MZA v FHB (No 2) (private law - fact-find) [2024] EWFC 467 (B)

This approved judgment was handed down remotely by circulation by email to the parties’ representatives. The time and date of hand down is deemed to be 10.00 a.m on 30 July 2024.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the child[ren] and members of their [or his/her] family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.

MZA v FHB (no 2)(private law – fact-find)

[2024] EWFC 467 (B)

IN THE FAMILY COURT SITTING AT OXFORD

Date 30 July 2024

Between

MZAApplicant

FHBRespondent

Mehvish Chaudhry for Applicant mother, instructed through the public access scheme

Anton Eriera for Respondent father, instructed by Elthorne solicitors

IN THE MATTER J (A BOY) AND K (A GIRL)

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT 1996 PART IV

Before : HHJ Vincent

Dates of hearing: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 July 2024

Approved judgment

This judgment is linked to:

MZA v FHB (private law – appeal – whether to hold fact-find)[2024] EWFC 77 (B)

MZA v FHB (no 3) (private law – welfare judgment)[2025] EWFC 276 (B)

MZA v FHB (no 4) (private law – supplementary welfare judgment)[2025] EWFC 277 (B)

Introduction

[1]The parties were married in June 2014. They have two children, J aged nine, and K aged six. They separated in January 2022 following an incident at the family home. They both have different accounts of what happened on that night. The father was arrested and later charged with common assault. He was subject to bail conditions which prevented him from contacting the mother or going to the family home.

[2]On 27 February 2022 the father travelled to [country name redacted]. He returned to England for a brief visit at the end of March 2022, and then went to live with his parents in [F’s home country]. He returned to England in July 2022.

[3]On 17 June 2022, anticipating the father’s return to the jurisdiction, the mother applied for an order that the children live with her, and the time they spend with their father should be supervised. She alleged that she and the children had been subject to physical, emotional and financial abuse.

[4]On 28 June 2022 the father cross-applied for a child arrangements order for shared care.

[5]On 7 July 2022 the mother applied for and was granted a non-molestation order without notice. The order was subsequently extended, and remains in force, without the court having made any adverse findings against the father. Whether or not that order should be extended is an issue for me to determine at this hearing.

[6]In November 2022 the criminal trial arising from the incident on 14 January 2022 resulted in the father’s acquittal. The mother has exhibited a letter she received from the Crown Prosecution Service apologising for errors, which in the letter are said to be a failure to provide evidence to the defence, a failure of the police witness to attend Court, and a failure to secure the judge’s agreement to an adjournment, resulting in the CPS offering no evidence at trial. On behalf of the father it is said this is not a true representation of what happened; there was an effective trial before a District Judge, both parties gave oral evidence, following which he was acquitted.

[7]A fact-finding hearing was originally listed in June 2023, but regrettably was vacated by the Court at short notice. The fact-finding hearing was re-listed to take place for a week commencing 23 October 2023, but was vacated on the first day of the hearing, the judge having been persuaded that a fact-finding hearing was no longer required.

[8]The mother appealed that decision. On 1 March 2024 I granted the appeal and directed that the fact-finding hearing be remitted to a different judge (MZA v FHB (private law – appeal – whether to hold fact-find)

[2024] EWFC 77 (B)

[9]In the event, the fact-finding hearing was listed before me. Over the course of five days in July 2024 I heard evidence from the parties and from members of their extended families. I heard submissions from counsel, Ms Chaudhry for the mother and Mr Eriera for the father, and reserved judgment. The law Fact-finding

The law

[10]The burden of proving an allegation falls on the person who asserts it to be true. The standard of proof is a balance of probabilities; disputed allegations only become proven facts if it is more probable than not that they occurred.

[11]Findings of fact must be based on the evidence (including inferences that can properly be drawn from the evidence), and not suspicion or speculation.

[12]I must take account of all the evidence and each piece of evidence in the context of all other evidence: ‘Evidence cannot be evaluated and assessed in separate compartments. A judge in these difficult cases must have regard to the relevance of each piece of evidence and exercise a totality of the evidence to come to the conclusion of whether the case put forward by the local authority has been made out to the appropriate standard of proof.’ (Re T

[2003] EWCA Civ 558

at para 33, per Butler-Sloss P.)

[13]When considering the evidence of the witnesses, I must take care to identify those parts of their evidence which are part of their direct recollection, and those parts of their evidence where they are reporting what someone else has said, and to assess the relative weight of such evidence accordingly.

[14]The evidence of the parties is very important and the Court must be able to form a clear assessment of their credibility and reliability. I further remind myself that credibility alone cannot decide this case and that, if a court concludes that a witness has lied about one matter, it does not follow that he or she has lied about everything.

[15]Any findings of fact are for the Court to make based on the evidence before it. No weight should be given to the opinions of others about the credibility of a particular witness.

[16]I remind myself of the direction that, in a criminal case, would be called the ‘Lucas’ direction because it is based on the case of R v Lucas

[1981] QB 720

. If proved that a person has lied, the Court must analyse the relevance of the lie to the issues in the case. A lie may be in relation to an issue that has no relevance to the real issues before the court. Lies may be told for many reasons. A person may lie out of a sense of shame, misplaced loyalty, humiliation, embarrassment, panic, fear, confusion, emotional pressure, a desire to conceal other misconduct or for many other reasons. I have also been referred to the cases of In Re H-C (Children)

[2016] 4 WLR 85

McFarlane LJ and H v City and Council of Swansea and Others

[2011] EWCA Civ 195

[17]The Court should consider how much weight to attach to discrepancies in accounts between witnesses or from one witness at different times. See Re A (A Child)

[2020] EWCA Civ 1230

and in Lancashire v R

[2013] EWHC 3064 (Fam)

: per Mostyn J: [8]…(xi) The assessment of credibility generally involves wider problems than mere “demeanour” which is mostly concerned with whether the witness appears to be telling the truth as he now believes it to be. With every day that passes the memory becomes fainter and the imagination becomes more active. The human capacity for honestly believing something which bears no relation to what actually happened is unlimited.”

Non-molestation order

[18]The power to grant a non-molestation order is set out at section 42 of the Family Law Act 1996. The Court must first find that the respondent has behaved in a way towards the applicant that could be regarded as ‘such a degree of harassment as to call for the intervention of the Court’. The Court must then consider whether or not an order should be made to prohibit that conduct.

The evidence

[19]Notwithstanding that they did not have permission from me to exceed the standard page limit for bundles, the final digital bundle submitted for the hearing exceeded 1,400 pages. In addition I have been invited to watch videos of interactions between the parties and the police, including a police interview, and to review video and audio recordings made by one or other of the parties with their phones.

[20]At a pre-trial review hearing, I gave permission to the mother to admit into the evidence transcripts of WhatsApp conversations between the father, his brother S, and their parents. These conversations were obtained by S’s wife without his knowledge or permission and passed on by her to the mother. I held that notwithstanding that the conversations were originally obtained covertly, this was not done at the mother’s instigation. However obtained, the messages are relevant to the issues to be determined in the case. The father has had an opportunity to challenge the accuracy of the translation or submit additional messages to provide context.

[21]I have read all the statements, reviewed all other documents in the bundle, and listened to all the video and audio recordings. I will not be able to refer to every document that I have read or reviewed within this judgment.

[22]The mother relied on evidence from her mother, father and stepmother, and from the mother’s cousin [witness A] and her husband [witness B].

[23]The father relied on evidence from his mother, father and brother. The father’s family is [country name redacted]. His parents relied upon an interpreter to assist them.

[24]The mother gave her evidence clearly and with precision. She is a qualified solicitor but has not worked as a solicitor since she had K in 2018. She has been working almost full time in the preparation of the private law proceedings and the concurrent financial remedies proceedings. She had a good recall for dates and times. She was clearly familiar with the paperwork, but described the details of conversations and incidents clearly; as though she were recalling them to mind from her own memory rather than rehearsing what had been said in one document or another.

[25]A number of the allegations she has made, or elements of them, have been accepted by the father, but he has suggested that she has fabricated or exaggerated others.

[26]Other than it being put to the mother in general terms that her allegations were fabricated, no specific matters were put to her which might point to the conclusion that she had made up her version of events, had exaggerated facts or lied to the police or the court in the accounts that she had given. It is of course not for the father to establish that her allegations are not true, but for her to prove to the standard of probabilities that they are true. But it is of significance that there was no evidence of her having given different or inconsistent accounts, and that a great deal of her evidence was corroborated by evidence from photographs, recordings or other witnesses.

[27]The evidence of her supporting witnesses was partisan in that they clearly had a negative view of the father and saw the mother to be the victim of abuse at his hands. They have spent many hours talking together, and with the mother, about the parties’ relationship and their concerns for the mother. It appeared that there had been some discussion about how they might explain to the Court that apparent discrepancies in their police statements may have come about; they all gave a very similar explanation of the police statements having been made very late at night at a time of heightened emotion and concern.

[28]Nonetheless, their witness statements were short and properly focused only upon those matters about which they themselves were present as witnesses.

[29]On these points, their evidence was broadly consistent with the weight of the evidence from the mother, the other witnesses, and what contemporaneous evidence exists.

[30]The father gave evidence with clarity and confidence. His responses to the schedule of allegations set out what is accepted, and where denied, he has given explanations or referred to the paragraphs of his various witness statements where he has given his own account, upon which he elaborated in his oral evidence.

[31]While he has often accepted the essential fact at the heart of an allegation, the descriptions of how it happened, or what happened before and after shifted somewhat, were unclear, sometimes had blanks where no explanation was given, or were difficult to reconcile with the context he described.

[32]The father’s parents and brother travelled to England from [F’s home country] to support him in these proceedings. Their commitment to their son and love for his children is not in doubt.

[33]These three members of the paternal family have become deeply embroiled in the Family Court proceedings. The father’s brother and parents have loaned him large sums of money to fund the litigation. The paternal grandparents are intervenors in the ongoing financial remedies proceedings between the parents, arising from a dispute in respect of the family home. The father and paternal grandparents say that its purchase was funded by a loan that is repayable to them. The mother says that the house, and a flat in London, were gifted to the husband by the paternal grandparents and should be regarded as matrimonial assets. It is not uncommon for members of the extended family to become involved in financial remedies proceedings, and I do not criticise the paternal grandparents for this. I have not formed any view as to the merits or otherwise of the parties’ respective positions. But it is unavoidable that the fact of this ongoing litigation has heightened the level of animosity between the paternal family and the maternal family, which has clearly been felt on both sides for many years.

