AB v CD

The Court is concerned with the welfare of a child (“E”) (8). The parties are the child’s father (“F”) and mother (“M”) respectively. The application before the court is F’s application under Article 21 Hague Convention 1980 for contact with E. This is the final hearing (time estimate: 3 days). The matter was last before the court on 25 July 2025 when Keehan J gave directions and made interim spending time with orders.

The parties separated in November 2021 in country X and regrettably the family have been in dispute since. Following their separation the father had overnight contact with E, but the parties’ other child (“G”) refused to have direct contact with him. In June 2022 the father issued an application in country X (it is not clear precisely the nature of the process) to see G and the parties attended a ‘mediation’ session with 2 magistrates which seems to have led to a verbal agreement that he would see G for ½ hour when he came to collect E for contact. However, in October 2022 the mother left country X and brought the children back to England. They have been actively engaged in litigation since then because in October 2022 the mother issued her divorce petition asserting that both she and the father were domiciled in England (later amended to her sole domicile) and so commenced a lengthy and draining process of litigation in both England and country X.

The husband contested the jurisdiction of the English court in his acknowledgement of service filed in November 2022. In November 2022 he issued proceedings for the summary return of the children to Country X pursuant to the 1980 Hague Child abduction Convention. The mother defended the application on the basis of Article 13b (domestic abuse) and child’s objection. In that process the children were seen by a representative of the Cafcass High Court Team and G expressed an objection to returning and gave an account of her father behaving abusively to the mother in her presence and to her. On 18 November he issued his own divorce proceedings in country X.

On 3 February 2023 the father’s application under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention was granted by Theis J and the return of the children was ordered to country X. However, G did not take this lying down and via her school found her way to Ms Janet Broadley a solicitor who applied for her joinder and to set aside the return order. On 4 April 2023 the return order was set aside by Theis J on the basis of G’s strong objections and on the rehearing of that application in May 2023 Theis J refused the application on the basis of G’s strong objection and E’s on the basis that separation was intolerable. The Court of Appeal upheld this refusal on 1 December 2023. Consequent upon the non-return of the children the father issued an application in March 2024 pursuant to article 21 of the 1980 Hague Child abduction Convention seeking contact with the children. G was joined as a party to those proceedings and made clear via Ms Broadley that she wanted nothing to do with her father; she maintains that she had witnessed domestic abuse of her mother at her father’s hands and the father in due course discontinued his application in respect of G and she was discharged as a party. The contact in respect of E was originally listed to be determined in July 2025, but this was adjourned and re-listed for the last 3 days.

In the meantime, the father’s divorce in Country X and the mother’s English divorce were proceeding although at glacial pace with the father contesting the mother’s domicile. Those proceedings were contested in this jurisdiction (the citations of which are removed for the purposes of anonymisation). I am told, the courts of country X granted a provisional decree of divorce based on the father’s petition and this proceeded to a final decree in October 2025.

There is thus a wealth of material before me. Having heard the parties give evidence in October 2024 and again in October 2025 and having considered the written evidence in relation to the summary return application and the issue of domicile and forum my knowledge of the parties and other aspects of the evidence is fairly extensive, and this judgment inevitably draws on all that has gone before. No party has suggested that the outcome of previous litigation means I should not determine this application and given that the Court of Appeal concluded I had erred in my approach to the legal framework I saw no reason to recuse myself from hearing this case.

The parties to the marriage are cousins by birth and both their families are citizens of country X. The mother’s father (MGF) is the father’s mothers (PGM) younger brother. Another sister of the MGF and PGM lives in England, and the children are close to her. The PGM is estranged from the MGF and her other sister. The father was born in England but returned to country X as a baby before being brought back to England by his mother when he was about four and he grew up here. PGM now divides her time between London and country X. The mother was born and grew up in country X. She came to England on a student visa and the parties met and married in October 2003. Her parents remain living in country X. It seems they struggled to start a family and went through 2 cycles of IVF the mother losing a baby at 20 weeks after the first and G being one of twins; the second twin (H) tragically died 2 days after birth . G was born in 2011 and E in 2017.

The father worked in recruitment setting up various businesses, but whilst these seem to have prospered at times enabling the family to buy properties in Nice, Tooting and Windsor, the family also borrowed significant sums from family and over the period from about 2011 they had to sell all their properties to maintain their lifestyle. The mother alleges that from fairly early on in the marriage – certainly by the time she was pregnant with G the father had become verbally and physically abusive and was possessive of her and controlling.

By September 2019 the parties left England intending in due course to set up home in Singapore but going by way of country X in order to build up some financial resources before moving to Singapore. Both parties evidence suggested that actually they were forced to leave England as they simply could not make ends meet and had run out of any other resources including family. The father said they fell out with his mother as she refused to help them. The fact they left debts (according to the wife) suggests a fairly dire position. Both the wife and the husband acknowledged in their evidence that there were financial problems in England where their outgoings exceeded their income from the business. Both accepted that the family home which had been bought in the husband’s sole name was sold releasing equity which contributed to the family finances. It is clear on both parties’ cases that a joint decision was reached to relocate to the Far East in order to pursue business opportunities there in the hope that this would bring the family financial security; there was some uncertainty about what their respective intentions were on a future return to England.

