of 1,217 pages. Despite my direction at the pre-trial review hearing that the parties’ solicitors file a composite list of the specific paragraphs of the written/video/oral evidence they invite me to read no less than 48 hours in advance of this fact-finding hearing, I received no such document and no reading list. I requested that counsel produce the bundle page references for the evidence referred to in the composite schedule of allegations but was told this was too onerous a task for counsel to complete overnight in such a forensically dense case. I have made it clear that I will have read evidence I have been referred to by counsel either during questioning of the witnesses or in closing submissions, and I have done so. I have also read the statements of the parties and witnesses.

27. I heard oral evidence from the applicant mother MG; JC, a chauffeur; GG, the maternal grandfather; and FD, the respondent father.

28. Dealing first with the evidence of the mother. My overall impression of the mother’s evidence was that she was measured and calm in the courtroom. The mother had to be recalled to deal with a point which arose in her father’s evidence and closing submissions on behalf of the father, and she gave her evidence remotely. The change in her presentation from giving evidence in the courtroom where she knew the father was present, albeit behind a screen, to giving evidence via a video link from her home and where the father was on the link via audio only, was marked. The mother, in my judgement, appeared more able to be free with her emotions when not in the same courtroom as the father, and I take account of the fact that her evidence in the courtroom was probably affected by the physical proximity of the father in the courtroom. I have been careful in respect of the mother’s evidence as she made significant amendments to her written evidence after receipt of the father’s evidence which demonstrated that elements of the mother’s evidence was incorrect. The most marked example of this was that the mother (and maternal grandmother) stated in written statements that the father had confiscated the mother’s phone during an argument and the mother had called her mother from the house phone. This was demonstrably wrong. I have therefore been careful to look at other available evidence, patterns in the evidence and behaviour, and the overall picture from the evidence.

29. JC works as a chauffeur for a luxury car company. JC gave the impression of being somewhat bemused at times during his evidence. My impression was this was because he could not understand why his account was being challenged in the way it was rather than him being rude or contemptuous of the court process, and because the incident was of a level which meant that JC was bemused to be called to court in family proceedings to give evidence about it. JC, in my judgement, fairly set out what he could and could not recall. I broadly accepted his account of what happened whilst tempering it somewhat due to his association with the maternal grandfather.

30. I heard oral evidence from the maternal grandfather, GG. GG came across as straightforward in his evidence. I detected no sense of exaggeration or minimisation, and I formed the impression that he was being honest in his evidence. I have read in the evidence messages sent by GG which include appalling racist language and racist opinions. I make mention of these later in this judgment and thus make it plain that, as the court had previously decided that there should be no fact-finding undertaken in relation to an allegation of racism in the maternal family home, questions were not put to GG about those messages, and I have not considered the content of those messages when considering GG’s credibility.

31. The father frequently chose not to directly answer questions, choosing instead to talk at length about his criticisms of the mother and the contradictions – as he perceived them to be – in her evidence. I gave the father repeated warnings to answer questions put and not to expand his answers beyond the scope of the question, but he appeared unable to comply with that request. The impression I formed was that the father wanted to control what was put before the court rather than engage meaningfully with answering questions put properly in cross-examination. I consider it likely that the reason for this was his palpable anxiety to be believed. Another very striking feature of the father’s evidence was that when a straightforward question was asked about matters in respect of which he bore responsibility, or where he was being asked to accept something positive about the mother, the father would – within a sentence or two – launch attacks on the mother, including what he perceived to be shortcomings or inconsistencies in the mother’s evidence. I was left with the impression that the father struggles to see positives about the mother, likely shaped by the rupture to his relationship with his children and the impact of these proceedings on him. I also formed the impression that there were occasions in his evidence – both written and oral – where the father obfuscated matters as a deliberate ploy to try and obscure the truth of what had happened and mislead the court.

32. In respect of each of the parents, I was unimpressed at various times with each of them. I have had to unpick the mass of information and evidence put before the court by each parent, and in so doing, I have formed a very clear impression that these are two parents who have each behaved appallingly at different times in respect of different matters. In a nutshell: the mother has on occasion been aggressive towards the father, and reduced his self-esteem due to her unrealistic expectations regarding finances which she made very clear to him and about which she put him under considerable amounts of pressure; the father meanwhile has struggled to accept where his behaviour has fallen short of what is acceptable and has made false allegations against the mother in his desperate bid to detract from – most concerningly – the three occasions when he has struck Child A. In addition, he has behaved abusively towards the mother, including post-separation stalking and harassment.

33. I have borne in mind what was said on behalf of the mother, that care must be taken to evaluate the behaviour of an individual who has been exploited in a relationship as such exploitation might affect their behaviour. In addition, it was said that domestic abuse is the expression of a person’s character in a relationship, and that if a person is abusive in one way, it increases the likelihood of them behaving in other abusive ways.

Analysis of evidence and findings

Allegation 1: the respondent has physically assaulted the applicant

(i) In 2016, the respondent lunged at the applicant’s face/neck with a glass whilst he was sat on the floor. The respondent lunged at the applicant then dived on him hitting him in the face and kicking his body

34. Both parties agree that there was an argument which took place in 2016, and both appear to accept that this allegation springs from that argument. The mother says that the father pinned her to the floor and was verbally abusive to her. The father alleges that the mother lunged at his face and neck with a glass.

