A Father v A Mother [2024] EWFC 472 (B)

Case No ZW21P01803

Date 22 nd May 2024

[2024] EWFC 472 (B)

IN THE FAMILY COURT AT BARNET

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989

Before Deputy District Judge Stout

____________________

Between

A FatherApplicant

A MotherRespondent

____________________

The Applicant Father represented himself with the assistance of a QLR, Mr Azam Mr Haroon Rana appeared for Respondent Mother____________________

This judgment was delivered in private. The Judge has given permission for this anonymised version of the judgment to be published. The names and the addresses of the parties and the children must not be published. For the avoidance of doubt, the strict prohibition on publishing the names and addresses of the parties and the children will continue to apply where that information has been obtained by using the contents of this judgment to discover information already in the public domain. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that these conditions are strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.

Anonymity

1.In line with the Practice Guidance of the President of the Family Division issued in December 2018, the names of the child and the adult parties in this judgment have been anonymised having regard to the implications for children of placing personal details and information in the public domain. The cultural background has also been redacted. The anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved.

Introduction

[2]This case is about the welfare of D, a little girl who is 8 years old. D lives with her Mother, her step-Father, and her half siblings. The key issue that the Court has to decide is how to manage her relationship with her Father.

[3]This hearing has been listed as a Fact-Finding hearing to determine allegations of domestic abuse made by the Mother against the Father. The Mother has been very ably represented by Mr Rana, Counsel, and the Father represented himself as a litigant in person. For the first two days of this hearing he had the assistance of Mr Azam, Counsel, a QLR appointed on his behalf to cross-examine the Mother on 20th and 21st May 2024. Mr Azam was incredibly helpful and went over and above his role as a QLR to provide the Father with additional assistance and the Court is very grateful to him for this. Both parties were assisted by interpreters and I am satisfied that they were both able to follow and engage with proceedings.

[4]The court ensured that screens were available throughout the hearing and that separate waiting rooms were reserved to ensure that the parties did not come into contact with one another.

[5]The first day of this hearing was not able to be used because the Father did not attend. He had misread an email from the Court informing him that a previously-appointed QLR had been cancelled and thought that the hearing had been cancelled. The Father has otherwise attended every hearing and I am satisfied that this was a genuine error on his part.

Background

[6]The parties are both nationals of [Country Y] and they began their relationship in [Country Y]in 2001. They came to the UK in 2006 and they got married in 2013 in [Country Y]. D was born on 12th September 2015. The parties separated in around June 2021 and, both agree that by this time their relationship had somewhat broken down, although they were still living together.

[7]The parties divorced in June 2021 and the Mother moved out of the family home with D. The Father says this was because she left him to live with her new partner, Mr X. The Mother says that the Father kicked her and D out and she was left with no choice but to move in with Mr X, who was a friend at the time but who she swiftly entered into a romantic relationship with. It is not necessary for me to decide as part of this fact-finding whether the Mother cheated on the Father with Mr X but what is clear is that the Father was incredibly upset, angry and jealous that the Mother moved in with another man.

[8]Initially D had extensive contact with her Father, including overnight staying contact at weekends. This stopped in September 2021. The Father says that this was 15th September 2021 [120, para 4 of his 1st witness statement] and the Mother says that there were two incidents on 16th and 20th September 2021 when the Father attended at D’s school and was aggressive to the Mother in front of D, including the Father trying to pull D from her Mother’s arms on 20th September 2021.

[9]The Mother made allegations that during the time that D had overnight contact with her Father that he was aggressive at handovers, that he wouldn’t return D at the times that were previously agreed between the parties, that he wouldn’t allow D to call her Mother during contact, that he quizzed D about her Mother and her Mother’s new partner during contact and that overall it was not in D’s interests for this arrangement to continue. The Father denies these allegations.