On arrival in country X the family moved in with the maternal grandparents for what was expected to be a limited period; there was an issue over the mother renewing her passport of country X, but the evidence also suggests she was reluctant to move to Singapore until they had enough financial security to justify relocating there. The father was still estranged from PGM at this time. He says it was his attempts to resurrect that relationship which led to a toxic atmosphere in the home of the maternal grandparents as the mother objected to his overtures to his mother. The mother denies this. In March 2020 the Covid 19 pandemic intervened preventing any move to Singapore and by November 2020 the parties had separated. The mother says the father had continued to behave abusively to her which her parents were now aware of and as he had begun to see PGM, the mother encouraged him to spend more time at hers and eventually he left permanently. The father says he chose to leave in order to save the children from exposure to the hostility he experienced from the mother and MGPs. After he left, he continued to see E each weekend, but G refused to see him. The father made an application to the courts of country X in June 2022 in relation to his contact with G and at mediation it was agreed he would see G in a garage (it sounds more like a playroom) for ½ hour when he came to collect E for contact. This took place on a few occasions – although both G and the father say it was marred by bad behaviour; G says the fathers and the father says MGM’s. On 7 October 2022 the mother left country X with both children and travelled to England and so began the long litigation road to today.

It had been planned that the husband would visit England in October 2024 in order to have contact with E and to attend the divorce hearing in person, but he suffered a bout of ill-health and was unable to travel. At the originally listed final hearing in January 2025 agreement was reached for the father to travel to England in Easter 2025 and this occurred. The father saw E on several occasions one of which was observed by Ms Callaghan who had been re-appointed as the Cafcass officer. There were some initial bumps with E saying he didn’t want to go again after day one , but after being seen by Ms Callaghan he resumed the schedule and although further wrinkles occurred with dates missed due to the mother needing some medical treatment and E being ill one day, the relationship was able to resume and after what sounds like a tentative start E spent some good times with the father with no repercussions. The scheduled final hearing in July 2025 did not take place and Keehan J made an order for interim contact during the October school half term holiday which did take place, and the father saw E

Both the parties agree that this went well, and the mother says E was happy to go on each occasion and was fine upon his return. Significantly G’s anxiety seems to have abated to some extent as she did not insist on accompanying the mother and E for handovers.

This hearing commenced on 4 November – 5 days after the father saw E and spent the night with him. Both the mother and father have been well represented by Ms Best and Mr Aspinwall respectively. I have received Skeleton Arguments, two Bundles of documents, heard evidence from Ms Callaghan and the parents, and have heard submissions. There was some discussion about whether evidence needed to be heard in relation to the allegations of domestic abuse; Ms Best submitted that as E was spending time with the father and there was an agreement in principle that it should continue and be expanded, no purpose was served in undertaking any sort of fact-finding. As the father sought contact in country X in the future, where if the father were to be in a relationship, E might be exposed to domestic abuse if it were a feature of the fathers character; and where the father said the mother was obstructive of contact and limiting it for no good reason; and where G continues to refuse contact and is an important figure in E’s life it seemed to me that (as indicated in January 2025) that findings were appropriate to ensure that decisions were informed by a determination that there had been or had not been domestic abuse perpetrated by the father on the mother.

Given the allegations of domestic abuse, I gave directions relating to participation directions. The mother gave evidence screened from the father and she was screened from him when he gave evidence.

The most significant issue I had to determine ultimately was in relation to domestic abuse as the parties’ positions on the arrangements were save in respect of country X a matter of degree rather than principle.

By the conclusion of the case, the arrangements the father sought were as follows:

The Mother agrees with much of the foregoing but in particular;

In determining the issues raised I apply the following legal framework. Sections 1(1), (2) and (3) of the Children Act 1989 apply to the approach to the order which should be made. Section 1(2A) also applies as I am asked to make a section 8 order. I must therefore presume, unless the contrary is shown, that the involvement of both the mother and father in the children’s life will further their welfare. Involvement means direct or indirect but not any particular division of time. The children’s welfare is my paramount consideration. Delay is likely to be prejudicial to their welfare, and I must apply the welfare checklist. Furthermore, I must not make an order unless I consider it would be better for the children than making no order. In determining what order to make, to the extent that it infringes the Article 8 rights of the mother, father or the children the court must be satisfied it is proportionate.

PD12J and the learning on domestic abuse is relevant and incorporated into my thinking.

A fuller exposition of the legal framework in relation to domestic abuse and fact finding is appended to this judgment.

After hearing the mother give evidence in October 2024, I said this of the mother (redacted for the purposes of anonymisation).