35. In support of his allegation, the father relies on two messages he sent: one dated four years later on 1 May 2020, sent to the maternal grandmother at 03:21 stating, “Tried to glass me” [187] and another sent seven years later at 20:50 on 9 July 2023 stating, “U hit me at our old house and tried to smash a glass in my face” [187]. The father exhibits those messages to his statement without other surrounding messages. The mother has provided the chain of messages to provide the surrounding the messages sent to her at page [881] of the bundle. This details the mother’s responses to the father’s messages, where she twice says “Your a liar” (sic.) It is material, in my judgement, that the father omitted to include the full chain of messages where the mother’s response at the time was to call the father a liar.

36. Elsewhere in the bundle, the message to the maternal grandmother forms a chain of messages father sent on 9 July 2023 in which he was saying the mother had assaulted him that day. Within that chain of messages, he said “All she is saying is lies, I haven’t done anything apart from shield child A and I from her temper”. The father then listed in consecutive messages, “Pulled my hair” “Climbed on me” “Kicked me” “Tried to glass me” “Using child A as bate”. Those messages, remarkably, were sent in the small hours of the morning between 3:18am and 3:25am (the last message being a photograph of alleged injuries said to have been caused by the mother). Later that day, the father sent a long message to maternal grandmother in which he stated, “It is pretty clear from talking to MG just now she has fed you a bunch of lies. I literally did nothing to deserve being repeatedly hit last night by your daughter, her slagging off my family and everything under the sun. I cant control her feeding you lies so I am not going to bother to talk to you about it as it is pointless… I sent you messages and glad I did because I wanted to make it clear what had happened. The whole thing started last night because child A was crying, I put him down a minute to see if some time on his back would calm him, MG then punched me in the face. I can’t be bothered with it all.”

37. The messages the father sent in 2023 immediately followed the mother’s concerns that the father had assaulted child A by slapping him. There was a pattern in the father’s oral evidence, and in the evidence which has been produced by the parties, of the father using attack as his first line of defence. He was accused of assaulting child A, and he responded by making allegations in messages that the mother had assaulted him. The fact of him doing that does not mean that the allegations he raises in his attack are false. The impression I had was that he was diverting attention from himself and his actions by presenting something different for – me, the mother, the maternal grandmother – to look at. But in that diversion, he could be saying: “look at this true thing instead” or “look at this thing I made up instead” or a mix of both.

38. The father relies on the fact of him telling children’s services about this allegation during the 17 July 2023 s47 assessment. That records, “Regarding allegation that he pinned MG down during an incident, father said this happened before they married (over 8 years ago) and that he did not pin her down. FD said during an argument, mother decided to attack him with a glass. Being 6’3 in height and 15 stone and mother being petite, he tried to restrain her to prevent getting harmed. He describes his wife as “having a temper”. After this incident, the couple ended their relationship, but reconciled after attending counselling and they married. Dad said he has messages from mum stating that he is not a risk to child A or his wife. Father said MG is manipulating the situation.” I do not consider this to be contemporaneous support of the allegation made. It was some 7 years after the alleged incident had taken place and was in response to allegations made against the father of pinning the mother down, and it was said during an assessment to consider whether the father had assaulted child A and whether he was a risk to his children. However, it is relevant that the parents raised this incident independently of one another. There was clearly an incident which had occurred, during which the mother was restrained/pinned down.

39. The father has been inconsistent in respect of this allegation. He has variously stated that the mother lunged at him with a glass, separately that she tried to smash a glass, and further that she punched him repeatedly, not dealing with where the glass had gone at that juncture. The father has pleaded that he was sitting on the floor when the mother allegedly lunged at him, but in his C1A [36] said “I had to step aside” which is at odds with him being sat on the floor. The father said for the first time that the mother was hitting and kicking him in his statement from June 2025, but did not include that within his C1A. The father said he had not included this detail on advice.

40. Both parties agree that there was an argument, and that the father restrained the mother during that argument. The mother says he pinned her down and verbally abused her. The father says he restrained her to prevent her from assaulting him with a glass. I have asked myself the question whether the reason the father was restraining the mother was an attack of her, or whether it was to prevent her from attacking him with a glass.

41. In my judgement, looking at the most serious physical incidents between the parents, these appear to have taken place when there has been an argument and the mother has attacked the father. Despite the inconsistencies in the father’s account and the corroborating evidence relied upon coming long after the event when the father is defending himself from the mother’s allegations, I do consider it is more likely than not that the reason the father was restraining the mother was because she had gone to attack him with a glass in her hand, and because she had hit his face and kicked his body. The father is physically much larger than the mother, and an allegation of him pinning her down alone is, in my judgement, not likely when I consider there was plainly an incident of such seriousness that both parties returned to it in messages years later, in discussions with professionals, and in these proceedings. I preferred the father’s account of this incident over the mother’s account.

42. Accordingly, I make a finding that on a date in 2016, the mother lunged at the father with a glass, hit him in the face, and kicked his body. In order to stop the assault, the father restrained the mother by pinning her to the floor.

(ii) On the evening of 30 April 2020, the respondent attacked the applicant whilst he was trying to sleep, removing the duvet from his face in order to hit him in the face multiple times. The respondent then climbed on the applicant, kicking and hitting him further. When the applicant got out the bed, the respondent further attacked him whilst he was holding Child A, further hitting him, pulling his hair, and scratching him leaving scars to the neck and reddening to the face, chest and shoulder.