[10]On 29th October 2021 the Father made an application for a Child Arrangements Order for a 50/50 shared care arrangement in respect of D. By this time he had last seen D in September 2021. The Court directed that the Mother file evidence of the allegations of abuse and the Father reply. It did not direct any contact between the D and her Father at that stage.

[11]The Mother wrote a witness statement which made numerous allegations against the Father, including allegations that the Father had strangled her, had been verbally and physically abusive towards her and that the verbal and some physical abuse had taken place in front of D. A key tenet of the Mother’s case is that the Father would abuse alcohol and be more aggressive towards her when he was drunk.

[12]At a hearing on 1st June 2022 the Court considered the allegations made by the Mother and determined that, at that stage, a fact-finding hearing was not necessary because “Any harm caused to D as a result of witnessing any disputes between the parties can be addressed in the section 7 report which can be directed and [The Mother] accepts that there was no harm caused to D by her Father.” and “Even if allegations are proven at a fact-finding hearing, it is unlikely to be relevant to any final decision and is therefore unnecessary. [The Mother] is willing to begin contact again, recommence communication with Father and both parents accept giving undertakings to the court today.” [83, para b]. This decision failed to appreciate the significant point that a child can be harmed by witnessing abuse perpetrated towards a parent, a central tenet of the definition of domestic abuse within PD12J.

[13]The Court also ordered that Cafcass prepare a s.7 report, which is dated 13th October 2022. The Cafcass officer recommended that there be a fact-finding hearing, having determined that the Mother’s allegations were of sufficient seriousness to impact on whether D could spend time with her Father outside of a supervised environment. Additional concerns were raised within the assessment that the Mother’s new partner may be domestically abusive as he was aggressive towards the Cafcass officer on a video call, and that he has a criminal history. D spoke to the Cafcass officer about the positive times that she had spent with her Father and that there were also times when he made her feel uncomfortable by asking her questions about her Mother or her Mother’s new partner. D also told the Cafcass officer that she didn’t like it when her Father shouted at her Mother. The Cafcass officer had concerns that D was not being completely open with her and may have been encouraged by her Mother to provide a particular narrative, particularly in respect of her current home life with her Mother, Mr X and her half-siblings.

[14]At a hearing on 17th October 2022 the Court directed that a fact-finding hearing was in fact necessary in light of the Cafcass officer’s recommendations. The Court listed the matter for a fact-finding hearing on 9th March 2023, which was adjourned. At this hearing the parties agreed that D should spend time with her Father in a contact centre for 2 hours once a week and that her Father should send her monthly letters, cards or presents.

[15]I am told that three sessions of supervised contact took place in summer 2022 but the Mother then stopped them after D said she didn’t want to go. I haven’t seen any contact notes but it would assist for these to be put before the Court and sent to Cafcass in future if they do exist. The Mother says that there was a miscommunication between herself and her representatives at the hearing in October 2022 because she did not agree to contact taking place at that stage.

[16]A further fact-finding hearing was listed on 4th September before Magistrates and this was not effective because the Court on that occasion considered that a 1 day time estimate was too short and that the Father had not prepared a witness statement, as directed, or provided the Court with a list of questions to be put to the Mother on his behalf.

[17]A further fact-finding hearing was listed on 30th November 2023 but that too was not effective because the matter in fact needed to be allocated to at least a District Judge in light of the Mother’s serious allegations of strangulation. It is incredibly unfortunate that there has been a catalogue of delays in this matter.

[18]A pre-trial review took place on 29th February 2024 where the Court appointed a QLR for the Father and gave the Mother permission to provide a witness statement from a third party, it having been envisaged at that point that she would obtain a witness statement from a security guard at Sainsburys who, she says, witnessed her being strangled by the Father in July 2021. Unhelpfully there was no date for the Mother to provide this evidence by.

[19]The Father was directed to file and serve a further witness statement addressing the Mother’s allegations but he never did this.