[34]The evidence of the paternal family amounts to an outright and sustained attack of the mother, reinforcing strongly her case that she has been subject to continual intimidation and pressure from the paternal family, during the marriage, post-separation and to date.

[35]The paternal grandmother’s witness statement is seven pages, and the paternal grandfather’s witness statement stretches to fifteen pages. Both are close-typed in small font. The statements contain line by line analysis of her witness statements and commenting on them. She is described as a person with mental health issues who ‘needs her head examined’, they purport to give expert medical evidence about her physical and mental health. They both spoke with some intensity about their view that the mother is someone who had made minimal contribution when working in the father’s business, takes financial advantage of others, and had not worked since the breakdown of the relationship. They described her as an irresponsible mother, who thinks she has the right to be treated in a special way, cannot tolerate any criticism, and is a liar. She is described as having hounded the father out of his home, alienated him from his children, is ‘arrogant, unethical and immoral’ and manipulative.

[36]S’s statement is shorter, but in a similar vein. Like his parents, he too has reviewed all the documents in the case, and it was he who assisted both his parents in the preparation of their statements.

[37]None of these three was an eye-witness to any of the incidents pleaded on the schedule, but can speak to the issues around the WhatsApp messages and some of the allegations of emotional abuse and financial control.

[38]On the day they were due to give evidence I was informed by counsel of a regrettable incident that took place before Court. The mother and her counsel were sitting at a table in the café. Although there were other tables available there and seats elsewhere in the large waiting area, the paternal grandparents and uncle chose to sit at a table next to the mother and counsel. When asked if they would mind moving, they refused and said they had a right to sit where they chose. In time father’s counsel came and persuaded them to sit elsewhere.

[39]The oral evidence given by members of the paternal family was broadly consistent with what they said in their witness statements and was aligned entirely with the father’s perspective. They blame the mother entirely for bringing financially ruinous proceedings in the family court, based, as they see it, on false allegations against the father, and attempting to stop him from spending time with his children.

Schedule of allegations and findings

[40]The schedule, updated on 25 April 2024 is divided into the following sections:(i) Physical abuse;

(ii) Emotional and psychological abuse;

(iii) Abuse of the children;

(iv) Harassment and intimidation in breach of the non-molestation order, and controlling and coercive behaviour post-separation;

(v) Financial abuse and litigation abuse. Physical abuse 6 April 2016: spitting incident

Physical abuse

[41]It is alleged that on 6 April 2016 the father spat directly at the mother’s face three times. The father denies this.

[42]This incident is not recorded in the mother’s first witness statement in support of the application for a non-molestation order. However, it is in her first witness statement in the Children Act proceedings. She recounts coming home from work, getting into an argument and the father spitting into her face three times. She says that J was present and emotionally unsettled.

[43]The mother sent an email to the father on 8 April 2016 saying, ‘YOU DON’T THROW WINE AND SPIT AT SOMEONE YOU LOVE’.

[44]I find that the mother did send this email at the time and that she did so as a response to an incident taking place as described. This allegation is proved to the standard of a balance of probabilities. 26 November 2016: foot-stamping

[45]The mother alleges that the father stamped on her foot, causing pain and bruising. She does not describe how this came about; I have heard very little from either party about their circumstances in 2016. She exhibits two photographs of her foot with a fairly generalised area of bruising and a smaller blackish-purple coloured bruise in the centre. She exhibits an extract from her medical records on 26 November 2016 in which it is recorded that she dropped a heavy iron on her foot.

[46]In her evidence to the court she says that this was not true, but she was embarrassed to tell the doctor that her husband had stamped on her foot. She said at the time she had a cleaner and never even used the iron.

[47]The injury does not on the face of it appear to be consistent with the imprint an iron might make. It is perhaps more consistent with a stamping injury, but I have not got any expert evidence to help me with this, and I doubt that any medical expert would be willing to come to any firm conclusion.

[48]I am left with a comparison of the witness evidence. The father relies on the medical record, but was not able to give any kind of account of an incident with an iron.

[49]Although this allegation comes early on in this judgment, I have considered it having regard to all the evidence in respect of all the allegations. I have found the mother to be a credible witness compared to the father, and on a balance of probabilities, I find this allegation to be proved. 25 February 2020: Chinese burn

[50]The mother alleges that the father used both his hands to grab the mother’s left arm and twist it, causing injury. The father repeatedly thrust his middle finger in the mother’s face. The father smashed the glass shower wall, and screamed at the mother that she was a ‘freeloader’, ‘an embarrassment to the neighbours’ and said, ‘if you take me on, I will destroy you.’

[51]The father accepted that he has on occasion raised his middle finger to the mother, but was not prepared to say whether he had during this particular incident. He does accept there was an incident, and he does recall that he banged or slammed against the shower door with the palm of his hand. This somewhat undermines his response that the allegation was an ‘entirely untrue false allegation’. He accepted that he has in the past called the mother a ‘freeloader’, and did not dispute that it could have been on this occasion. There is evidence of the father calling the mother an embarrassment in texts and emails, and when asked whether he might have done so on this occasion, he said he had said that; ‘the new age stuff and all of this is embarrassing when trying to be a respectable family and she is a solicitor.’

[52]The mother’s evidence, corroborated by [witnesses A and B], and not challenged by the father, was that straight after this incident, the mother took the children with her to go and stay with [witnesses A and B].

[53]The mother has provided a photograph showing red marks on her forearm, which I judge to be consistent with having had a Chinese burn inflicted upon her.

[54]The father has not challenged any of the other details of her recollection of this incident, but says that he did not inflict an injury on her. Is the mother correct about all these details, but not the most significant one?

[55]I have found the mother to be a consistent and reliable witness. I find it more likely than not that the reason she left with the children to go and stay with [witness A and B] was because the incident had escalated to a situation where she had suffered a physical injury at the hands of the father. Although the father suggests that the mother left with the children to go and stay with [witness A and B] on only a very few occasions during the marriage, far fewer than she says, he suggests this would not have been as a result of anything serious. He said, ‘she could not handle an argument’.

[56]On a balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that each of the elements of this allegation is proved. I would replace the word ‘smashed’ with ‘slammed or banged with his hand’. 16 April 2021: broken door

[57]The mother alleges that during this incident the father trapped her finger in the kitchen door, and threw her in the hallway, causing an injury to her shoulder, right forearm and hand. The father denied that he had physical contact with the mother and said photographs of her hand showing a small cut on her middle finger were nothing to do with anything he had done.

[58]The mother has not described the context; what led up to the argument, what was said, or how her finger became trapped in the door. She has used the word ‘thrown’ and the word ‘pushed’ to describe what happened in the hallway.

[59]Nonetheless, it is clear that an incident of some sort occurred, and the father has accepted that in an argument on this day he slammed the door to the children’s playroom. Photographs show the force of the slamming has caused a vertical split down the length of the door frame.

[60]The paternal grandmother was asked in cross-examination if the father had a temper, and she immediately said, he had ‘more of a temper than was quiet’.

[61]This was put to the father’s brother, S. He said, ‘everybody has a temper – he has a normal temper and a normal character’. He said that the father only got angry or annoyed, ‘only when it is necessary to get angry – which is rarely’. He said he had witnessed arguments between the mother and father, but had never seen ‘them get their hands on each other’, or physical aggression from either one to the other.

[62]When asked about slamming of the door that caused the split in the doorframe, the father said that slamming a door shut, ‘happens in most marriages’.

[63]The mother gave evidence that she and the children had been close by when this happened, and that they had been frightened. She had then left with the children to go and stay with [witness A and B].

[64]This was confirmed by both [witness A and B] in their witness statements and their oral evidence. They recalled that they were driving back home from [holiday] when they received a call from the mother, who was very distressed, and was asking to come and stay with them immediately.

[65]The father was asked about this in cross-examination and said (my note, so some words may be missing):

‘[the children] were not present when this doorframe was shut – she decided to leave to [witness A and B], she did not get her way in life, she cannot handle an argument, she cannot have adult discussion about matters. I’m not saying slamming a door is the way to have a conversation, yes we had a disagreement I slammed full solid doors, full and heavy doors, it did move and she left to go to [witness A and B]. It is absolutely not true that she was frightened. She did leave because she could not handle an argument she had to go and leave and take the kids. The kids were not in any danger … .. the door was slammed shut and this happens in most marriage at some point – of ten years – did it upset [the mother] that I slammed the door? If it did upset her to the degree she decided to take the children and leave then she has a very specific way of getting upset.’

[66]Both [witness B and A] remembered the mother and children coming to stay with them for around a week after this incident. They recalled her having an injury to her finger. Both used the word ‘gouged’ to describe the injury, it was suggested that this similarity pointed to some collusion or fabrication. However, having heard their evidence and assessed them to have been reliable witnesses doing their best to assist the Court, I find that similarities in descriptions and words are more likely to have arisen because they had discussed the incident and the injury together, as would be expected if a close friend or relative had arrived to stay straight afterwards, and in the immediate aftermath of the incident had recounted what had happened.

[67]On 17 April 2021 the father sent an email to the mother, in which he wrote:

‘This is what I called to tell you. I apologise for my behaviour yesterday. I apologise for the whole week that was riddled with problems and very negative issues to deal with throughout. All I can say is that too much stress and projects to worry about had pent up and I could not function normally in the end. These 15-17 projects took all my energy and probably yesterday with another [name of family company] activation looming it was affecting me somewhere. A very sad state of affairs but all I can do is apologise on my behalf.’

[68]I find this email to be consistent with the father having lost his temper the previous day, and been unable to function normally, as described by the mother. It is difficult to square this email with the father’s account of a ‘normal argument’ following which the mother had over-reacted and left because she ‘could not handle an argument’. The father told me in evidence that he had sent this email because he was being ‘conciliatory’. He said, someone had to be the grown-up. I am not sure how conciliatory this email is. It starts with the mother being ‘told’. It does not ask after the mother, or her feelings, or about the children. The email does not suggest that there were issues between the parents that need to be resolved or discussed. It simply describes a situation in which the father had become stressed and ‘pent up’ and had not been able to control his emotions. The email does repeat an apology three times, but the tone is resigned; this is the state of affairs, there is no expressed intention of things being different in the future.

[69]Having regard to all the evidence I have heard and read in respect of this allegation, and notwithstanding the lack of detail about how the argument arose, I find it proved to the standard of a balance of probabilities.