The mother’s evidence is contained in her 3 statements C19, C189, C226 although they refer back to her statements in the Abduction proceedings which contained much of the detail of the allegations of abuse. She gave evidence over the course of about half a day with the father behind a screen. She was composed and focused – although clearly anxious with a tendency to speak over the questioner but this was not a display of dominance, but I thought nervousness. The stakes are obviously high for her and the content of her evidence was potentially highly emotive. She is clearly operating at full capacity what with raising the children, getting them out of the home very early to travel across London to school before going into work, collecting them and dealing with domestic chores. She gets very limited financial support from the father, and she appears to take all this in her stride although it must be a significant burden. She would therefore appear to have a degree of resilience. She was measured, polite and calm with occasional flashes of humour and only rare passages of defensiveness. She was surprisingly upbeat about how well the contact had gone for E over half term; he had expressed no concerns, and she had no concerns about him. This I thought was sincerely said and when asked about the father’s qualities – after some uncertainty about what she was being asked – she put forward some positive observations about his ability to engage E and play with him at his level as well as complimenting his skills as a cook. She was also not hostile to the father’s mother (her aunt) which seemed inconsistent with the fathers’ case that it was his resurrection of this relationship which created the toxicity in country X. Her evidence about the bonds of family seemed to demonstrate a sincere belief in how important they were and what an obstacle they created to addressing the fathers abuse. Throughout her evidence she appeared to me to be sincere and seeking to answer the questions sought of her. In the main her answers were factual and delivered in language and demeanour that if anything tended to self-deprecate and under-emphasises even when giving detail about incidents of alleged abuse. Although she was prepared to stand firm in her evidence and to ‘advocate’ a point, in general she seemed to be lacking in self-confidence and rather compliant. She seemed genuinely dismayed that she had not had the courage to do more to protect the children and embarrassed that her daughter had criticised her for not being stronger for them and said she was ashamed she had asked G to sleep in the bed as a means of protection. She was not prone to over-dramatise, to hyperbole, to exaggerate and build on earlier accounts. She clearly sees things differently to the father in some respects and her evidence about E returning from contact and threatening to kill everyone and his exposure to Squid games seemed to reflect a very protective viewpoint but also perhaps an ability to interpret events in a way which was critical of the father. Experience suggests many three-year-olds might talk about killing everyone – for a range of reasons not all of which indicate inappropriate exposure to violent programmes. Although she clearly has a degree of antipathy to the father she did not appear to be overtly hostile to him and did not seek to denigrate him at all costs. She has clearly not given full support to the maintenance or re-establishment of the relationship between E and his father – she would not go out of her way to support it, witness the inability to ensure the fathers package got to E but if she is right about the abuse she suffered why should she be expected to? However, she has obviously not actively campaigned to ensure E does not have a relationship with the father although on her case he has treated her appallingly, as E has remained open to a relationship with the father and now is actively enjoying it. Had the mother’s motivation been to get the father out of her life or to avoid a return to country X by making the allegations of domestic abuse it seems improbable that she would not have sought to draw E into that narrative whilst actively coaching G. Her answer when it was suggested she had coached G had a very child centred feel to it “What mother would do that – it is unfair to do that to a child … you don’t do that” which both illustrated how child centred she is but if she had coached her, indicated a level of duplicity to a very high degree which was not evident in the rest of her evidence.

The mother’s evidence about domestic abuse was consistent with her previous statements – she did not add or embellish; although some small details emerged but those, I thought, were broadly within the margin of consistency of a person recalling an event long after the event. Her account of getting a nose bleed through stress when pregnant because the father started a fight over her not doing the washing was spontaneous and felt connected to a lived experience as did her account of the incident when she said the father pushed her over, her father’s reaction when he heard the father hit the mother, and the incident when she had bruises at the school fair and blamed it on E. The only documented example of her berating the father was to call him a ‘stupid boy etc’ and her use of language and her temperament in her written and oral evidence suggests a woman who is in the main gentle, even tempered, calm and kind although willing on occasions to argue her point of view. To describe someone as ‘mental’ when they have hit you would not be unusual. Her mother may well have used some choicer language in the incident recorded by the father but even that does not demonstrate a high level of conflict. It is difficult to see how a toxic atmosphere would be created by the character of the mother.

Her evidence about E and the father’s contact and how it should progress was similarly measured and mainly child centred although was to some degree influenced by her own anxieties. If she is right about the abuse, she has good reason to have some worries about how the father might be in contact. Although the abuse she describes was primarily aimed at her –G also says she was treated abusively by the father. She is also aware G regards her as having let her down and she said she has found courage since she left country X, and I thought that a desire to be seen to be making sure she protected E was part of her presentation. In relation to ensuring indirect contact occurred and that the father received information her evidence suggested she was doing her best to hold contradictory feelings and pressures– her antipathy to him, her desire to abide by the law and an acceptance that E should have his father in his life together with managing a very hectic schedule. She was able to recognise that it takes time for people to move on and her evidence about she and G now moving on was I thought insightful, and she was able to accept that events have reduced the risks she previously perceived.