43. The parties both agree that there was a physical incident on 30 April 2020. Child A was very young – not yet 12 weeks old. This incident happened in those incredibly difficult first months of parenthood, when parents are sleep-deprived and suddenly shouldered with the most exceptional responsibility of all: parenthood and keeping a tiny baby alive.

44. In her evidence, the mother told me that the parents shared the responsibility of feeding child A during the nighttime, especially when the father was on furlough. She said that her sleep patterns had been disrupted and it was exhausting. The father’s case put in cross-examination was that he had been concerned about how the mother was holding child A, and he had challenged her about it which had led to an argument taking place. The mother’s evidence was that there was an argument but that the three of them had been asleep in the bedroom and the father had woke in the night to use the bathroom, and the light being switched on had woke child A up, prompting child A to cry. On return to bed, the father put the cover over his head and ignored child A’s cries. The mother asked the father whether he was going to respond to child A, and he ignored her and put the cover over his head. child A was on the father’s side of the bed and the mother was in recovery from her c-section. She told me she picked child A up from his cot and made a comment that the cot should be on her side so it would be easier to attend to him. She said this was the point at which the father became aggressive. She said he came out of bed and took child A from her, putting her into the ensuite, holding the door shut from the other side. She said she could hear child A continuing to cry and she felt helpless because she couldn’t get to him. She could not remember how, but she was able to get out of the bathroom and the father had his back to her. The mother told me she pulled his hair which she regretted, but she was in a moment of not knowing what to do after he pushed her into a washing basket and locked her out of the room.

45. The father’s case put in cross-examination was that he went to the toilet in the middle of the night and the mother was trying to soothe child A. Child A had gone to sleep and the father had gone to bed. The mother had pulled the duvet off him in a rage and punched him in the face, climbed on top of him, pinning him down, and lost control, scratching his face and body, and pulling his hair. Other than pulling his hair, the mother disagreed with the account put on behalf of the father.

46. The father sent messages to the maternal grandmother on 1 May 2020, in the early hours (at and around 03:17), likely in very close proximity to this incident given both parents’ account is this happened overnight from 30 April to 1 May. The messages include selfies in which there is reddening visible to the father’s face. Messages accompanying those photographs include: “Been punched in the face 3 times by your daughter” “pulled my hair” “Climbed on me” “Kicked me”. Those messages are contemporaneous to the incident. In the daytime of 1 May, the father sent a message to the maternal grandmother which included, “The whole thing started last night because child A was crying, I put him down a minute to see if some time on his back would calm him, MG then punched me in the face.” That does not match with both parents’ accounts that the father had been in bed with the duvet over his head.

47. The father’s oral evidence about this incident was that he went to bed and put the duvet over his face and the mother had tried to yank the cot from the side of the bed out of the room and in so doing thrust child A with force into the side and hurt him, and he was crying uncontrollably. This account is so far away from the messages the father felt compelled to send the maternal grandmother at the time which focused on harm to him, not the mother’s alleged actions towards child A. He said that he reached out to comfort child A and the mother attacked him from behind, pulling his hair and punching him. In his oral evidence, he said the mother never held child A, which is at odds with his case put to the mother. The father then said the mother forcibly tried to remove child A from his arms. The father said he put child A in the cot and the mother ran to the bed and got her phone then “sprinted” (a word he used to describe her walking in a video clip I have seen so I exercise some caution about the use of that word) round and thrust the phone in his face telling him to call the police. He said he grabbed the phone and put it on the side table at the bottom of the bed and that she could have picked it up from there. He said that the mother squared up to him in the proximity of the ensuite and then sprinted from the doorway about 2 feet when she squared up to him again. He said the mother agreed to leave the room and he handed her the phone and locked her out of the bedroom to protect child A who was inside with him.

48. The father was evasive when answering questions about whether he had taken the mother’s phone to prevent her from calling the police. The father was taken to a message sent which is included below wherein it was abundantly clear that he took the mother’s phone off her with the intention to prevent her from calling the police.

49. The parents’ messages on 1 May include:

M: … A lot of words were exchanged last night which were painful and actions were unspeakable. We have the most beautiful little boy together and we need to at least talk these through like adults. No shouting or swearing, just a simple chat …

…

F: … you punched me repeatedly in the face and pulled a clump of hair out …

F: You called your mum and ranted about me for 45 mins, I haven’t even told my parents.

M: Please do not lie. You squared up to me and shouted in my face, grabbed my arm. Grab A from me and locked me away from seeing him and tried to denied me of my phone. I panicked and I shouldn’t have touched you. It was not planned and was unintentional. I’m sorry for that and I do mean it

…

F: You lie, I never touched u except self defence. The first punch you threw u actually had to take the duvet off my face and punched me twice in quick succession

M: That’s a lie

M: You know that’s not what happened

M: Look at you and look at me. I am not an abuser

F: Physical size is nothing to do with it, you threw every punch. I stepped in front of you when you were trying to drag the next to me out of the room, u then unleashed a barrage threatened to call police so I grabbed your phone, I’m not having our baby put in a home. I squared up to you after you squared up to me … again I never touched u except when in self defence. U can tell yourself these things didnt happen, but they did

M: You not the victim in this. You got in my face, told me you wish you had met someone else and called me many words. You called me a c u n t. You say that word like it’s nothing to you

M: Don’t lie that’s not what happened

50. This series of messages demonstrates how dysfunctional the communication was between the parents. It is quite extraordinary that both are setting out different accounts of what happened and calling the other a liar. It also highlights some of the difficulties faced by the court in determining where the truth lies in this case. The evidential value of the messages in isolation would be very low and I have taken particular care to set messages into the broad evidential landscape.