[70]I find that the father’s response to the incident has minimised the extent to which he lost control, and shows a disregard for, or lack of insight into, the impact of his behaviour on both the mother and the children, who I find were present at the time. The father blames the mother, suggesting she is over-dramatic, over-sensitive and ‘cannot handle an argument’. I reject his analysis, and find that the mother’s actions in removing the children from the household were a proportionate response in order to safeguard hers and their welfare. 5/6 January 2022: [F’s home country]

[71]The family were staying at the paternal grandparents’ flat in [F’s home country]. The mother says in her statement she was ‘walking on eggshells’ that day. There was a plan to eat out that evening, the mother looked at the menu of the place the father was proposing and asked to go elsewhere as she is not a meat-eater, and she said the options for her were limited. She alleges the father said, ‘you are so fucking difficult because you don’t eat meat’ and raised his middle finger into her face.

[72]It is alleged that the mother left to go to the kitchen, the father then forcibly pushed past the mother with his torso and his hands, causing bruising to her chest and ribs. The next day, it is alleged that he followed her around, videoing her without her consent. It is alleged that he trapped her in between the bathroom door and physically fought her to remove his phone from her hand. It is alleged that he said, ‘you are stuck with me for life’ and ‘you are weak, I am strong’, and ‘I will show you. I will ruin you.’

[73]The father accepts that he showed the middle finger to the mother but says this was in retaliation to her insulting him. He says he left the table, and the mother ‘in a rage’ followed him into the next room and grabbed his throat with one hand. He admits to taking video footage of the mother, ‘but this was done with the intention of showing her family her behaviour. Mother took father’s phone from him and hedid allow her to get back his phone, during this altercation the father’s fingers were caught in the door.’ He denies pushing the mother.

[74]The father told the police that the mother was going into the toilet with his phone and as she was closing the door, he put his hand in between. He said to the police it was an accident that the door ‘smashed’ on his fingers. He says he then opened the door and took the phone from the mother.

[75]The father accepts he said the mother was so fucking difficult because she did not eat meat. He accepts that he also said to her, ‘you are weak, I am strong’, although he explained that he meant that he was more emotionally resilient and would be better able to rebuild his life if they were not together, rather than making any physical threat. I do not accept this, and find that he said this with reference to their respective physical strengths, in an attempt to intimidate her.

[76]He accepted that he took videos of the mother. When interviewed by the police ten days later he said that the videos showed her ‘erratic behaviour’ and that she was ‘completely out of control’. However, he has not disclosed such videos, and under cross-examination, conceded that they did not show that.

[77]The mother says the children were present during this altercation which took place at the table where they had been eating. She says she took the plates into the kitchen and was stacking the dishwasher when the father ‘smashed past me with all his weight’. She says she pushed him back and said words to the effect of don’t speak to me like that in front of the children.

[78]In his witness statement the father says that he had been attempting to book a vegetarian restaurant but the mother had become ‘irate’ and begun to insult him. He says he gave her the middle finger and left the room. He says the mother, ‘in blind rage followed me and grabbed me by the throat.’ He says that his brother was present in the flat and was able to diffuse the situation. He says the mother was ‘not remorseful for her actions but upset that a third party had witnessed her behaviour’. He says he recalls the mother mentioned she had a bruise on her chest but ‘she herself could not recall how she got this bruise’. He does not offer any other explanation for how it could have happened, but by mentioning it at this stage of his statement, appears to accept that it was something relevant to the incident.

[79]The father was asked about these events when he was interviewed by the police on 15 January 2022. He recounts how difficult it was to find suitable food for the mother because she does not eat meat, how kind and patient he was being to make suggestions, and that the wife wouldn’t say anything back to him, but then became ‘arsey’. He says she was annoyed because in her mind, he would have been making her look difficult. He does not suggest, although this interview was given relatively soon after the incident, that the mother became irate, or had insulted him at this point. The description is of her not saying anything back to him, which appears to have annoyed him. He said he gave her the middle finger and left the table, and she ran after him, and got him by the throat with her nails. He did then say the mother was shouting near his face.

[80]The mother has clearly and repeatedly said that she sustained a bruise because the father inflicted an injury upon her. A circular but diffuse light green bruise can be seen just to the right of the breast-bone in the photographs taken by the police ten days’ later.

[81]In his oral evidence the father said the mother, ‘caused the bruise to herself, she bumped into a door frame or bumped into something else’.

[82]The father has exhibited two separate photographs of his neck which show a couple of faint red scratches on the left side of his neck and in a separate photograph a larger area of red on the right side of his neck. The photographs are not dated, and it is not clear that they were taken at the same time. There is no photograph showing the whole neck. In cross-examination the mother says that she did put her hands out to defend herself against the father pushing into her with all his weight.

[83]Although the father has described the mother at times as an aggressor, he has not sought any findings against her. I make no findings in respect of the marks on the father’s neck exhibited by the father. However, I observe that if anything they appear to be consistent with a person reaching out with one hand to grab and try to maintain a distance between a person forcefully pushing towards them. The marks could be consistent with her right arm reaching forward as she faced him, and the thumb landing on the right side of the neck and fingers on the left.

[84]In his oral evidence, the father’s brother confirmed that, contrary to the father’s assertion to the police and in his witness statement, he was not a witness to this incident.

[85]On a balance of probabilities, I find it more likely than not that the mother’s account of these events is reliable. I find that it was the father who insulted her, by calling her ‘so fucking difficult’, and raised his middle finger to her face. I find that he lost his temper, she left the table first, not him, and the father followed after her into the kitchen, angrily confronting her face-on, and forcefully pushed into her, causing an injury at the centre of her chest.

[86]I find to the standard of a balance of probabilities that the father videoed the mother without her consent. That he trapped her in between the bathroom door and physically fought her to remove his phone from her hand. I am satisfied that mother’s recollection is reliable of the father saying to her, ‘you are stuck with me for life’ and ‘you are weak, I am strong’, and ‘I will show you. I will ruin you.’ 14 January 2022: incident leading to separation

[87]The pleaded allegation is that the father deliberately coughed and hissed in the mother’s face, even though he had tested positive for Covid-19. It is alleged that he lifted the mother up by the skin and bone of her left arm and elbow and thrust her down the upstairs landing, causing her injury. There is a typo in the pleading, but I believe the allegation is that the father said to J ‘I hate your mother’ and, ‘tell your mother this is now war.’

[88]In his response, the father admits there was an argument, and says they were both verbally abusive and derogatory to one another. He denies ‘deliberately hurting the mother’ (my emphasis). He says there was an altercation between the parties during which he pushed past the mother to get by whilst she was blocking his way. He says the mother attacked him, causing bruising to his chest.

[89]In her statement dated 5 July 2022 the mother recounts how she went to bed with K at 8.15 p.m., that she awoke at 10.30 p.m. and heard that the father and J were still downstairs watching a film. She says she went part-way downstairs and called to J to go to bed. She says the father told J to go straight to bed in his room and not bother her, but he did in fact come into her room and asked her to tuck him up and have a cuddle. The mother says that upon hearing this, the father ‘became completely irate and grabbed J’s Amazon Fire tablet and threatened, “if you don’t leave your mother alone, I will delete all of your games, I am deleting them now.”’

[90]The mother says J started to cry, and she told the father not to speak to a six year old in that way, and that in any event the father should have been self-isolating due to having Covid. She says the father responded by coming 1 cm away from her face, breathing forcefully all over her face, laughing and joking and saying, ‘now you have covid’. She says he then left to go and sleep in the spare room, slamming the door, and shouting, ‘J – I hate your mother.’

[91]She then recounts how she put J to bed, and then went to the spare room where the father was, and was about to ask him not to speak to her in that way in front of the children, but before she was able to do so, the father grabbed her ‘lifting me up by the skin and bone of my left elbow causing injuries’. She describes being ‘thrust’ backwards down the hallway and back into her bedroom, where K was sleeping. She says J came out of his room and saw this. She says the father ‘simply would not stop’, it is not clear from her statement exactly what she says he was doing, but I understand her to mean that he continued to be grabbing hold of her and pushing her away. The mother called her father, and his wife rang the police while the mother and her father were still on the call.

[92]The mother then packed clothes for her and the children and left the house. She says the father said to J that he did not need to listen to his mother and he did not need to leave the house if he didn’t want to. She says it was around 11.30 p.m. when they left.

[93]In his witness statements of 14 July 2022 and 6 January 2023, the father gives broadly similar accounts of the incident. He accepts that he and J were downstairs, and that it was past J’s bedtime, he says only ‘slightly’. He alleges that while the mother was putting J to bed, she said to J that he had a ‘shit father’ and that she shouted ‘fucking asshole’ in front of J (I am not sure where the father says he was at this time, I think still downstairs). The father says he then went to the spare bedroom to sleep, that J came to see him, but he told him to go to bed, and shortly after that the applicant came into the room and shouted abuse at him. He says in an attempt to diffuse the situation he tried to leave the room but the applicant stood in the way to stop him and as he tried to walk past her she stepped backward and hit her elbow. He suggests that she then, ‘launched at me scratching my hands and hitting me in the face and torso. In an attempt to stop the applicant I grabbed her arms to stop her punching and hitting me. Once I was able to distance myself from the applicant I left the room.’

[94]He confirms again that he grabbed the mother’s arms to restrain her and raises concerns about the mother’s mental health and what he describes as erratic behaviour.

[95]In his statement of 6 January 2023, he says he denies shouting at J, and ‘If I was shouting at the applicant it was in an attempt to calm her down and diffuse a difficult situation.’

[96]There is no response in any of these statements to the allegation of ‘breathing Covid’ in the mother’s face, nor in the formal response document.

[97]In a statement filed on 5 May 2023 the father describes a similar train of events with the mother then coming to the door of his room and shouting verbal abuse at him, telling him he had to be nicer to her in front of the children. He says that he asked her to leave, but then ‘in an attempt to diffuse the situation, I tried to leave the room, the applicant stood in the way to stop me and as I tried to walk past her, she was angry, waving her arms around.’ He says as he walked past her and into the hallway he believes she may have hit her arm on the door frame. He says she confronted him outside the master bedroom where she launched an attack on him, and it was at this point that he grabbed her arms to stop her punching and hitting him. He suggests that the applicant has punched him over forty times in the course of the marriage and that he only sought to defend himself.

[98]In the police interview, which was closer in time to the events, the father said that J had been downstairs with him watching a film, and that even though he knew it was time for bed, he said to J should we watch it to the end. At bedtime he told J to go straight to bed and not bother his mum. But he says, that what happened was that the mother came downstairs and she was not too happy with him still being awake. He says that he did say to J that if he didn’t go to bed he would have to remove the Star Wars game from the tablet, and the mother had not liked this.