Overall, I found the mother to be a generally honest, frank and direct witness who did her best to give a truthful and child centred account. There were few inconsistencies in her account, and her character suggests a person who would be incapable of constructing a wholly false account and imbuing her teenage child with it. She is too honest, and child centred to do so. Insofar as I previously detected evasion this was related to protecting those left behind in country X from possible repercussions of helping her to leave and there was no detectable repetition of evasive behaviour. The mother presented as more confident and more focussed than previously and this may have been a function both of her being represented and better prepared but also, I think, a growing self-belief. Given I still considered her overall to be lacking in confidence and self-belief, although she said she was now more courageous, I wondered how she might have been 5 years ago.

The father’s evidence is contained in his 3 statements C1, C155, C212 and C226. He gave evidence over the space of ½ a day also. The stakes for him also are high in terms of domestic abuse and how extensive his relationship with E will be and I take this into account in assessing his evidence and his demeanour. After hearing the father give evidence in October 2024, I said this of him (redacted for purposes of anonymisation).

In his evidence the father presented as assertive and confident right from the off, there was little nuance or shading in his account. If something was right, it was “absolutely” right. When asked about how contact was, he said it was brilliant. This tendency suggested both a lack of objectivity or reflection but also had a presentation component in ‘selling’ the strength of his evidence. He categorically refuted all claims of abuse or misconduct and maintained over the 20 years he had consistently acted with kindness, thoughtfulness and respect and that the breakup of the family had emerged from his reconnecting with his mother. This would make him almost unique as a husband and would absolve him of any responsibility for the separation. The furthest he went in accepting any criticism was that the heated arguments should not have happened in front of the children and they would have been affected by hearing them; although this was finessed by his assertion that he was the one who would ask the mother not to argue in front of the children; hence the messages he produced. Given he accepted they had heated arguments in front of the children there was inconsistency here. He was keen to emphasise what a large percentage of his earnings he was paying in child maintenance although it amounts to no more than £400 pcm and his costings for 7 weeks contact in England at the Hilton and 3 return flights seemed very modest at £8,500 and I wondered whether he was downplaying the true cost. As he readily agreed to pay £750 (2 months maintenance) to have his passports held this reinforced the impression that the child maintenance he was paying was not quite such a large proportion of his earnings as he suggested. His evidence about the family finances was also presented in such a way as to downplay the real financial difficulty that they had faced over many years; spending all their accumulated capital, selling their family home to fund their lifestyle, borrowing or seeking to borrow from relatives and leaving the country with significant debts owed both personally and in relation to his liquidated companies. As he had fallen out with his mother because she refused to lend him more money, I was unsure why the mother and Maternal family should have created a toxic atmosphere when he sought to reconnect with her. He said he and E had done quite a lot of play fighting. Given the nature of the hearing was about violence and aggression and previous concerns about E returning from contact and acting aggressively this seemed a strange opening observation. Was it deliberately targeted to irritate the mother or was it unthinking and lacking emotional intelligence? The father is clearly an intelligent, energetic and vigorous or restless man. He was more impulsive and less measured in how he gave his evidence and eager to refute the allegations of abuse and to explain and justify himself. His account that the heated arguments in front of the children arose primarily after he sought to reconnect with his mother in country X sought to place responsibility with the mother and her family for them and seemed improbable in any event given the very long-standing financial problems they had experienced in England, and which had led them to leave the UK. Whilst I can see that reconnecting with an estranged family could cause friction a more usual source of argument would be raising two little children after complex and traumatic pregnancies whilst under financial pressure. The father’s answer that he and the mother worked well as a team at this time was unconvincing.

The father often acted as his own advocate in his answers subjecting both the mother and G’s accounts to a forensic analysis of inconsistency, lack of detail, inability to remember. His dissection of G’s evidence in particular was painful to listen to; querying why she could not remember details about which eye was blacked if she was telling the truth and questioning why she didn’t mention physical abuse (she did as he must well have known) and asserting she was inconsistent (in fact she was broadly consistent) demonstrated a wholesale emotional disconnect from his daughter who was somewhere between 11 and 13 when she gave her accounts. Whilst I appreciate his need to refute her account his approach showed no sensitivity to her but was dominated by his need to exonerate himself. It suggested a marked inability to put himself in his daughter’s shoes, but this was also evident in relation to E. The tenor of his evidence was that when he saw E for the first time in 2.5 years E immediately reconnected (“the connection was automatic, and it was if we hadn’t been apart”) and very rapidly their rapport was as good as ever it had been. This was inconsistent with the report of the contact supervisor which noted marked reluctance and anxiety to start with which was also noted by Ms Callaghan the following day but more importantly he seemed unable to really grasp how complex a position it was for E and the range of competing and confusing feelings he was experiencing. It also overlooked what is said about E – he is more compliant and malleable, reluctant to speak up. Although he said he understood E was in a difficult position I am not at all sure that he really did grasp it. This lack of emotional intelligence or ability to mentalise E’s position or G’s was in distinct contrast to the mother’s far more insightful approach. He was unable to explain why G had cut him off other than to say she was cross he left, and he was unable to offer any real explanation for why the mother had not poisoned E if she was really aiming to obstruct their relationship.