51. It is possible to identify some key incidents from all of the available evidence:

i. There was an argument overnight on 30 April to 1 May 2020 when child A was not yet 12 weeks old. Both parties agree this and it fits with the messages each sent to one another and the father sent to the maternal grandmother at the time.

ii. During the argument, the mother pulled the father’s hair. This is admitted by the mother.

iii. During the argument, the mother punched the father in the face. The father sent a photo of his reddened face to the maternal grandmother at or around the time of this incident. He said he had been punched three times and has remained consistent about being punched. The mother, whilst calling the father a liar in her messages, says “I panicked and I shouldn’t have touched you”. This implies, in my judgement, more than the hairpulling which is admitted and, when placed with the other available evidence, supports the account that the mother punched the father on this occasion.

iv. The father took the mother’s phone from her to stop her from calling the police. The father was not forthcoming about this in his oral evidence. However, it is clear from his own messages that he removed the mother’s phone from her to stop her from calling the police.

v. The mother has not proved that the father put her into the ensuite bathroom. She did not reference that in her messages at the time. However, it is clear from both parents’ accounts and messages that the mother was locked out of the bedroom where the father remained with child A.

vi. The mother stated in her written evidence that she had called her mother on the house phone because the father had kept her mobile phone from her. However, there are phone bills which demonstrably show this is untrue. The mother changed her account from her written evidence at the beginning of her oral evidence, but only after irrefutable evidence had been provided of this. Although the maternal grandmother has not been called to give evidence and the mother does not rely on the statement provided by her, that statement also included a demonstrably untrue account of the mother calling her from the house phone. A call did, however, take place. It is therefore more likely than not, in my judgement, that the father’s account of temporarily removing the mother’s phone from her to prevent her from calling the police, as detailed in his messages at the time, reflects the truth of what happened.

52. I make a finding that on 30 April 2020, the parents had an argument during which the mother pulled the father’s hair and punched him in the face causing reddening. The father temporarily took the mother’s phone from her to prevent her from calling the police. Child A was not 12 weeks old at the time, and was present during this altercation. It would have been frightening for child A and he was at risk of physical harm from being caught in the crossfire.

Allegation 2: the respondent has falsely accused the applicant of being physically abusive to child A

53. The father references three findings sought by the mother in respect of this allegation. I consider the mother’s allegations later in this judgment. As will be clear from my findings on those allegations, the mother has not falsely accused the father of being physically abusive to child A. Consequently, I do not make this finding.

Allegations 3 and 4: the respondent has been physically abusive to child A and child B

54. The father pleads three allegations in support of this overarching finding sought.

55. In my judgement, these allegations are baseless and are directly in response to the allegations the mother makes against the father. As I have set out elsewhere, the father operates on a basis of attack being the best form of defence. The pleading of these baseless allegations form part of that pattern of attack, albeit here they are false allegations rather than being rooted in truth. The evidence relied upon in support of these allegations do not speak to the veracity of the allegations whatsoever. By way of example, the messages from the maternal grandmother to the father in which she told the father that child A had hit the mother in the face is not direct evidence of the mother poking child A in the eye and hitting him.

56. The allegation that the mother grabbed and dragged child A in July 2023 is a total fabrication. The father relies on messages that he sent at the time to the mother. However, those messages do not mention whatsoever that the mother was aggressive toward child A or that she dragged him. In fact, they concentrate on the mother’s alleged behaviour towards the father, with father stating, “You are the one coming into this house, getting up in my face, swearing at me … I had to shut my eyes and block my ears to curb the abuse … U then got closer and closer … Thankfully child A didn’t witness it”. Not only is the father’s allegation of the mother abusing child A missing from these messages, almost the opposite is said: the father says child A was not there. If this allegation had happened, I am sure beyond all doubt that the father would have included it in his series of messages at that time.

57. These allegations have been made deliberately to mislead the court by diverting the court’s attention from the father’s assaults of child A. I do not make this finding. I do make a finding that the father has fabricated allegations against the mother that she has physically abused child A and child B by way of defending allegations against him. The consequence of this is that father has deliberately tried to mislead the court.

Allegation 5: physical abuse by the father of child A

58. In my judgement, the father has, on the occasions pleaded, lost his temper with child A and has responded in a way which has caused his son to experience pain and injury.

(i) On 9 July 2023, whilst putting child A to bed, the father struck child A on the cheek causing him injury and distress. child A was heard screaming from his bedroom. When his mother attended, child A was crying uncontrollably, holding his cheek in pain and he told the Mother “Daddy hit me.” There was a visible mark on child A’s cheek

59. The father and mother both accept that on 9 July 2023, whilst the father was putting child A to bed, something happened which physically hurt child A. Nearly two years after this incident, in June 2025, the father for the first time alleged that the mother had grabbed child A by the head, neck and face, and this could account for the injury suffered by child A. It is totally implausible that this would be the first time that the father would mention that allegation where there are so many hundreds of messages produced in the evidence, where the father filed a C1A, and where the father had spoken to children’s services and Cafcass. The father actually accepts that he pushed child A in the face on that occasion, he says after child A bit his father hard. It is therefore consistent with the other two allegations of assault of child A, that the father accepts that he was physical towards his son but then sought to blame the mother, child A or others for any injury, and sought to minimise what his involvement was. In my judgement, this is most likely because the father has done what has been alleged and is producing as much chaos as possible around the allegation in attempt to obscure the truth of what took place.