[99]His description of the altercation at his bedroom was as follows:

‘[she] came and opened the door and she blocked the door with her body and she started to talk to me. She started to, she started to lecture me. She started to, she started to talk in a very negative, negative way. … So I got up and I wanted to leave the room. My wife was blocking the room. What I did is I went sideways, I kept my hands down. I did not push my wife. I moved myself through the door and our bodies did touch at that point.’

[100]He said that he walked into the main bedroom and the wife followed him and punched him to his left breast and to his left cheek. He says he then moved her, ‘holding her from her hands, her arms, to the side, right from me. .. And that is the occasion where I would suspect that she would have had a mark on her hand, on her arm. When she realised the mark, she called on her phone to her father.’

[101]He was shown photographs of injuries to the mother’s arms and was asked if they were caused by him. He responded, ‘this one, this one, if I have to, I grabbed [the mother]’s arms when I moved her after she had punched me. …. And if this are, these would be that kind of markings then that is it. ,But then if she fell in the corridor then that could be from, from the carpet. .. But that is not something that I have seen.’

[102]He was asked how the mother might have sustained injuries to her chest, as seen in photographs, showing a widespread reddening. He said that as he left the room that she was blocking, ‘our bodies touched each other’. He said, ‘if she fell at that point, at her own, on her own because, falling down, tripping, whatever that might be then that could be a cause but that is speculation because I don’t remember that.’

[103]The father’s account to the police, within hours of the incident, is consistent with the mother’s account in some key respects. His description of the argument around J’s bedtime is more consistent with the mother’s account than his later statements. His acknowledgement that their bodies connected in the doorway and that the way he held her arms could have caused the injuries seen in the photos is significant, even though he did then row back from that, by suggesting she might have fallen. As he made that proposition, he acknowledged that he had not seen such a thing happening, although on his account he was with her the whole time.

[104]There is a police transcript and audio recording of the 999 call from the mother’s stepmother to the police. Her husband, (maternal grandfather) is in the same room as her, and is on the phone to the mother at the same time. [Maternal stepmother] says the mother is terrified for her life, that the children are there and also terrified. She asks her husband what is happening and he reports, ‘she is black and blue. He kicked her in the head. She is on the floor.’In fact the maternal grandfather accepted in cross-examination that this was his imagination and the mother had not said that the father had kicked her in the head, nor was she on the floor. Both the maternal grandfather and [step-mother] described the sense of upset, fear and distress they felt while on the phone. They were clear in their recollection of hearing the children crying and in particular of hearing ‘daddy stop’.

[105]In a brief conversation between a police officer and the children, J said that ‘daddy pushed mummy’. This was not a formal ABE interview, but does add some further corroboration to the mother’s account. The mother was not present when this conversation was taking place.

[106]When asked about whether J had said, ‘dad please stop’ in the police interview, the father’s immediate response was, ‘I can’t say that he would have said that. I wouldn’t say that he did not say that. But he would also have said, ‘mum don’t stop’ And he would also have said that, that ‘mummy why did you go to him?’ is what he said when mummy came when I was sleeping.’ When asked to clarify whether he could neither confirm nor deny J having said ‘dad please stop’, he said ‘well, I deny him saying that .. yeah.’ The father did not initially deny it, but sought to deflect blame to the mother.

[107]I have seen a video and transcripts of the conversations that the mother had with the police very shortly after the incident outside on the roadside, and then at the police station. She is steady in her account, talking quite fast, but clearly. She is anxious about the father being arrested. She repeatedly says that she does not feel that she can go back to the house and this is because she does not want to encounter the father.

[108]I have seen photographs of the injuries to the mother’s arm. There is livid blue bruising over a wide area of her upper arm just above her elbow. These are not medical photographs with measurements but appear to be consistent in size with the imprint a hand would make if clasping or grabbing to hold the arm or push away. The upper half of the bruising contains a bright red irregular area, that looks almost like a very diffuse blood blister or a fresh graze. This is a serious injury, and I accept the mother’s evidence that it was extremely painful thereafter, and that she was worried that she had sustained a fracture.

[109]The father has been inconsistent in his evidence about where he says the mother attacked him, or how it was she sustained her injuries. He says he did not ‘deliberately’ cause them, but he has not given a clear account of how they were caused unintentionally. On the one hand he has said they are consistent with him ‘restraining her’, at other times he has suggested other causes. The father’s suggestions that the mother might have sustained this injury by hitting the door frame, by falling over, hitting the carpet, or by him brushing past her as he walked out of the bedroom are wholly implausible. Even he accepts that he did not see anything like that happen. He has not been clear about whether he says he was restraining her at the doorway to his bedroom or within the main bedroom.

[110]At 2.03 a.m. on 15 January 2022 the father sent his brother S an email in order to ‘protect himself’. At this point he had been contacted by the police but was yet to be interviewed. In the email he sets out a version of events, which is broadly consistent with what he then said to the police. He describes the argument around J’s bedtime. He describes the mother not letting him out of the door, ‘her typical way of making daily interactions physical’. He describes walking out of his bedroom ‘passing by her but without touching her with my hands’, her following him, she hit me first in my right cheek and continued raging. I moved her across the room whilst touching her arms.’

[111]The father told the police very shortly afterwards that he had been hit on his left cheek, not his right cheek. There is no account of being punched on the chest, or anywhere else.

[112]The descriptions of when he touched the mother are careful and describe quite gentle, non-confrontational actions. There is no description of a punch to the chest. The idea that it is the mother who is provoking and making their interactions physical is an odd concept if he was as he says, in bed in his room and she was at the doorway. The interaction became physical when he got up and moved towards her.

[113]Having regard to all the evidence, and applying the standard of a balance of probabilities, I find as follows:(i) The father was staying up with J past his bedtime, and he knew that this would displease the mother. Firstly, because he had covid and should have been self-isolating, secondly, because it was long past J’s bedtime;

(ii) He tried to tell J to go to bed without saying goodnight to his mother to avoid her being annoyed with him, when she had come down earlier to say it was time for bed;

(iii) He became annoyed when it became clear that the mother was awake, and J had been to see her to ask to be put to bed;

(iv) He did say to J that he would delete the game from his tablet – as he said to the police very shortly afterwards;

(v) I find that he did breathe Covid into the mother’s face as she alleges;

(vi) Once J was in bed, the mother did come to his bedroom door to remonstrate with the father. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not find that she was abusive to the father, but I find that he became angry and annoyed, and felt that she was ‘lecturing him’;

(vii) I find that he then came to the doorway and grabbed her strongly and violently by the arm and pushed her backwards down the hallway towards her own room. I reject his account given in oral evidence that he was the one who moved past her in the doorway, and that she then ran ahead of him and then chose to walk backwards in front of him all the way to her room. Firstly, because this was a new account not in any of his statements. Secondly, because it does not explain the significant injury that she sustained. Thirdly, because the context was that she was in his room, and he wanted her to go back to her room; he was pushing her away;

(viii) I find that he inflicted the injuries upon the mother’s arm that are seen in the photographs;

(ix) I find that he was shouting at her, not in an attempt to calm the situation down, but because he was angry and annoyed and was unable to control his own temper. I find that he did shout to J, ‘I hate your mother’, and ‘this is war’;

(x) The father maintains that he was acting in self-defence after the mother launched an assault at him. He has not made any formal allegation against her, nor has he said in his statements that he had previously been the victim of violent assaults by the mother about forty times, as he told the police. Having regard to the evidence that I have heard and read, I find that the father was the assailant, and the instigator of the attack upon the mother. I have seen the photographs of two faint small bruising injuries to his chest, but I do not know the date these photographs were taken. I am not satisfied to the standard of a balance of probabilities that these resulted from the mother punching him. He is not a credible witness.

(xi) I find that the mother left the house with the children because it was not safe for her or the children to remain there. Emotional and psychological abuse Videoing the mother

Emotional and psychological abuse

[114]It is alleged that between 2014 and 2022 the father repeatedly filmed the mother without her consent. It is alleged that the father would become abusive, incite the mother and then start to video her. The father threatened to use these videos to ‘destroy’ the mother.

[115]The father admits that he has recorded the mother, ‘to evidence her erratic and irrational behaviour’. In his response document he says, ‘on occasion the parties would have a disagreement the mother would fly into rages and become hysterical and she would later deny this. Father explained this behaviour to the mother’s family seeking their support but they did not accept this was true he therefore took videos when she behaved in this way.’

[116]The only example of such a video was taken of the mother in the car, on 21 October 2021.

[117]The mother’s account of this in oral evidence was that the family had spent the day in [town C], and had dinner in a pub. She says during dinner the father got up and abandoned her and the children, taking the money and her phone. He left for a couple of hours, she could not contact him. She was left with the children, she could not pay the bill and the car was gone.

[118]The father did not dispute that he had left the mother and children, but he said that he was not gone as long as she said. It is suggested that she provoked him into leaving because she raised her voice to him, was verbally abusive and acting irrationally. She denied this, and in any event, no particulars were put to her of what she was supposed to have said or done.

[119]The father did return to the pub. The children and mother got into the car and the father then took a video with his phone of them, as he was standing outside the car. The children are in the back seat, visibly distressed and crying. The mother is sitting in the front passenger seat, crying, clearly very upset and repeating that ‘she is done’.

[120]The mother is visibly upset, but she is neither erratic nor hysterical in the circumstances. She is not shouting any form of abuse at the father. His decision to film her, without any regard for her feelings or for the distress of his children is extraordinary, and constitutes emotional abuse.

[121]The father admits that he videoed the mother during the argument they were having in France, just before he left the family and travelled to Paris on his own.

[122]He admits that he was videoing the mother during the incident in [F’s home country] in early January 2022.

[123]I am satisfied that this allegation is proved.

[124]The father suggested in evidence that the mother had also relied on such tactics, mentioning in particular an audio recording made by the mother on 20 March 2022 when he attended at the family home.

[125]Having heard the mother’s evidence about this, and listened to the audio recording, I prefer the mother’s account of events. She said that the father came to the property on 19 March 2022 and made threats. He returned again on 20 March and came into the house, notwithstanding bail conditions were in place. I accept the mother’s evidence that she put the recording on in order to protect herself, and to evidence that he had come to the property in breach of his bail conditions. J is there doing his homework, he is present while this conversation takes place. The father says to the mother that he hopes they can talk things over and resolve matters, but his tone is overbearing rather than conciliatory, and at one point he says to the mother, ‘if you don’t come to your senses you will regret it’. They do have conversations about arrangements for the children, at this point the mother’s tone is resigned. At other points the mother does challenge him, they both call one another liars. Ultimately she is firm and clear that she does not wish to engage in the conversation and that she would like him to leave. 10 February 2020: birthday card

[126]It is alleged that the father threw an unwritten birthday card in the mother’s face and shouted, ‘you can write your own fucking card’. The father is alleged to have screamed, ‘fuck you’ at the mother, shown her the middle finger repeatedly, and called her a ‘mess’ and ‘an embarrassment’ for getting upset.