As his evidence progressed and he was challenged he became more agitated – somewhat belligerent and cocky, becoming argumentative with counsel, at times condescending (So what’s the question?”) and it was not difficult to visualise him in a domestic context becoming irritated, becoming sarcastic and condescending and beyond. He is a physically large and imposing figure who is loud and determined to be heard (literally and metaphorically) in stark contrast to the diminutive, passive and soft-spoken mother who could barely be heard in court at times.

He did demonstrate an ability to engage with E, and one could see the playful, enthusiastic and in some ways child-like side of his character at times which would no doubt lend itself well to rough and tumble and boys times with his son. His confidence, positivity and swagger would no doubt lend themselves to being a good deal maker, a generous host and at times one had a glimpse of the charm and mischievous nature which could make him good company and an entertaining companion.

Overall, the fathers evidence amounted to a wholesale rebuttal of the allegations of abuse and a confident assertion of how much E would benefit from reconnecting. He showed little insight or willingness to reflect on any matter which might show him in a poor light and absolved himself of any responsibility for the breakdown in the marriage and what has happened subsequently. His lack of visible concern over his estrangement from his daughter suggested a coldness or ability to detach himself from his emotions which was worrying. I did not find him a convincing witness – he was more intent on selling his version of events than really trying to answer questions or to engage with the facts which was a repeat of aspects of his evidence in October 2024. His evidence lacked substance in many ways compared to the mothers; in its insight into the children’s position, its coincidence or disconnect with common sense or likelihood, its engagement with the facts, or its objectivity.

Ms Callaghan had first seen the children in January 2023 when she interviewed them for the purposes of the Abduction application. She was re-appointed for these proceedings. As the issues for me to determine in relation to welfare matters are now more limited in scope and the fact finding more significant Ms Callaghan’s evidence has been of less significance than it might be and I do not intend to refer to it extensively. I shall refer to what G said to her later. She considered that G was closely aligned to her mother but that her views were authentic, that she was articulate and confident and of a maturity congruent with her age. The context of the interview was of course whether she should be returned to Country X . She did not consider there was evidence of her being coached. The school said;

Ms Callaghan saw E again on 6 August 2024. G attended with him although she was a party to the proceedings in her own right and Ms Callaghan was not tasked to report on her views or her welfare. Ms Callaghan again found E to be energetic, interested in playing and not easy to engage with or to focus on issues relating to contact. He was non-committal about seeing his dad and she thought he was avoiding the subject and that his awareness of G’s rejection of his father was affecting his position, but he showed no anxiety about seeing his father. He asked several times for G to join them and when she was there, he paid considerable attention to her. G remained firmly opposed to her father. E had contact with his father in April with a supervisor present. The note of the supervisor makes clear that E was anxious and that it took time for him to relax and enjoy spending time with the father. The father behaved appropriately and got E to engage. Ms Callaghan was due to observe contact in April 2025 it was expected she would observe contact. She was contacted by the mother before the 2^nd contact because E was reluctant to go. When she saw him, he was positive about the contact he had the day before but after seeing G and his mum his demeanour had changed. She did not think they were actively saying anything to deter him, but their presence was having a negative influence. After some exchanges with his father in the Cafcass office they went to the park and contact went well thereafter with E being comfortable with physical contact. Ms Callaghan was planning on seeing him again but the mother’s back condition and E being ill precluded this.

The most significant components of Ms Callaghan’s views from her reports and her evidence seem to me to emerge as follows;

G sought to be involved in both sets of proceedings and has been seen by Ms Callaghan twice and by Ms Broadley a specialist in representing children, on several occasions. No party sought for G to give evidence. She had made clear through Miss Broadley that she wanted the father to accept her position that she did not want to see him, and he did so and so she was discharged as a party on the basis he sought no order. Her evidence remains in the Bundle in the form of what she said to Ms Callaghan in the Hague proceedings and in what she said to Ms Broadley in the Hague set aside and re-hearing and in these proceedings. It is hearsay evidence from a young person who has not been tested on her account and whose account was given initially in support of seeking to avoid being returned to Country X and thereafter in seeking to deter her father from seeking child arrangements orders about her. The weight which I can attach to it therefore has to be looked at in the light of this context. However, that is not to say I cannot give it any weight. It must be subjected to scrutiny in the same way as any evidence to ascertain whether it is likely to be reliable, affected by memory issues, influenced by others or whether any motive might be driving it. Ms Callaghan considered her to be sincere and authentic in what she said, Ms Broadley said she is determined, felt let down by her mother and had found her own way to seek legal support. The mother describes her as obstinate and determined. She sought out Ms Broadley not at the instigation of her mother but via her school as she felt her mother had not done enough. Extracts of what G has said over time include the following.