[20]At 9am on 20th May 2024 the Mother filed and served two witness statements, one from her sister and one from a friend. Both of these witness statements related directly to the incidents that formed part of the schedule of allegations however I was unwilling to allow the Mother to rely upon them because they had been served on the Father at 9am on the first day of the hearing. The Mother was legally represented and should have known that this would likely be very unfair to the Father. Notwithstanding the relevance of these witnesses, the Father has an Article 6 right to a fair trial and it would have breached this right for me to admit this evidence so late in advance of the hearing in circumstances where he is a litigant in person and English is not his first language.

[21]On 21st May 2024 the Father, through the QLR, Mr Azam, informed the Court that he in fact accepted that a number of the allegations that the Mother made were true. His position was helpfully summarised in a document entitled “F’s Clarifications” where he admitted that:a. There were arguments where he swore and shouted at the Mother, which were offensive and abusive in nature and would have caused the Mother anxiety and distress;

b. Mother locked herself in the bathroom or bedroom at times during these arguments to put space between him and her;

c. He had been abusive and offensive to the Mother by text and during arguments where he used abusive and offensive language, including that she was a bad mother and that he bought her perfume and wine then told her she did not deserve it and did not give it to her;

d. D was exposed to some of this behaviour and will have been affected by it;

e. There was an altercation in Sainsburys in April 2021 where the Father was abusive towards the Mother and called her a whore but he did not strangle her;

f. In September 2021 the Father attended D’s school unannounced and there was an argument in her presence which involved a tussle over D but he did not snatch her from the Mother or threaten to remove her to [Country Y].

[22]Significantly the Father does not accept that his behaviour was abusive towards the Mother, he says that they were both mutually responsible for the arguments that took place. He does not accept that he was physically abusive towards the Mother or that he strangled her. He said that his actions needed to be seen in the context of him being provoked by the Mother and some of his behaviour occurring at a time when he was very upset that the Mother had moved in with another man. I determined that it was necessary to continue with the fact-finding to ensure that the disputed issues were determined, to fully understand the context in which the Father behaved in the way that he did and to determine the level of insight that he has into his behaviour.

[23]I give the Father credit for making these admissions. It is not easy to admit to wrongdoing and it is not easy to admit that your actions have caused your child and ex-partner harm. However, it is also important to acknowledge that the Father has had ample opportunity to make these admissions before this hearing. He has provided a number of witness statements to the Court and responses to the Mother’s schedule of allegations where he entirely denies any abusive behaviour. He has denied perpetrating abuse towards the Mother at a number of court hearings. He denied any abuse to the Cafcass officer who conducted a safeguarding interview with him as well as the Cafcass officer who undertook the s.7 report.

[24]I asked him why he had told the Court and Cafcass that he wasn’t abusive for 3 years when he now admits that he was. He told me that emotions had been extremely high before and now he has had time to cool off. I suspect he made the admissions he did because the evidence was overwhelming against him and not because he had a genuine desire to assist the Court or admit any wrongdoing to the Mother.

[25]Had the Father made these allegations before this hearing then considerable time, money and court resources would have been saved and some of the significant delays in progressing this case would have been avoided. I also bear in mind that the Mother has no doubt been affected also by these ongoing proceedings and was anxious about giving her evidence. Some of her anxiety could no doubt have been reduced if she had discovered that the Father was making significant concessions earlier than mere moments before she was due to give her evidence.

The Law

[26]Whoever makes an allegation has the burden of proving that it is true. They must do so to the civil standard, i.e. on balance of probabilities (Miller v Ministry of Pensions

[1947] 2 ALL ER 372

, and also considering Re B (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof)

[2008] UKHL 35

[2008] 2 FLR 141

[27]An allegation will therefore be proved if the person making it establishes that it is more likely than not that it happened. The seriousness of the allegation or the seriousness of the consequences make no difference to the standard of proof to be applied in determining the facts. Findings of fact must be based on evidence and not on suspicion or speculation (Re A (A child) (Fact finding hearing: Speculation) [2011] ECWA Civ 12) and the court may make findings on inferences available to it on the basis of the evidence.