[127]The father admits that during an argument between the parties they ‘made derogatory comment to one another’, and says that in sadness and frustration he threw a birthday card on the floor. A thread of WhatsApp messages on the same date shows angry exchanges both ways during which reference was made to the father not giving the mother a birthday card.

[128]The father has on other occasions described the mother as being embarrassing. Again, he accepts the core element of this allegation. He does not give any specifics of what he says the mother is supposed to have said. The mother’s description of his conduct is consistent with descriptions of his behaviour at other times. Where there is a difference between her and the father, I regard her as the more reliable witness. I find this allegation proved on a balance of probabilities. 16 June 2020: bottle

[129]It is pleaded that the father threatened to smash a bottle in the sink if the mother spoke one more word, and that he did then smash the bottle. It is alleged that he threatened to put a knife through a canvas painting. It is alleged that he banged on the floor shouting, ‘if you ever leave me, I will destroy you’. that he said, ‘I had a dream where you were dead and that was nice’. Finally, it is alleged that the father ‘force-fed’ J, and forced him to remain at the table for hours against his will.

[130]This last part is considered below, together with other allegations about J.

[131]The mother has given an account of each of these matters in her witness statements, consistent from the outset of proceedings.

[132]In his original witness statements, the father said the allegation about the smashed bottle was ‘entirely false’ and ‘did not take place’. In his response to the schedule, including to the revised schedule dated 25 April 2024, the father said these allegations were ‘false and denied’. He denied smashing a bottle in the sink and says he never threatened to use a knife to damage a painting. He does accept that he told the mother he had a dream in which she was dead, but this was not said in a mean or sinister manner.

[133]The mother later produced screenshots of messages between the mother and father on 2 August 2020, when he had left the family while they were on holiday together, to travel to Paris alone.

[134]The father wrote, ‘First the bottle. This is unacceptable but it’s not part of this so much. The bottle represents the danger that can come forth.’

[135]In his witness statement of 16 May 2024, the father says of ‘the bottle incident’, ‘in all honesty I cannot recall this incident. On a single occasion, I inadvertently shattered a bottle of perfume in the bathroom, neither the applicant nor the children were present. I have a vague memory of the incident, the exact date eludes me.’

[136]The inference I draw from this message is that the father acknowledged his behaviour was ‘unacceptable’ and therefore unlikely to be an accident, and that in referencing the ‘danger that can come forth’, I find that he was referring to the consequences of crossing him. I accept the mother’s account that the father said if she said ‘one more word’ he would smash the bottle.

[137]In cross-examination the father accepted that he might at some point during ten years of marriage have used the words, ‘I will destroy you’. He also recalled one occasion when he had dropped a perfume bottle in the sink in the master bedroom, but said that it was an accident, he had not picked up a bottle and smashed it.

[138]The text message and the father’s last-minute recollection of this event undermine the father’s firm early statements, confirmed in his response to the schedule of allegations that this did not happen.

[139]I have not been taken to any evidence about a threat to slashing the painting and do not make any findings in this respect. However, I am satisfied to the standard of a balance of probabilities that each of the other elements of this allegation are proved. 4 July 2020: verbal abuse/ignoring the mother

[140]It is alleged that the father shouted at the mother that she was good for nothing and the only thing she had done well was give birth to J and K. The father screamed at the mother that he wished she was dead. The father refused to acknowledge the mother for one week thereafter.

[141]The father admits that they ‘have said hurtful things to one another’. He says the mother will ‘lash out verbally and physically towards father’ whereas he prefers to leave the room to diffuse the situation. The father does not deny saying any of the things pleaded. He has not sought any findings of physical or verbal abuse against the mother.

[142]I find that the father’s refusal to acknowledge the mother is consistent with previous behaviour of leaving the mother and children, he says ‘to diffuse’ a situation, but I find it a means of isolating and undermining her.

[143]This allegation is proved to the standard of a balance of probabilities. 2 August 2020: leaving the mother and children on holiday

[144]On 1 August 2020, the parties were staying with the maternal grandmother in France en-route to a holiday with members of the maternal family in [European country]. The parents went out for a drink, leaving the children with the maternal grandmother. The mother returned early as they had argued. The father had complained about the maternal grandfather, the mother had retorted with a complaint about the paternal grandfather. The mother returned to the maternal grandmother’s home, followed by the father, who overheard the mother and maternal grandmother repeating the same complaint about the paternal grandfather. A further argument ensured, during which time the father filmed the mother and maternal grandmother on his phone.

[145]The father slept the night in the family car, then on the morning of 2 August, drove the family car to [X] station (with the pram in the car), left the car in the car park and boarded a train to Paris where he stayed for a few days. The mother alleges that he left her with no money.

[146]The father accepts that this happened but says he left to ‘diffuse’ the situation.

[147]He accepts that he threw his wedding ring in the direction of the mother in the morning.

[148]On the morning of 2 August 2020 the mother and father had an exchange by text message. The father said he was going home ‘to sort out my matters’, and that he did not want to speak to her. The mother asked where the parking ticket was: M: can you drive back? M: I’m lost [father’s name] M: you are acting like a madman

[149]The father responded: F: Parking ticket in the car F: I don’t think you have any idea who you are dealing with M: why do you say that? F: I’m not a hysterical female. This is [.. text cut off ] .. how it is to do it without me. F: It does good for you F: A month or two of this F: You need to learn M: what do you want F: You only learn by doing this F: This absolutely needed to happen F: You need to learn how the world works M: learn what M: How the world works M: What do you mean F: You need to look into the abyss and be fearful Fearful of what you could loose M: is that a threat?

[150]The father says that he responded ‘no’. He says that in this exchange he was encouraging the mother to ‘self-reflect’, ‘to look at herself and her actions’, or risk losing what she had. At this particular point, it is difficult to see what actions the mother was supposed to be reflecting upon. The father is the one who had abandoned the mother with the children on their family holiday and travelled alone to Paris. In these messages, he tells her she underestimates him as she ‘has no idea who she is dealing with’, he implies she is a ‘hysterical female’ who needs to learn how hard life would be for her without him. He is telling her that she should be fearful of the situation she may find herself in.

[151]At 12.44 p.m. on 2 August the father emailed the mother, attaching screenshots of messages between the mother and her sister [D]. This followed a number of emails sent by him earlier that day. He wrote:

‘I will NEVER forgive you this and the way it will be used against me. And especially the way it makes me look. Like a physically abusive husband that is completely untrue. I have kept my mouth shut for all these years but you involve EVERYONE. You’ve asked for this so now everyone will be involved. Expect all hell break loose now. Please do speak to everyone in your family. Feel free since I feel free to do so. Finally I get to speak my mind and put my point of view across. It will be liberating to get everything off my mind.’

[152]The father accepts that he took money out of the [redacted] investment account, around 10,000 euros, and that the mother then borrowed money from [witness B].

[153]On 4 August 2020 at 8.43 a.m. the father was in Paris. He emailed the mother to ask if she was leaving for [European country] that day, ‘I’m checking out shortly and need to plan my next leg of the trip.’ At 10.07 a.m. he emailed again, ‘If I don’t hear back from you I’m taking the 1753 train to Biarritz for a beach break. Paris has been great but I crave for a change.’

[154]The situation calmed down. On 6 August 2020 the father texted the mother saying, ‘seriously speaking I recognise that I need to get a marital communication course with you to avoid situations. I have a personality trait that needs tackling for the better of the whole family.’

[155]In the early hours of the morning on 7 August he wrote, ‘But yes I know its all shit loads of emotionally strong messages coming at you. I can see that it looks like the works of a mad person. A schizophrenic.’

[156]The father did re-join the family on their holiday.

[157]In this instance, as well as when he left the family in [town C], the father’s decision to take the family car and leave the mother and children without explanation, and leaving the mother with no money or means of contacting him, falls within the definition of controlling behaviour in that it isolated the mother from financial means needed for her independence, but it caused emotional damage too. It left her abandoned, confused, embarrassed and humiliated and, in her words, ‘lost’.

Mother’s mental health

[158]The father and his parents have stated in their evidence that they believe the mother to have narcissistic personality disorder or to have schizophrenia or to be bipolar. They confirmed their views in their witness statements and oral evidence. The foundation for their belief appears to be the mother’s interests in spirituality, yoga, reiki and similar. Further, they regard her conduct in bringing proceedings against the father and making allegations against him as the actions of a fantasist or a liar. It appears that they have together contemplated that the only rational explanation is poor mental health.

[159]In a more sinister way, in discussions within a closed WhatsApp group, the father, his brother S and their parents, have discussed their views of the mother’s mental health, and contemplated the thought that if her mental health deteriorated, she may not be able to care for the children, thus enabling the father to take over and thereby regain ‘custody’. At other times, they consider that if she were unable to stay in the family home, this may trigger a deterioration in her mental health.

[160]There are discussions about telling the police that the mother has mental health issues. The father told the police this on 15 January 2022, and that her behaviour was erratic and out of control.

[161]On 4 February 2022 within the WhatsApp chat the paternal grandmother directed the father to an online article about the symptoms of bipolar disorder, concluding, you said that behaviour has changed within the last six months. Read and think?

[162]The paternal grandfather says, if the police call S, he ‘could say that he is concerned about [the mother]. Acute illness under high pressure is possible’.

[163]The paternal grandmother contributes, ‘[the mother] could have developed bipolar disorder. …. In my opinion, S should say at the end of the interview or at an appropriate opening: I am a doctor, [the mother] has sought help from prayer groups hypnotherapists, etc. As a doctor, I believe she should seek help from a psychiatrist.’

[164]The father says, ‘yes, it would probably be good if it could happen this way.’

[165]The paternal grandmother warms to her theme:

‘I’ve been contemplating: when you go to [town where family lived together], should you schedule an appointment with the doctor [the mother] visited? You would describe about the mirror purchases, buying a table with [paternal grandfather’s] money, crying, insomnia, and, that over the last six months, she has changed in a strange direction. Should the doctor be encouraged to visit???? I mean there, at the doctors, so that she would get some kind of possible treatment. It’s clear that [the mother] needs some kind of treatment, but what?? Yes a relative can go to talk in such a situation. You can mention that 3 relatives are doctors and have been contemplating the matter.’