In support of the fathers’ position Ms Best made the following essential points;

In support of the mother’s position Mr Aspinwall made the following essential points;

Given the developments prior to the commencement of this hearing and developments in the parties’ positions following the completion of Ms Callaghan’s evidence the issues relating to the detail of the child arrangements orders whilst important are not matters of principle so much as decisions on the degree of progress and scheduling in a way which maximises the benefits to E whilst minimising the potential risks. The bulk of the time in the hearing has been spent on the issue of domestic abuse and the precise details of scheduling child arrangements.

In determining the mothers’ allegations, the burden lies on her to prove her case on the balance of probabilities. The father does not have to disprove her allegations or G’s . The Schedule of Allegations contains components;

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.

In determining whether the mother has established these allegations on the balance of probabilities I am undertaking a panoramic survey of all of the material that bears upon the determination. In this case there is almost no contemporaneous evidence whether in the form of reports to 3^rd parties or digital footprint material. The mother says that there was one photograph which the father deleted and that she never felt able to report the abuse to any external agency or to take any active step because of the sensitivity of the position created by the fact they were cousins and the knock-on impact on the rest of the family. The father relies heavily on the absence of reports but the absence of reports to external agencies or third parties or of contemporaneous material is not proof that the abuse did not occur. It is a common feature of domestic abuse that victims do not feel able to report the abuse. The absence of such evidence places a greater focus on the evidence of the parties themselves. However, determining such allegations based primarily on the word of one party against the other is not uncommon. The court must evaluate the evidence of each considering the consistency of their evidence, matters of credibility arising from other evidence, the inherent plausibility or implausibility of evidence, the extent to which evidence fits with other external evidence, the extent to which one can gauge from presentation whether the account appears sincere and reliable and a host of other matters.

In this case as I have explained earlier the mothers’ evidence in broad terms appears to be generally more reliable than the fathers. Of course, proving a negative creates its own problems for the father but he does not have to prove a negative but his overall response to the allegations is material to the determination of the probability of them being true. Forensically the comparative weakness of his evidence means that the strength (or weight) which might lead to a balance of probabilities conclusion that domestic abuse occurred does not need to be particularly compelling or strongly corroborated to make that outcome more likely than not. In comparing the accounts, one must also take into consideration the personalities of the main participants. The father is physically large and imposing, loud, ebullient, assertive, insensitive, proud, intolerant of disagreement and brittle. Could one envisage the father becoming irritated, being sarcastic and dismissive, angry and snapping? The mother is diminutive, kind, child-centred, mild mannered. Is her character such as to be capable of fabricating such a root and branch account of abuse and inculcating it in her daughter. Was the situation that the family faced one where there was long-standing stressors which might be consistent with long-standing conflict or did conflict only emerge in any significant form when the father sought to reconnect with his mother?

The only third-party account which goes to inform the outcome is that of G. The mother did not seek to adduce evidence from her family; she seemed surprised at the suggestion that they might have given evidence in support. I have identified earlier that there are limits on the weight which can be given to G’s account given the circumstances in which it was given she was seeking to persuade the court not to return her to county X and that it has not been tested. Although the father may be right that there are some inconsistencies in how it is conveyed (was the abuse constant or sporadic for instance) the general narrative is broadly consistent. The fact that G recounts incidents which are also recalled by the mother (the slapping by the stairs) might suggest coaching but both Ms Callaghan and Miss Broadley were of the opinion that G had not been coached. That she was introduced into the bedroom as a ‘barrier’ to abuse – which both she and the mother speak of, and the father does not dispute her presence also lends support to her being put in a protective position. Reading the totality of her accounts to Miss Callaghan, Miss Broadley and to her head teacher supports the conclusion that the fear and anxiety she expressed were genuine. Perhaps more importantly the way in which she gave her accounts and how she described the impact of the abuse on her view of the father lend weight to the likely truth of her account. The fact that she has, and has since separation, broadly refused to have anything to do with her father and has explained her reasoning more than anything else suggests that her feelings are genuine. Genuine feelings are far more likely to emerge from lived experiences than from G either knowingly giving a fabricated account or having digested a false account and adopted it as her own.