60. The father has tried to persuade the court that the mother has exaggerated or even fabricated this allegation. However, this does not fit with the surrounding evidence which includes the mother readily accepting that child A said he missed his father the next day (something not necessarily inconsistent with a child being assaulted), and the mother continuing to attempt to make the relationship work between the father and the children and indeed between her and the father after this incident had taken place.

61. Following this incident, the father sent a message to the mother in which he sought to blame her for child A being hurt by his father by saying that perhaps child A had bit his father because he had witnessed his mother being abusive to the father. The father has accepted pushing child A in the face, there is reddening to child A’s face, and the father’s late allegation against the mother of her having also assaulted her son on the very same day, causing injury, is totally implausible.

62. I make a finding that on 9 July 2023, whilst the father was putting child A to bed, child A bit his father and the father responded by striking child A on the cheek causing him injury, pain and distress.

(ii) On 4 August 2024, whilst putting child A to bed at the maternal grandparents’ home, the father bruised child A’s arm. Child A was heard screaming “You hurt me, Daddy. You bit me.” Child A had a visible bruise on his arm. Child A was visibly distressed and this distress continued for several weeks after.

63. The parents again agree that on 4 August 2024, an incident happened when the father was putting child A to bed at the home of the maternal grandparents when child A was physically hurt. The father claimed that there was rough and tumble happening at bedtime and blamed the mother and maternal grandmother for parenting child A in a way which meant he was excitable before bed. The father put forward an implausible account of child A’s elbow coming into contact with his father’s teeth during this rough and tumble incident which accounted for the mark to child A and child A crying that his father had bitten him. The father was inconsistent about why child A would say the things he did, repeatedly holding the mother accountable for essentially working child A up and thereby somehow encouraging him to say the words he did. That makes no sense at all, no matter how it is spun, when put in the context of the father accepting that his teeth made contact with force with child A’s arm. How would the mother instinctively know that and encourage child A to say he had been bitten?

64. As with other allegations, the father has attempted to blame everyone but himself for this incident: it was the mother and maternal grandmother who worked child A up before bedtime; it was child A’s fault for being in a rough and tumble mood and moving in a way so as to put his elbow into contact with his father’s teeth (the father sent a message to the mother stating, “Fact is I didn’t intentionally hurt child A … He smashed me in the face, hitting my teeth and getting a bruise, he says what he says but ultimately he accuses me of what he thinks happened because at the end of the day, my teeth did hurt him but only cos he created that”); it was the mother who wound child A up and put child A up to saying his father had assaulted him; it was the mother who assaulted child A that evening. I was concerned that so many different explanations and excuses were put forward by the father, and I am quite satisfied that not one of them is the truth. The truth is more likely than not to be that child A became distressed and said his father hurt him and bit him, with marks which appear to corroborate what child A said, because that is what happened.

65. The following morning, child A told his maternal grandfather that his Daddy had bitten him. The grandfather had also heard the father shouting the evening before around the time of this incident. Although the maternal grandfather was clearly giving evidence in support of his daughter, I did not feel that he exaggerated any element of this evidence, and it appeared to me that the maternal grandfather was trying to remember what he could when giving evidence about this incident. In my judgement, the evidence of the maternal grandfather was corroborative.

66. In addition, I heard the video evidence taken when the mother ran upstairs to child A after hearing a commotion. That was a very distressing video to listen to. Not only is it clear that child A is very distressed, his father’s tone towards him does not align whatsoever with the picture the father attempted to paint of him being concerned about his son and being sorry that his son was hurt in an accident. The father was repeatedly saying in a tone which an adult would find upsetting, “go to sleep”. The father’s angry reaction was the clearest possible evidence that he had lost his temper, and child A was at the brunt of that.

67. The finding I make is that on 4 August 2024, whilst putting child A to bed, the father lost his temper, and bruised child A’s arm by biting it. Child A was very distressed, in pain, and screamed, “You hurt me, Daddy. You bit me.”

(iii) On 31 December 2024, the father assaulted child A by slapping his face and pinching him

68. The father once more accepts that when child A was at his home on 31 December 2024, that there was an incident during which child A was hurt. Again, this appears to be at a pressure point of the father struggling with child A’s behaviour. The father’s evidence was that bedtime had been difficult and child A had been playing up. The broader evidence was that this was not peculiar to the father, and child A could play up at bedtime and had hit out at other family members. That does not make an assault of child A less likely, particularly in circumstances, as I have found, the father has previously assaulted child A when his behaviour has been challenging. Child A told his mother that his father had slapped and pinched him. Child A had marks which could be consistent with what child A was reporting, and no other possible explanation has been put forward for those marks. Looking at the totality of the evidence, I consider it more likely than not that the father assaulted child A on 31 December 2024, causing injury (reddening of the skin) to him. This likely occurred when the father was struggling to manage challenging behaviour from child A.