[166]At this point the father does have the grace to say, ‘NO NO NO’, ‘Complete manipulation. I’m going to prison again.’

[167]In the event however, conversations about the mother’s mental health continued, and on 23 March 2022 S did tell the police that the mother had anger management issues, and that, as a doctor, his recommendation was that she should seek medical help. The father raised the mother’s mental health as a concern to the police, to the Cafcass reporter, and within his evidence in these proceedings.

[168]On 27 August 2022 the paternal grandfather wrote in the WhatsApp group that the diagnosis about the mother, ‘is beginning to strengthen. In my opinion she is a paranoid schizophrenic.’ He highlights her ‘belief’ that the paternal grandparents were planning to abduct the children to [F’s home country], that they were intending to install surveillance devices at the family home. He cites an apparent belief that she has ‘healing abilities, shaman or witch-doctor abilities’, says that she is delusional when she says the father is dangerous to the children, and is ‘completely misguided about the family’s financial matters’. He goes on, ‘should we as doctors and [the father] as her husband, intervene in this matter? She should be forced into treatment. But how? …. Or should we just wait and see? My guess is that she’ll descend into psychosis and eventually end up in a mental hospital. This would solve the custody issue in [the father’s] favour in one fell swoop. [the mother] could completely lose her mind in the heat of the legal proceedings.’

[169]He then contemplates, ‘or should we pour more fuel on the fire? Intensify pressure on her regarding loan payment issues, contact visitations with the children and the like. How will she react when she is forcibly evicted from the house?’

[170]There is no evidence to justify a finding that the mother has mental health issues or any diagnosis of the kind envisaged and discussed with apparent relish by the paternal family. There is some evidence of her experiencing some depression and anxiety as a direct response to the situation she found herself in the few months leading up to the parents’ separation.

[171]A letter from her general practitioner dated 30 March 2023 confirms that she saw her doctor on 8 October 2021 having suffered a panic attack, attributed to stress from marital problems making her feel low and anxious. She was prescribed 50mg sertraline, and propranolol for panic attacks, but didn’t start either. Her symptoms were poor sleep, feeling low, and generally feeling anxious.

[172]At follow-up on 29 October 2021 she was feeling over all better and had not had any more panic attacks. She did then start the sertraline.

[173]On 22 November she was noted to be tearful and had not noticed much benefit of the medication.

[174]On 10 December 2021 she was feeling more stable, had not needed to take the Propranolol for panic attacks, and her mood and sleep were improved. However on 13 December she complained to her general practitioner of indigestion and on the GP’s advice, stopped the sertraline as she advised this was likely a side effect of the medication. She was reviewed a year later and it was noted that she had not needed either Sertraline or propranolol since stopping in December 2021. The doctor confirmed that the mother’s symptoms would not have had any effect on her judgement or cognitive functioning.

[175]The allegation that the father has made ‘false allegations about the mother’s mental health’ is proved to the standard of a balance of probabilities. The father’s ‘belief’ that the mother has a diagnosable mental health condition is not based upon any objective medical evidence. It is common for a perpetrator of domestic abuse to allege that the victim is crazy, unstable, or having a mental health crisis. I find that to be a feature of this case.

Allegations in respect of the father’s parenting of J

[176]On 3 February 2021 the parents had a text exchange highlighting their different views about parenting J. The father says that he and the mother have different parenting styles, and he uses appropriate means of discipline and boundary setting. The mother says that the father’s approach has been damaging to J, and goes beyond a strict parenting style to abuse.

[177]As part of the allegation of events on 16 June 2020 the mother alleges that the father ‘force-fed J and forced J to remain at the table for hours against his will’.

[178]The father does not recall any dates but admits that he does insist J finish the food on his plate. He said J was not ‘completely distraught’ as the mother alleges, but J simply did not want to eat his food.

[179]The paternal grandmother was asked about this in cross-examination. She was asked if the father was someone who could get annoyed or angry with the children. She said only in the way that any parent would be annoyed or angry with their children if they were misbehaving, refusing to eat, or anything like that. She was asked then if she had seen the father be annoyed or angry with J with food. There was a long pause, before she answered by saying she did not remember. It was notable that she was the one who introduced the idea of the father getting annoyed or angry with his children for refusing to eat, but then said she had no memory of such a thing. After some further questions, she remembered a time when J was two or three in a high chair, ‘refusing to eat’. She then described the situation as one where the mother had failed, was incapable of setting any boundaries and letting the situation carry on and the father would pull the high chair away from the table and say enough is enough.

[180]The mother has exhibited a chain of messages from her sent on 22 May 2019 in which she says, ‘which part is not clear’, ‘its child cruelty’, ‘and abuse’, ‘over a stupid piece of broccoli’, ‘I don’t want you touching him again in an aggressive way’. She suggests the government is considering banning smacking and making it a chargeable offence, and writes, ‘smacking just means you’re not in control cos the only power you can demonstrate is that you have physical superiority over your child’.

[181]On 16 June 2020 she sends the father a message in which she tells him she will call a nutritionist, and says, ‘this approach is harmful and wrong’. In her witness evidence she says that this was following an incident when the father made J stay at the table and force-fed him his dinner.

[182]It is alleged that on 1 March 2020 the father repeatedly swore in front of the children and said to J, ‘your mother is a massive liar’ five times in row. The father admits that he has on one occasion called the mother a liar in J’s presence, but denies repeatedly swearing in front of the children.

[183]A number of the incidents that have formed part of the schedule have taken place in front of the children. The parents have argued in the children’s presence and argued about parenting issues in front of the children as they have arisen. I find it more likely than not that the father would have sworn at the mother in front of the children as well as raise his middle finger to her and call her a liar.

[184]It is alleged that on 28 September 2020 the father physically hurt J by pulling J roughly up to his bedroom, causing an injury to his chest.

[185]The father denies causing injuries, and says J is a young active child and there are many ways he could have injuries or bruising.

[186]The mother has exhibited a photo labelled with the date 28 September in which two red marks to the right side of J’s chest are seen but it is difficult to identify what they are.

[187]On a balance of probabilities and having considered each part of the evidence in the context of the whole, I am satisfied that each of the allegations under this heading is proved. The mother’s clear evidence in her witness statements sets out each of the incidents, and the contemporaneous evidence of her messages to the husband raising her concern, add weight to that evidence. The evidence from members of the maternal and paternal family about the father’s parenting style in general has added weight and context to the mother’s evidence. Post-separation conduct Harassment and intimidation in breach of the non-molestation order

Post-separation conduct

[188]During the summer of 2022 the father was spending time with the children, but this contact was supported by either the maternal grandmother or [witness B], married to the mother’s cousin, and a witness in this case.

[189]I accept the evidence of the maternal grandmother that she felt harassed by the level of calls and messages that she received from the father both before during and after he was spending time with the children. She said there were hundreds of messages.

[190]Between 30 July and 27 August 2022 Ms Chaudhry says the father sent 604 messages to the maternal grandmother, and received 335 back from her. The maternal grandmother was not shy of levelling criticism at the father, but in general her messages are short and to the point. The father often sent a barrage of repeated and lengthy messages, which were not confined to arrangements for the children but included reference to the criminal proceedings, the family court proceedings, money issues, and reports made to social services about the children in their mother’s care.

[191]On 7 September 2022, the police record notes that the mother reported that her mother was receiving lots of emails and texts from the father in relation to the divorce and family matters and these were unwanted. The police records themselves note that in April 2022 the father, ‘has been bombarding the [officer in charge] with emails and text messages in relation to this ongoing offence and the latest is to do with his wife sending him a solicitor’s letter.’

[192]The maternal grandmother told me ‘it was outlandish – the volume of messages - a non-stop barrage of messages coming through – it is not my divorce – I seem to have been used as a sounding ground for [the father]’s complaints …. It was an awful time and I felt quite upset that I was being used like this to be honest.’

[193]Her evidence is corroborated by the messages themselves. On 30 July 2022 she said to the father, ‘do you think that sending me 34 messages is a rational action?’ The father replied within seconds, ‘how do you mean?’ He then sent a further four messages within the space of two minutes; ‘What is irrational about communicating? There is nothing untoward about this. There are no rules that are in place for me to message you to clarify where we are. / What is irrational is not to communicate and let things progress on magical terms. / these communications relate simply to practical arrangements that are most likely muddled. ‘ I do not need a response nor am I requesting a response.’ None of these messages is in itself offensive. However, as a response to the maternal grandmother’s initial text, the father is making clear that he intends to send messages as and when he sees fit. Some of the messages to her have a berating tone, for example she referred in her evidence to messages in which he told her that her conduct was‘sinful’ against J. She said he told her that ‘if there was a God he would know what you have done against my son and when he is older I will tell him your agenda.’

[194][Witness B] agreed to act as the intermediary to pass on messages between the father and mother about contact. He said, ‘it became murder – I got a text, I had to cut it, get [the mother]’s details out, and paste it, and before that another three or four would come – he lives on a computer – he’s ten times faster than me, I couldn’t keep up. There was emails and emails – coming through so fast and furious.’ He accepted that if the mother didn’t respond it might be reasonable for the father to chase, but he said that wasn’t what has happening, the father wanted an immediate response, and there were a lot of messages; ‘we are talking tons’. [witness B]’s evidence was that the messages went beyond arrangements for contact, and included messages telling him to get the mother to vacate court hearings, to look at spreadsheets and financial information, and to drop the criminal proceedings, [witness B] said, ‘either in a WhatsApp or an email he asked me to vacate and to drop all cases because of the money and the children – and verbally – I was [on holiday abroad] he’d talk to me on the phone, everything I said he ignored and he wanted me to get her to drop it. He wanted to give me spreadsheets and he was talking about money money. … He said he didn’t want to have the tag of being a criminal – it was a matter for her own conscience whether she wanted to pursue those allegations – he said he’d end up being a criminal it wouldn’t be good for him and his earning capacity and it would not be good for the children to have a daddy with a criminal conviction.’

[195]The non-molestation order did not prevent the father from contacting the mother, but he was subject to bail conditions at this point, which did. Further, the order of the Family Court made on 7 July 2022 expressly reminded the father that ‘only necessary communications, for the purposes of arranging handover dates and times, or in the event of any delay or emergency, should be sent to the third party.’ That third party was [witness B], or the maternal grandmother in his absence.