Taking the mother’s account and G’s accounts together and putting them against the father’s account taking into account their characters, the circumstances which existed across their marriage and surveying the totality of the landscape leads me to the conclusion that what it shows – accepting some parts are less well-lit than they might be – is that a pattern of physically and emotionally abusive behaviour by the father persisting over time is more likely than not. In broad terms that abusive conduct is as described by the mother and G encompassing abusive, demeaning language and attitudes, significantly aggressive and frightening language and behaviour escalating to physical violence most likely when the mother stood her ground or argued back. This amounted to coercive and controlling behaviour as it was largely built on the father getting his own way rather than emerging from alcohol misuse or pure loss of control. I found it harder to determine the issue of him controlling the mother’s social life. The closeness of the family links meant isolation from family was not possible. The mother’s life I think revolved around the children and her evidence about the father limiting her social opportunities was fairly thin. I accept that he was possessive of her but beyond that I am unable to reach a determination on the evidence and nor does it add much to the conclusion I have reached relating to the context of the physical and verbal abuse. In relation to the allegations about emotional abuse of the children relating to non-notification of illness and exposure to inappropriate material on the evidence these appear to me to be more expressions of quite different approaches to parenting with the mother being at the sensitive end of the spectrum and the father being at the robust end.

Turning then to the welfare issues and what orders will best promote E’s welfare in respect of child arrangements the welfare checklist yields the following harvest.

the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned (considered in the light of his age and understanding);

At the time Miss Callaghan saw E he had only seen his father once since October 2022. She was not asked to provide an updated report when the case was rescheduled in July 2025 and indeed only learned that E had stayed overnight with his father on two occasions when she came to give her evidence. That being so, his views have not been expressly ascertained on the extension of the time he should spend with his father and how much time he should spend overnight with him. Given his age and his reluctance to express views it is hard to know whether he would have said much had Miss Callaghan had the opportunity to see him after he had spent the night with his father. We do know from the mother, from Miss Callaghan, from the father and from E himself that he appears to have enjoyed spending time with his father and working on the basis that the father will act appropriately there is no reason why E should not want to spend more extended periods of time with his father. I think it is also reasonable to infer that he would wish for this to be a gradual progression where he can return to his mother and sister at times so as to reassure himself that they are fine and say that any anxiety he might feel about spending time with his father is minimised. It seems likely that he has little if any active memory of his father behaving abusively to his mother or to his sister given that they separated when he was only three years old and when they left country X he was only five years old but he may have a subconscious imprint relating to the father’s abusive behavior and he is aware that his sister will not see his father and that both his sister and mother see his father as presenting some danger.

There does not appear to be anything unusual in relation to E’s physical needs, he is an eight-year-old boy who appears to enjoy activities as well as cultural excursions. Emotionally he needs his life with his mother to remain stable and secure and for her to be able to provide for him with from which he can grow and develop. It is important to him that his mother is able to function to her best capability and that she should not feel anxious or have bad memories of abuse reawakened so as to undermine her own emotional security. It is also important for him to develop a relationship with his father which is a safe and secure relationship. G’s emotional development has been significantly impacted by the father’s abusive behaviour towards the mother and to her. It is imperative that E’s emotional development is not impacted. The situation which caused G harm cannot be replicated for E because his mother and father are not living together but he needs to see his father as a safe and nurturing parent. In the context of contact in England where no partner is present this should be achievable. As E grows older the risk of him becoming more defiant will perhaps emerge; although he is noted to be more malleable and passive, perhaps more like his mother than his father. If the father were to respond to E disagreeing with him or becoming defiant by the sort of anger and loss of control he displayed to the mother and G it will be harmful. However, the father does have a emotional side to him which will benefit E if it is focused and kind. E appears to have some educational needs and anything which makes him anxious or unsettled will exacerbate his learning difficulties and so this will need to be supported by both the mother, and the father in particular will need to understand that E may not be so adept at learning as his sister.

An increase in the time that E spends with his father as a result of an increasing pattern of staying in contact will represent a significant change in the pattern of E’s life. Since he was three, he has not spent more than one night away from his mother and sister, and it is likely that he will find spending significant periods of time away from them as unsettling. As Miss Callaghan notes he is unlikely to verbalise this, but it may come out in his behaviour or physically in his well-being and the father and the mother will need to be alert to this. Extending the time, he spends with his father in a gradual way, which balances that extension with maintaining the security of his connection to his mother and G will be important.

E is fortunate in having a diverse background with roots in different cultures and countries. His mother and her family will nurture this but in due course the ability to know more of his country X roots will be of benefit to him.

The research on the effects of domestic abuse on children demonstrates that it is likely to be harmful to their development even at a physiological level. Whilst E may have no active memory of his father assaulting his mother or behaving aggressively to his mother or sister it is likely it has left a psychological imprint on him. Indirectly he has been harmed by the detrimental impact that it had on his mother and her self-confidence and her ability to focus on her children. That it undermined her ability to protect them is a form of indirect harm to E.

If the father is able to acknowledge his behaviour and to take steps to address, it the risk of E being exposed to similar behaviour in the future will likely diminish significantly. If he does not though there will remain a significant residual risk. Acceptance and risk reduction work is not mandatory for the risk to reduce because although the father may not be able to externally recognise and accept his behaviour, he may internally adjust his thinking and thus his behaviour. If he remains in full denial there is clearly a risk of E being exposed to abusive behaviour in the future either in the context of a new relationship that the father may embark upon or as a product of E growing older and finding himself in conflict with his father.