Allegation 6: physical abuse by father of mother

(i) On 21 March 2019, the father grabbed the mother’s wrists with force, shouted and swore at her, and insulted her intelligence

69. I make this finding. The parties agreed that there was an incident at a party for the maternal aunt’s birthday on 21 March 2019. The father describes in his statement how the mother humiliated him and he “took her hand and said we needed to leave because it was late, I was not being forceful as the respondent claims.” However, in messages, sent a day later, the father said “So u did nothing wrong? I am never going to apologise for being humiliated, I stood up and grabbed ur hand and said we needed to leave cos it is late .. are you giving me an ultimatum that i apologise for something I am 100% clear on? If yes then that would be another attempt to humiliate me and i will not do such a thing”. In his oral evidence, the father claimed this so-called humiliation was the mother talking down to him about a cushion. The father told me he is a very calm person and he has not lost his temper with the mother, and certainly not in front of her whole family. As will be clear from elsewhere in this judgment, there are a number of occasions when the father has demonstrably lost his temper: one appears in the video clip taken when he has just assaulted child A and, from the tone of his voice, it is clear he has lost his temper; another is the incident in the taxi witnessed by an individual (JC) with nothing to gain from telling lies to the court about what he witnessed on that day. It follows that I reject the father’s confidently stated assertion that he is a very calm person who has not lost his temper with the mother, particularly in front of her family. I found the father’s explanation in oral evidence that he had simply offered his hand in a kindly manner to the mother to help her up as it was time to leave totally unlikely, especially when it is clear that he was angry at the time and as evidenced in his messages about being humiliated. I preferred and accepted the mother’s account. Accordingly, I make the finding sought.

(ii) On 1 May 2020, the father forcibly took child A from the mother’s arms. The mother pulled the father’s hair in desperation to try to get to child A. The father then pushed the mother out of the bedroom, making her fear being pushed down the stairs. The father locked the door to prevent access to child A and removed the mother’s mobile phone to prevent her from seeking help. The mother was recovering from caesarean section complications at the time.

70. This is an allegation also pleaded by the father but from his perspective. I have dealt with this incident earlier on within this judgment and shall not rehearse my analysis of the evidence and finding here.

Allegation 7: verbal abuse by the father towards mother throughout the relationship including in the presence of child A

(i) The father repeatedly used degrading terms such as cunt, idiot, stupid, monster and bad mum towards the mother, often in child A’s presence. On several occasion, the father encouraged child A to repeat these phrases or failed to correct him when he mimicked the father’s comments, normalising the verbal abuse and undermining mother’s parental role. On multiple occasions, he praised child A for this

71. The father admits calling the mother degrading terms, including calling her stupid in front of child A. Child A has called his mother stupid, likely because he has witnessed his father doing the same. In my judgement, the mother has also called the father degrading terms including stupid and arsehole, and this has been done in front of child A. A similar allegation is made and dealt with further below and should be read together with this allegation.

(ii) During a taxi journey from Heathrow Airport following a family holiday, the father became verbally aggressive and physically intimidating towards the mother and the maternal grandparents in the presence of both children. The father shouted aggressively, refused the taxi driver’s repeated requests to calm down, and caused visible distress to child A

72. The parties agree that there was an argument in the car on that day. The parents, the children and the maternal grandparents were being driven by JC from London Heathrow to their respective homes on 31 October 2024. The family members had been on a trip to New York City, a belated 30^th birthday treat for the mother, delayed due to her 30^th birthday coinciding with the year of covid lockdowns. The parents had travelled back to the UK in premium economy whilst maternal grandparents had travelled in business class. Child B was a young baby at the time – only 9 months old. During the 8-hour flight, child B had been sat with his father for all but 30 minutes, whilst the mother had child A sat next to her.

73. The trip was expensive: the flights alone cost the parents £3,500. In all, the short trip which included staying in 5-star accommodation in New York City, cost around £5,500. The father was clear in his oral evidence that this was an expense the family could, in his opinion, ill afford. The maternal grandfather told me in his oral evidence that he had quite a pleasant flight: it had taken place in the daytime, he was sat in business class, and he could have a nap if he wanted. I dare say that his and his wife’s experience of the flight was markedly different to that of the parents, sat with a baby and toddler in premium economy. Finances have been a major issue throughout the parents’ relationship. The mother plainly had expectations of living in extreme comfort which included bespoke furniture for her home, expensive renovations, going on a £7,500 one-week holiday, and buying a brand new car. The family’s income was not able to support that desired lifestyle and there was a mismatch between the mother’s desire and what the family could afford. The father’s self-esteem had, in my judgement, been badly affected by that mismatch and the pressure the mother placed on him to meet her needs. In addition, the father appeared in my judgement to be quick to feel insulted, responding disproportionately to any perceived slight, as is evident in multiple messages. That is the backdrop to what happened in the car on the way home from the airport that day. JC was, as I said earlier in this judgment, a straightforward witness. His evidence was, essentially, that the father had over-reacted to a comment made about his university, which speaks – in my judgement – to the father’s lack of self-esteem and quickness to be insulted. JC described that it “stood out quite remarkably that this was such a problem to FD” and, “The fact that GG had got the name of the university wrong. I thought why go on about it … about something quite petty.” JC also told me that he was laughing in his own head about the situation, at least until the father started throwing insults and threats around.

