“The picture is clear. There was considerable violence inflicted by the father upon the mother in the course of their relationship putting both children at risk of physical and emotional harm. There were also additional elements of coercion and control, the father’s warning to the mother that the children would be removed if social services became aware of what was happening and his denigration of her as a mother in the course of these incidents. These are all issues which I consider to be directly relevant to the welfare decisions I will need to make in due course in relation to any unregulated or unmonitored time for the father with his sons.”
“I would urge the father not only to consider carefully what I have said but to reflect upon it and to ‘reset’. These cases undoubtedly focus on the worst aspects of behaviour, but this father also has many positive attributes. I set out below the observations of Ms K… which clearly endorse much that is positive about the father’s parenting. He undoubtedly has the potential to be a good parent to his children and the mother’s warm description of his children’s love for him will, I hope, act as a catalyst for reflection and change. His children deserve not only to have a full relationship with each of their parents, but to be brought up in an environment free from violence or significant conflict and where each parent is able to respect and appreciate the positives of the other. The father has much to do and to think about, but also much to gain.”
“The principal risks going forward centre on contact between the parties and the risk of arguments and, potentially, violence. However, there is also a potential risk of the father denigrating the mother to the children or of he or his family undermining her in their discussions with the children. I must also bear in mind the findings that I have made about the father’s loss of temper, that he has placed the children at risk of physical and emotional harm, and that he has physically chastised C. These are all risks that will need to be managed carefully and proportionately. A factor in any future consideration will clearly be the father’s response to this judgment.”
“42. We see nothing unfair in expecting the father to make his case in the family proceedings to secure the outcome he desires and, if he considers it to be the case, to seek to persuade the judge that contact is in the best interests of his two children. He played a full part, including giving evidence, in the fact-finding hearing. If he has decided that his evidence in that earlier hearing was untrue and wishes to qualify or change it there is nothing unfair in letting him choose to do so. We observe that even section 98 of the 1989 Act provides no protection in the case of perjury. The Strasbourg Court generally looks at the totality of proceedings before determining whether they have been fair for the purposes of article 6. It does not exclude the possibility that a single step may render them unfair. Yet it is inconceivable that the refusal of a pre-emptive blanket order of this sort could amount to a violation of article 6. We are satisfied that the approach to disclosure from the family proceedings found in Re EC (Disclosure of Material) (see para. 17 above) provides appropriate protections and ensures that the family law proceedings would, in this respect, be fair.”