In relation to country X there appears to me to be a risk - albeit the level is indeterminable at present, that E would not be returned from country X. The father retains a high level of hostility to the mother albeit it is seemingly fairly well hidden from E but as the father and E’s relationship extends, and as the time they spent together elongates and as E grows older, the risks of the father letting his hostility show increases. This could result either in E confronting the father, refusing to continue with contact or aligning himself with the father and putting himself in conflict with the mother. Although a strong protective framework can be put in place to minimise the risk of E not returning from country X were he to visit, even the most robust legal framework cannot provide a complete guarantee. If the father continues to bear a grudge in relation to the mother’s removal of the children from country X and her success in retaining them in England there remains a risk of non-return from country X. That risk may significantly abate as time passes. The father may move on; the mother may move on; the relationship of E and his father will develop, and it may be that a position will be reached where there can be no residual concern about a visit to country X.

The protective measures agreed between the parties will reduce this risk.

I do not consider there is any real risk of the mother or G seeking to actively undermine or obstruct the contact. That has not been the history to date. If that emerged it would likely be connected with some real concern as to how the contact was going and so would need evaluating in that context.

The mother appears to be a capable and child-centered mother who is broadly speaking capable of meeting all of the children’s needs. She has in the past been too passive in protecting them from the abuse that their father perpetrated. I fully understand how difficult it is to deal with that in the context of the father being a cousin and thus the family relationships being so close that it makes disclosure and protective responses problematic. She seems still to lack the strength to put her foot down and to insist on parameters to protect herself; her willingness to continue four times per week indirect contact and face-to-face handover is an example of this. The children both need her to be firmer in insisting on what she considers to be best for them and actively advocating that.

The father has a significant weakness in his capability to meet the children’s needs. That he has behaved abusively to the children’s mother in the children’s presence and to G directly is a major concern. He has compounded that weakness by attacking his daughter’s account in a highly unattractive and insensitive way, which is an additional concern. So far, he has been wholly unable to reflect on his behaviour and to put the children’s well-being at the centre of his thinking rather than self-protection. Within the context of contact in England of the sort that is contemplated, and over a period of time when E is unlikely to start to question the position in any active way, the risk of that lack of capability is of less significance. As E grows older it may become much more of a problem with consequential risks. It seems that the father is sufficiently child-centered to make contact for E of the sort contemplated, a success. The father would appear to be well able to manage E’s physical and emotional needs during even extended periods of contact during holiday periods at the beach, or at activity centers or city-based contact. He will need to ensure that he remains in close touch with what E wants rather than with what he might want so that contact remains positive

E will live with his mother for the foreseeable future and so a lives with order should be made.

Child arrangements orders with conditions, prohibited steps orders and specific issue orders are all available to put in place a framework around contact which will address the risks which have been identified, and which will manage progression at E’s place.

I will start with the issue of domestic abuse as it is relevant to the subsequent child arrangements issues.

In relation to domestic abuse to the extent that it is relevant and possible for me to reach a balance of probabilities determination on the evidence before me I am satisfied that;

That extension requires a balance to be struck that incorporates what will benefit E directly in the nature of his relationship with his dad but also addresses the anxieties the mother and G and E have (of different sorts);

I do not regard the path ahead as a necessarily smooth one moving seamlessly to a position where contact could move to country X. On the one hand it may be that E and the father continue to deepen and strengthen their attachment and develop a relationship which is relatively speaking trouble free. The mother may continue to develop confidence in the father and the time he and E spend together. This will be function of how E reacts to that time – if he is relaxed and confident in it so will she be. E is a malleable and compliant child at present – he has that easy going nature from his mother – but as he moves into adolescence there is as with many children the possibility of disagreements with his father over a whole range of issues. How his father manages that will be critical as it will impact on 3 significant individuals. First of all, E to some extent, this may depend on how his life develops but also it will depend to some degree on how the father deals with financial support, and communication.

Given the findings I have made and the uncertainties as to how the relationship will develop over the coming years and how the mother, G and father move forward it is impossible to reach a conclusion that visiting country X will be in E’s best interest in 2027/28. If things go well – even absent the father accepting his abuse, undertaking work on himself and seeking to make amends – the contact could be in E’s best interests, and a framework should be put in place as discussed, such that if both parties agree it should occur and E wants it then it can happen.

I do not consider the mother, and father should be in direct contact if she finds it intrusive. She is perhaps too accepting. An App should be used – paid by the father.

I do not think four times per week indirect contact should occur – it is a significant intrusion into the family home by a man who has behaved abusively. Once during the week and twice at weekends on a device to be provided to E and funded by the father to limit the mother’s involvement would be a more child centred outcome. Contact on the other significant days as agreed.

The other aspects of the details relating to contact including conditions and a framework of PSO and SIO’s are agreed and will need to be incorporated into an order which is capable of registration under the exequatur procedure in country X should contact be agreed. Undertakings will not be appropriate given the contents of the expert advice.

That is my judgment.