74. The impression I formed from the evidence that JC gave was not that the father was very aggressive towards anyone, but more that he overreacted and came across as someone who was unpleasant and thin-skinned. JC described the father as “smarmy” and “up his own backside”. It was relevant, in my judgement, that he did not describe him in more aggressive terms. It is clear from the evidence, though, that the father did overreact, becoming angry on feeling insulted, and that he more likely than not made emotionally-charged but ultimately empty threats to step outside the car with the maternal grandfather, or something similar. This incident would have been frightening and confusing for the children who were in the car at the time. I have considered it relevant that the accounts given by JC, the maternal grandfather and the mother are consistent with one another. Nonetheless, I have tempered what JC and the maternal grandfather said about this incident somewhat due to the two of them plainly having had at least one conversation about the incident following it happening; the grandfather having approached JC for a statement before proceedings were even issued; and because JC appeared to have the clear impression that the father is seen as negative by members of the maternal family, in circumstances where JC gets on well with and appeared to me to respect the maternal grandfather.

Allegation 8: coercive and controlling behaviour by father of mother by way of (a) isolating her from friends and family; (b) suggesting the mother was mentally ill; (c) threats of suicide; (d) surveillance and monitoring; (e) financial abuse; and (f) speaking negatively about mother to and in front of the children

75. I have considered very carefully the entire evidential landscape when considering this allegation, including identifying any patterns of behaviour which, when taken together, evidence controlling or coercive behaviour.

76. The evidence produced by the mother shows that not only did she have a close and active relationship with members of her family, the parents and children even went on holiday to New York City together. The mother gave evidence of the father objecting to her having three named friends towards the beginning of the parents’ relationship. Those individuals appear to have been critical of the parents’ relationship and had issued their own ultimatum to the mother about ending her relationship with the father. Those friends were plainly acting in an unacceptable way towards the mother. It is entirely unsurprising that the father was not happy with the mother having friendships with people who sought to sabotage the parental relationship.

77. The father certainly involved the maternal grandmother in the parents’ disputes by sending messages about her daughter’s alleged behaviour. However, in my judgement, this was not to isolate the mother but rather because the father had a dysfunctional and immature way of dealing with parental disputes. There is no evidence that the mother was otherwise isolated from her friends or family. In fact, in messages produced in the evidence, the mother berated the father for leaving the family WhatsApp group because he was embarrassed by the frankly vile and disgusting racist comments made by members of the maternal family, including the most offensive racial terms that can be used, and insisted that he rejoin that group. This indicates clearly that the mother was not isolated from her family, and aligned herself to them over the father when he decided to remove himself from a group with hate-filled and disgusting language and viewpoints. In my judgement, the allegation of coercion and control by way of isolation from friends and family is not proved.

78. The mother suffered from anxiety and depression both prior to the relationship commencing and subsequently. There is a letter from the mother’s GP in the bundle dated 5 December 2025 which sets out that the mother was prescribed citalopram in May 2014 “due to long-standing anxiety and low mood.” In October 2019, when pregnant, the mother was issued a fit note for amended duties/working for the period 3 October 2019 to 2 January 2020 due to stress. In November 2023, the mother was issued a fit note in pregnancy for stress and headaches from 6 November until 13 December 2023. In January 2024, the mother reported anxiety and low mood related to her physical health condition and impaired mobility to her health visitor. From March 2025, the mother had repeated visits in respect of stress and low mood related to the relationship breakdown, court proceedings, financial pressures and stress at work. The mother was given a not fit for work note from 3 March 2025 until 1 November 2025 in respect of stress. It is proper to reflect that the mother has had various mental health issues over the years, including long before the parties were married. These have been sufficient both during and after the relationship has ended to result in a requirement for amended duties and working, and not being well enough to attend work at all during 2025.

79. The mother’s allegations that the father was persistent in trying to persuade her to seek help for her mental health in the context of him creating a narrative of her having mental health issues which did not exist do not match with the independent evidence from the GP which I have set out above. The allegation that the father has suggested that the mother was mentally ill when she was not is not made out on the evidence.

80. There is evidence available to the court which shows that the father sent a WhatsApp message to the mother on 19 July 2023 saying that he would be better off dead. When cross-examined about this, the father stated that he had expressed passive suicidal ideation to the mother. Less than a week before this message, the mother had made allegations about the father assaulting child A. He was asked whether the message was sent in the hope that she would withdraw her allegations. The father said he sent it “in response to feeling paralysed by the fear of police involvement” and said it was because he had been coerced by the mother, felt trapped and wanted to see his children. On 7 August 2024, the father sent a serious of messages: “I would never purposely hurt child A and i am insulted by this … You won’t stop till I commit suicide, enough is enough” and “Honestly I’m thinking of taking my own life” and “You have used the boys as constant leverage, I know I never intentionally hurt child A. When someone takes the most important things in your life away you don’t have the will to go on..I will send a final goodbye video to A and B” and “Life isn’t worth living without A and B.”

81. In my judgement, these messages were clearly manipulative, and the father was emotionally blackmailing the mother. The father did not, in his evidence, say he was suicidal. It is clear on the evidence that the father used this emotional blackmail and manipulation when faced with defending allegations that he had harmed child A, and when faced with not having a full relationship with his children. The father was clearly desperate and panicking, but this was emotionally abusive and manipulative behaviour.

82. The father accepted that he retained an app for the mother’s Tesla vehicle on his phone after the relationship between the parents had ended. He did not remove the app, or disable the notifications with any such app. The father told me he did not remove the app because he would require it to drive the Tesla, which he claimed he still did. However, he could have turned off the notifications, not looked at activity on the app, or deleted the app and any associated app, and used the key card to access and drive the Tesla.