[196]I accept the evidence of both [witness B] and the maternal grandmother that the father’s communications went far beyond this in volume, frequency and content. In sending such a volume of messages, emails, WhatsApp’s and through his other communications, which went beyond arrangements for the children. The impact was to cause stress and upset to the maternal grandmother, and to [witness B], but above all it conveyed a repeated message to the mother that the father did not regard himself as bound by rules or a need to conform to requests to moderate his output.

Threats on 27 August

[197]By 27 August 2022 the father was subject to bail conditions and a non-molestation order. The first hearing in the Children Act proceedings was due on 13 September and the criminal trial listed for November 2022.

[198]The mother alleges that in a conversation with the mother on 27 August 2022, the father said he would, ‘need to lock and load up the cannons – get the biggest, baddest barrister to shoot a rocket up your arse in the next week if this doesn’t disappear.’

[199]The father admits to using these words.

[200]He admits that he said something along the lines of ‘the cost of legal proceedings will ruin everyone financially’,but cannot recall his specific words. The mother recalls him saying that if she continues the proceedings, he will ensure that she will become bankrupt and homeless.

[201]The father accepts that in reference to the paternal grandparents, he told the mother, ‘you have no idea who you are fucking with’.

[202]He accepts that he said to the mother, ‘how long do you think you have left in the house?’ She says he told her that he would ensure she and the children were forced out of the house, and that he said he would ensure his parents took legal action against her.

[203]The father denies he said he would ensure she and the children were forced out of the house. He denies that he threatened her with his parents’ legal proceedings as described. However, within a week the paternal grandparents had sent a solicitors’ letter to the mother. It is now known that the father and his parents were in fact having discussions exactly on these lines.

[204]I find that the mother’s recollection of this conversation is reliable and I find each of the allegations proved. 15 December 2022: approaching mother’s car

[205]The mother was parked outside K’s school. The father approached the car and banged on the window, opened the door and threw in a package with a headpiece for J’s costume for a school play he needed later that day. The father denied that this was intimidating or threatening. However, a non-molestation order was in place at that time. There was no need for him to give the headpiece to the mother, he could have left it at reception. The mother had no idea about the headpiece issue, there had been no prior arrangement for the father to hand it over.

[206]In the circumstances it is understandable that she would have been alarmed by him approaching in this way and banging on the window.

[207]This allegation is proved. 19 December 2022: attending mother’s home

[208]By arrangement the father had been taking J and K to swimming lessons. There was no lesson on 19 December. The father’s solicitors had written to the mother seeking her agreement to the father taking K swimming in any event. The father did not receive a response from the solicitors, but chose to turn up to the house anyway. The mother says that when she came out the father shouted that ‘she needed to get a fucking job’ and that he remained parked on the driveway for some time. The father suggests he said only that she should ‘pay for your kids’.

[209]That the mother is not working has been a consistent source of anger to the father and his extended family. It was a theme that was revisited a number of times.

[210]On a balance of probabilities I prefer the mother’s account of this event. 30 August 2022: car being keyed

[211]On 30 August 2022 the father borrowed the family car and returned it with a key mark all down the bodywork. The father accepted that he borrowed the car and that it was damaged in his care.

[212]However, that is not sufficient to establish to the standard of a balance of probabilities that the father caused the damage to the car.

Ongoing use of PR to continue his abuse and control

[213]The allegation is in general terms. It is said that the father has used his parental responsibility to continue his abuse and control of the mother, by sending repeated messages which are often several pages long, demanding lots of information and making unreasonable requests. This includes repeated requests or demands about the children’s extra-curricular activities.

[214]In response the father says that the mother decides when he sees the children, does not provide any information to him about the children, and has prevented him from joining the class WhatsApp group, where information and updates are shared about school events and activities. He says that any involvement he has with the school, even if he attends to watch his children perform, are met by the mother saying she is being stalked, threatened, harassed or intimidated.

[215]On 27 November 2023 the father notified the mother ‘to seek my consent and approval of any activities the children partake as both parents have parental responsibility’

[216]In cross-examination the father accepted that he attended the school and children’s activities on days that he was not due to spend time with the children, to go to the Christmas fete, school plays, assemblies or sports matches. Having found out that K was in a drama performance, the mother said that the father went to some lengths to contact the organisation to arrange for him to attend.

[217]While the father accepts that this happened, he said he was within his rights to do this. He was not prevented from attending the children’s school by an order. It was not just a matter of courtesy for him to inform the mother and the children’s teachers in advance. More than that, while the non-molestation order was in force he should have taken steps to ensure that turning up to school did not put him at risk of breaching the order or the conditions. However, apart from the allegation about approaching the mother’s car when she was outside school, which I have found proved, no other specific allegations have been made.

[218]I have been taken to some of the emails and messages, some of which are wordy. In the absence of specific allegations, I cannot take this any further and make no findings under this head.

Financial abuse

[219]The parties are involved in separate financial remedies proceedings. As part of those proceedings, the court is due to resolve questions about the paternal grandparents’ interest in the family home and a London flat. In due course, the court may need to resolve issues about the income generated and the value of the parties’ business, and look at the parties’ respective incomes and earning capacities. In this judgment I am not trespassing on those matters, but, in order to consider the allegations of financial abuse that have been made, have set out those basic facts which are not challenged.

[220]The mother and father were joint directors and equal shareholders in a marketing business called [X] Ltd, set up in 2013. Prior to separation they were receiving dividends of £5,000 a month. The accounts for 2021 to 2022 show a £91,000 profit.

[221]Following separation, the mother received dividends of £1832.23 on 24 January 2022, and £1,500 in February 2022, but then nothing until she received £1800 in September 2022. She was receiving £1,350 a month for work she was doing for a client of the company on a freelance basis up until June 2022. This was by agreement to enable the client to avoid paying VAT.

[222]The father says he continued to take a salary from the business, but spent it on the family and household expenses.

[223]The family home was purchased with an alleged loan of £1.2 million provided to the mother and father by the paternal grandparents. The status of this loan is one of the issues to be determined at the preliminary issues hearing in August 2024. The father and his parents assert that the monies were subject to a binding loan agreement, whereas the mother asserts that the advance of monies was a family arrangement whereby the father’s inheritance was received in a tax-efficient way.

[224]The father owns a flat in London, purchased before the marriage. There is a Deed of Trust between the father and his parents (80% to the parents and 20% to the father). The true ownership of the flat is the second issue in the financial remedies proceedings. The father and his parents seek a declaration that the Deed of Trust is binding, whereas the wife says that the Deed is a ‘deed in the drawer’, and the father is the sole beneficial owner. That property was let out to tenants, and the rent received was paid to the father, who used it to pay the paternal grandparents, on behalf of both him and the mother, in repayment of the alleged house loan. The father did not make those payments after January 2022. Since April 2022, the rental money has been paid directly to the paternal grandparents.

[225]On 14 January 2022, the day of separation, the paternal grandfather had contacted the mother, offering to make gifts to the children form him and the paternal grandmother of just under £20,000. This represented an amount that could be invested tax free. In the event the parents then separated and these gifts were not made. The paternal grandfather said that the bank had needed some papers to be signed, but by then he no longer wished to be in contact with the mother, and he suspects that she would have taken that money for her own use, and not for his son’s use.

[226]On 19 February 2022, the father discussed with his family on the WhatsApp group the possibility of transferring his savings to ‘a pension-type fund in [F’s home country], then it could be argued here in the UK that it’s a pension that, to my understanding, cannot be accessed.’ The father says that he had savings of 33,000 euros in a management fund in [F’s home country] of which he withdrew 10,000 euros in August 2020 when he went to Paris.

[227]The next day, the father said, ‘The [motther’s family] thought I’d be in prison within a week. Now there’s a delay of two months. Two months in the warmth of [country name redacted]. The children’s holiday money has been used for this. Great thing! They are the [redacted] family. I’ll shed some light on this family dynamic through money.’

[228]In or around May 2022 the father loaned the remaining 23,000 euros as an investment in the paternal grandfather’s company, [Y]. This is a start-up company for the development and marketing of a medical device. Together with his father and brother, he is a joint investor.

[229]In April 2022 the father told his family members on their WhatsApp group that he had told K’s nursery that the mother would be paying the next bill. He said, ‘apparently 1990 pounds are needed, so she can think about what to do and learn how money works. And maybe think about how all these things have magically worked out before.’ He goes on to say that what gives him ‘satisfaction’ is seeing the ‘tight negotiations’ the mother’s family would be in to give financial support to the mother. The father then sends a link to a newspaper article entitled, ‘energy chiefs fear 40% of Britons could fall into fuel poverty in truly horrific winter’. He says, ‘here’s more cause for concern.’ Given the context of the conversation, his sarcasm is evident. His mother replies, ‘not important’.

[230]On 5 May 2022 the father informed his family that the mother had applied for divorce. He said, this probably means she is trying to obtain ‘full custody’, and a restraining order. He said, ‘I need to ask the lawyer if its’ possible to send an enquiry about the loan repayment query. … Now it’s a good idea to transfer my savings to Lasse (younger brother) and to organise the [London flat] through you.’ He goes on, ‘[dad], if you fan facilitate the transfer of savings, I’ll take care of the [London flat] stuff over the weekend.’

[231]His mother responds by referencing a television programme about ‘Britain’s distress’, dealing with the hardship caused by the rising cost of food, energy and other necessities.

[232]On 12 May 2022, the father writes in the WhatsApp group:

‘Tomorrow morning, we’ll draft an email that will make [the mother] really upset.’

In the course of this conversation, he refers to being in a ‘game’ and reflects, ‘we could not have played this much better so far’.

[233]On 13 May 2022, he contemplates ‘whether it’s worth developing my own company if someone then tries to get their hands on it.’

[234]On 28 May 2022 the father wrote in the family WhatsApp chat, ‘we are strong in financial matters and financial matters then affect the custody issue.’ On the same day, the paternal grandparents wrote to the mother asking for her proposals in respect of repayment of the alleged loan, in respect of which they said she had defaulted. Chasing emails were sent in June 2022.

[235]On 30 May 2022 the father writes in the WhatsApp chat that ‘destiny interferes with the game’. He notes that the marketing client of the mother’s had cancelled a contract with her, losing her income of £1,350 a month. He describes it as, ‘a catastrophic scenario for [the mother]’, and repeats again, ‘destiny steps into the game’. He notes that the client was originally his contact, that this is something he had been expecting, but that it will be ‘a tough spot’ for the mother. The paternal grandfather replies that she will now see what it’s like to be without her own money.