83. The father’s response to the schedule of allegations was “The mother’s statement about her car is not true.” However, in oral evidence, he accepted and sought to explain the presence of specifically the Tesla app on his phone, and the messages show he was fully aware of the mother’s whereabouts in the car. On 11 December 2024, the father sent a message to the mother stating, “Not stalking you btw I get a text every time when the Tesla is unlocked.” The mother responded by saying, “How is this not stalking me?” and he replied saying, “I get an update consistently on the car … Not stalking.” It was clearly causing the mother distress that he was able to track her movements using the Tesla or any associated app. It was clearly unacceptable to do so, and it was clear that the father wanted the mother to know that he was able to monitor her movements by volunteering that he gets a text every time the car is unlocked.

84. Despite the mother stating that she considered this behaviour as stalking behaviour, just one week later on 18 December 2024, the father sent a message to the mother wherein he complained that she had kept the children out on Wednesday and Saturday night until almost 8pm. It was clear that he was not simply receiving notifications that the car was unlocked – he was checking an app associated with the car and abusing its functions, which I take judicial note include cameras covering the exterior of the car, to see what the mother’s and children’s movements were. This was stalking behaviour, designed to cause the mother harassment, alarm and distress, and it did exactly that. The father’s protestations that it was not stalking on 11 and 18 December let the mother know that he was not going to stop behaviour which he knew was causing her distress, and which he must have known was totally unacceptable, abusive, intrusive and not some unavoidable thing as he seems to suggest in his messages.

85. The father also clearly continued to have access to cameras at the former family home which he monitored. On 12 May 2025, he sent two messages to the mother questioning why she had house viewings with people that day. The mother had not informed him about the house viewings and he must have therefore accessed video footage from either the house or car to see that had taken place. I am satisfied that the father stalked, harassed and pestered the mother following their separation by accessing cameras and information from the house cameras and Tesla vehicle. Regarding the use of cameras in the home during the relationship, I was satisfied with the father’s explanation for the existence of those cameras in the home and do not consider that the mother has evidenced that this was the father monitoring the mother during the relationship.

86. The mother had access to her own finances as well as to a credit card linked to the parents’ online Tesco account, and to an American Express card used to book and pay for flights to New York City. The evidence around the mother’s perception of being financially abused, when viewed more broadly, amounted to the mother having a clear idea of a standard of living to which she considered she was entitled and which the father should support. This included a one-week holiday to Greece costing £7,500, an amount of money that the family finances clearly could not support. Despite that, the mother put a significant amount of pressure on the father to have that holiday, comparing what friends had been able to do for their holidays, and the father capitulated. The mother accepted under cross-examination that she was able to spend and use her own money as she saw fit, but she said it sometimes felt as though the father was “quite controlling” because he would ask her how much she had in savings before giving her money. The mother’s claim that there was financial control is misplaced, in my judgement. On the evidence, the father was trying very hard to meet his wife’s demands whilst ensuring that the family was not plunged into a financial crisis. In my judgement, it is more likely than not that the financial disagreements between the parents caused the father to have poor self-esteem and to be sensitive to remarks which he considered undermining or insulting, as was evident in the Heathrow-to-home taxi journey in October 2024.

87. I note there were some heated arguments between the parents regarding finances and the father also threatened to cancel the trip to New York City when the mother said she was not going to go to Devon with him. However, in my judgement, those incidents did not amount to financial abuse. The mother’s exhibits refer to monies being moved from accounts post-separation. Those were not explored in the oral evidence and, in my judgement, are more likely to be relevant to financial proceedings than these.

88. The mother alleges that the father has called her names in front of the children or spoken negatively about her in front of or to the children. These parents called one another names on various occasions. The father hated being called an arsehole and so the mother called him one. The mother hated being called a cunt so the father called her one (he apparently did not find that an offensive word, something I reject). In many respects, I am clear that these two parents behaved as badly as one another at various times during their relationship. However, the mother noted that child A spoke to her rudely when around his father, and put that down to how the father spoke to her. Having observed how the father talked about the mother throughout his evidence in a court room, and having seen how he would call her a cunt under the guise of it not really being offensive, I have no hesitation in accepting that he would be rude and call her names in front of the children. The father is recorded in messages calling the mother various names including a bully, a monster, stupid and a clown. I accept the mother’s evidence that child A would be rude to her when around his father and it is more likely than not that this is because of how he heard his father speak to his mother. The mother was concerned enough about it to raise it within the relationship as demonstrated in a message sent to the father on 18 November 2023 wherein she said, “Do you think it’s a coincidence that every time he sees you he speaks to me rudely. He genuinely does not speak to me that way when you are not around.” The mother also sent a message on 12 November 2024 in which she told the father that he calls her names in front of child A and that her response is to say that the father is being a bully by calling her names.

89. I make a finding that the father has spoken to the mother in a derogatory tone and called her offensive names, sometimes in the presence of the children. The mother has responded by telling child A that his father is a bully.

90. I have made findings against each of the parties. In my judgement, a complex picture has emerged of the dysfunctional relationship the parents had, the fluctuating power imbalance, and the behaviour each demonstrated to the other, and their respective responses to that both during the relationship and after separation. Understanding how this impacts on the arrangements for the children requires careful and thoughtful assessment. In addition, a risk assessment will be required regarding the three occasions that the father has physically assaulted child A and the father’s abusive behaviour towards the mother post-separation.

91. I annex to this judgment a list of findings.

92. An electronic copy of this judgment is being sent to parties on 24 February 2026 via email. I shall formally hand down judgment at the hearing on 2 March 2026 after hearing representations regarding any amendments and/or requests for clarifications.