[236]In July 2022 the paternal grandparents wrote two emails to the mother, asking for her to make arrangements for them to see the children. In the second email, dated 10 July 2022, they informed her that they had lodged an application with the Courts in [F’s home country] for their right to see their grandchildren to be recognised. At the same time they said they had made two calls to the [father’s home country] child protection authorities that day, were intending to travel to England shortly, and if they did not hear from her, they would be contacting the English child protection authorities. In the same letter, they say that the mother has ‘knowingly prevented [the father] from seeing his children for 4 months know. You should think about what is best for your children. A good mother does not prevent the children from seeing their loving father or grandparents. Do you just think of your own agenda? It’s obvious that J’s and K’s best interest is to see their father. You continue to harm and damage J’s and K’s sense of security and their mental health.’

[237]At this time, the father had been out of the country for four months, so he had not been present to see his children. The bail conditions in place did not prevent him from seeing them and the mother had not refused this.

[238]Once he returned to the UK in July 2022 and found accommodation for himself, the father says that he could no longer afford to pay any maintenance to the mother. He has said that he paid all household expenses until October 2022 and other costs until December 2022. He says that the mother, as a qualified lawyer, could easily find work should she choose to.

[239]On 23 July 2022 the paternal family WhatsApp group had a discussion about the father’s search for a rental property. The paternal grandmother again referenced high heating costs in England and said, ‘[the mother] will have to bear the cost of heating a large house’, and ‘she can’t live there [in the family home]’. She repeats, ‘Yes, it will take about six months. [the mother] can’t afford to cover the expenses of the house. That’s the best way to get [the mother] out of there. … Then you can move in. … The best way to get in there yourself is to transfer the costs to [the mother].’ The father says, ‘Smoking [the mother] out from [the family home] is a long process’

[240]The father set up a new company, [X] Consulting Limited, on 1 August 2022. In his response to the schedule of allegations he says, ‘the mother was blocking and resisting father’s decisions regarding the day-to-day running of the business’. He says the mother’s involvement with the business was limited before 2022, and she had previously used company funds to pay for personal items.

[241]He told his family in the WhatsApp group on 1 August 2022, that ‘financial freedom is coming, and it seems there won’t be a financial statement either before 30.03.2023. It’s not advisable to take a lot of salary or dividends.’

[242]On 22 August 2022 in the WhatsApp chat the father said he had sent a letter to the mother that the company was going to cease its operations and the cleaning service, among other things, will stop. He says, that ‘this game’ is getting on his nerves. The paternal grandfather asks, so the mother ‘did not withdraw the legal proceedings’. The father says he is ‘pissed off’¸ and ‘nothing is working’. His father responds, ‘In a divorce situation, human ruthlessness is revealed. You are not the first one to experience this. Victory is ours! …. The children are coming back to you and to us.’ The father responds, ‘let’s continue like this then [mother’s name].’

[243]On 27 August 2022 the paternal family WhatsApp chat discusses their views of the mother’s mental health, in the messages already set out above at paragraphs 159 to 169.

[244]On 2 September 2022, the mother received a letter of claim from the paternal grandparents’ solicitors indicating their intention to bring proceedings against her for repayment of the alleged loan.

[245]The information the father submitted to the Child Maintenance Service is that his income is now £12,500 a year. This has resulted in a substantial reduction in the payments received by the mother. He says this is an accurate reflection of his financial situation post-separation.

[246]When it was put to the paternal grandfather that, together with the father, he and his wife had sought to arrange their financial affairs so as to reduce the mother’s claims on them, he said firstly, that the WhatsApp messages were private and had been stolen by [the mother]. Secondly, that the mother had it within her own power to earn as much money as she wants, that she should go out to work for herself and not try to benefit from other people’s money. The evidence from the paternal grandmother and from the father was the same.

[247]Turning to consider each of the allegations. (1). The father told the maternal grandmother that he would ensure that the mother would impoverish and bankrupt herself as a result of her initiating proceedings against him.

[248]I found the maternal grandmother to be a reliable witness and I accept her account of this conversation. The father accepted in his oral evidence that he told the maternal grandmother that the mother would bankrupt herself. He said that he has said this a number of times and it is self-evident, that the litigation between the parents was financially ruinous for them all.

[249]The father repeated this in his written and oral evidence, and this view was echoed by his parents.

[250]I find that the father went further, and was saying not just that the mother would become bankrupt, but that he would make sure that this was a consequence of the separation. I have found that the father on a number of occasions in private and to the mother directly, has said words to the effect of, ‘I will ruin you’, or has threatened consequences for the mother if the relationship were to break down; she would should ‘look into the abyss’¸ she would face bankruptcy, she needed to learn lessons, understand how money works, or how the world works.

[251]The conversations the father had with his own family suggest that he was actively engaged in ‘a game’, designed to inflict a financial consequence upon the mother, should she continue in her conflict with him. (2). Exploiting the parties’ company to financially abuse the mother

[252]It is alleged that the father blocked the mother’s access to their joint online bank records and accounts and prevented dividend and salary payments to her, that he refused to agree dividends in the usual way to cover January’s tax liability arising on the company’s income, knowing that this would expose the mother to a tax liability that she was unable to pay. Thirdly it is said that he set up the new company to divert business and clients there and to ‘get the mother off the books as 50/50 shareholder/director’.

[253]The father did block the mother’s access to their joint online bank records and accounts and prevented dividend and salary payments to her. He does not deny this in his response but says that this was because she had previously used company funds for personal items and was no longer involved with the day to day business of the company.

[254]The question of the extent of the mother’s involvement with the business, payment of dividends and use of company funds is for the financial remedies proceedings.

[255]Having regard to the evidence that I have heard and read however, I am clear that the father’s motivation in setting up the new company was to ensure that the mother was excluded entirely from the business and any profits made. I find that his decision to prevent the dividend being declared to pay off the tax liability, against his accountant’s advice, was motivated by a wish to deprive the mother of income in the immediate aftermath of their separation. (3). Falsely engineering his finances so as to reduce his financial obligations towards the mother and children.

[256]The question of whether the father’s declarations to the CMS represent a true picture of his income is to be determined in the financial remedies proceedings.

[257]I find as a fact that shortly after separation the father arranged to divert the rental income from the London flat straight to his parents rather than receiving it himself, and that his motivation for this was to remove the possibility of the mother benefiting from monies that had previously been received by him.

[258]I find that shortly after separation the father made plans and did then follow through with transferring savings in his name to become a ‘loan’ to one of his father’s companies. Again, I find that his motivation in doing this was to remove the possibility of the mother having access to funds he regarded as solely his. (4). The father threatened and then terminated all the utilities and outgoings on the family home, including council tax, water, energy, internet, Netflix, cleaner and car tax. The father refused to pay K’s nursery fees, and terminated lunch and club payments for both children’s schools.

[259]The father denies that he threatened, but does not deny the rest of the allegation. He says his solicitors wrote to both the mother’s solicitors and the mother direct to appraise her of his situation, that he could not afford to cover the household expenses for the family home and his own rental property.

[260]I find this allegation proved, save that I would remove the words ‘threatened and then’. The WhatsApp messages make clear that the father’s strategy was to expose the mother to all the expenses of running the household and caring for the children, with a view to her being forced to leave the family home. I have not been taken to particular messages where this was ‘threatened’, the father was not waiting for the mother to do or not do something before he stopped paying for these items, he made that decision independently of any action on the mother’s part.

[261]The last allegation is that the father artificially constructed a staged default on the financing arrangement on the family home with the paternal grandparents, to enable them to start recovery proceedings.

[262]This is a question to be resolved within the financial remedies proceedings.

[263]Looking at the findings in respect of financial abuse as a whole and having had regard to the evidence of all the parties, I find that the father has arranged his business and financial affairs with the aim of substantially reducing her claims against him for financial relief upon divorce, and he has sought to subject her or expose her to financial pressures, with the intention of causing her to leave the family home.

[264]It will no doubt be said within the financial remedies proceedings as it has been said within the Children Act proceedings, that the family home is owned by the paternal grandparents, that the mother has had no reasonable expectation of remaining there for so long rent free. The father says his actions have only exposed the mother to the reality of her situation, and it is she who is acting to his detriment in remaining there when she has no right to.

[265]This may yet prove to be the case. It does not take away however, from the evidence that throughout 2022 the mother was subjected to a pattern of behaviour that made her and the children pawns in a game. The immediate aftermath of any separation brings with it a very significant level of pressure on both parties. In this case, the mother was in my judgment subjected to something far in excess of that, because the father was acting in ways deliberately designed to cause her stress and hardship.

[266]The father’s justification throughout is that he is the victim in the scenario, has not done the things of which he is accused. He says the mother has abused him throughout the marriage, she has behaved erratically and is delusional. Above all, he says she has prevented him from seeing the children, leading to her bringing these financially ruinous proceedings.

[267]It will be clear from the findings that I have made, and from the judgment more generally, that I have found against the father in respect of all these points, none of which were the subject of formal allegations, but explored in evidence and found to be without substance. I find the mother has been justified in her concerns for the children’s safety and welfare in the father’s care, as a consequence of his behaviour towards her and to the children, both during the relationship and following its breakdown.

[268]Having regard to all the evidence I have heard and read, and taking into account these findings, as well as the findings in respect of physical, emotional and verbal abuse, I am satisfied to the standard of a balance of probabilities that the father’s actions towards the mother during the marriage and post-separation fall within the definition of coercive and controlling behaviour in the Domestic Abuse 2021 and Practice 12J of the Family Procedure Rules 2010. “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;

[269]This does not mean that the father cannot have a relationship with his children at all, and that is not the mother’s position.

[270]However, pursuant to the guidance set out at Practice Direction 12J, with particular reference to paragraphs 35, 36 and 37, the court must now take steps to assess the nature of the risk that the father poses to the mother and to the children, and to consider ways in which that can be managed, in order to ensure that the time that the children spend with their father is safe and in their welfare interests.

Non-molestation order

[271]I find that the father’s behaviour towards the applicant can be regarded as ‘such a degree of harassment as to call for the intervention of the Court.’ I take into account that there have not been any recent incidents between the parents. However, I find that the father has come to the house and approached the mother at the children’s school, notwithstanding the order being in place. Arrangements between the parents are far from settled either in respect of the finances or for the plans for the children to spend time together. In all the circumstances, I consider that the current non-molestation order should be extended for a further period of time, I would suggest 12 months, which should take them through all the legal proceedings and for a short period thereafter.

[272]This is my judgment. HHJ Joanna Vincent Family Court, Oxford Draft judgment sent: 22 July 2024 Approved judgment: 30 July 2024