[28]Evidence is also not evaluated and assessed separately: "A Judge in these difficult cases must have regard to the relevant of each piece of evidence to the other evidence and to exercise an overview of the totality of the evidence in order to come to the conclusion whether the case put forward by the local authority has been made out to the appropriate standard of proof" (Butler Sloss P in Re T [2004] ECWA (Civ) 556). The court looks at the 'broad canvas of the evidence' and "the range of facts which may properly be taken into account is infinite" (H and R (child sexual abuse: standard of proof)

[1996] 1 FLR 80

). It is, however, not necessary to determine every subsidiary date-specific factual allegation (K v K

[2022] EWCA Civ 468

[29]I have taken into consideration the principles outlined in Re H-N and others (children) (domestic abuse: finding of fact hearings)

[2021] EWCA Civ 448

with regard to domestic abuse allegations. Practice Direction 12J Child Arrangements and Contact

[30]A Court can take into account the demeanour of a witness or the way in which they gave evidence, but needs to be careful in approaching this, noting that in the case of emotive evidence a truthful witness may stumble and struggle whilst giving their evidence, whilst an untruthful witness may give their evidence in a composed manner. The Court may be assisted by internal consistency of evidence and considering how it fits with other parts of the evidence.

[31]The principles outlined in R v Lucas

[1981] QB 720

are relevant. Where it is alleged that a witness may be lying that there can be many reasons why someone may lie including shame, humiliation, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear, distress, confusion or emotional pressure, and that just because a witness may lie about one aspect of their evidence it does not necessarily mean that they may be lying about other aspects.

[32]I have also borne in mind that abusive behaviour has at its heart an imbalance of power in the relationship and that this is exploited by an abuser for their benefit. As is clear in case law such as Re H-N noted above, it is insidious in nature and requires sophisticated analysis, including an awareness of the potential for abuse to be maintained even after the parents have separated and even where protective orders have been in force.

[33]At the same time, a Court has to draw a distinction between abusive behaviour and poor behaviour which falls short of being domestically abusive. Hence the need for the Court to focus upon those findings which will have a material impact on child arrangements if proved.

[34]When considering the impact of domestic abuse on children exposed to it I remind myself of the words of Sir Andrew Macfarlane in Re H-N & Others

[2021] EWCA Civ 448

: 29. As can be seen at paragraph 27 above, central to the modern definitions of domestic abuse is the concept of coercive and/or controlling behaviour. Shortly before the hearing of these appeals, Mr Justice Hayden handed down judgment in F v M

[2021] EWFC 4

. The judgment followed a two-week fact-finding hearing of domestic abuse allegations centred on coercive and/or controlling behaviour. The arrival of Hayden J’s judgment was timely. All parties commended it to the court for its comprehensive and lucid analysis, and for the plea contained within it urging greater prominence to be given to coercive and controlling behaviour in Family Court proceedings. The parties’ endorsement of the judgment in F v M is, in our view, fully justified. It is helpful to set out one of the central paragraphs from Hayden J’s judgment here:

“4. In November 2017, M [the mother] applied for and was granted a non- molestation order against F [the father]. That order has been renewed and remains effective. The nature of the allegations included in support of the application can succinctly and accurately be summarised as involving complaints of ‘coercive and controlling behaviour’ on F’s part. In the Family Court, that expression is given no legal definition. In my judgement, it requires none. The term is unambiguous and needs no embellishment. Understanding the scope and ambit of the behaviour however, requires a recognition that ‘coercion’ will usually involve a pattern of acts encompassing, for example, assault, intimidation, humiliation and threats. ‘Controlling behaviour’ really involves a range of acts designed to render an individual subordinate and to corrode their sense of personal autonomy. Key to both behaviours is an appreciation of a ‘pattern’ or ‘a series of acts’, the impact of which must be assessed cumulatively and rarely in isolation. There has been very little reported case law in the Family Court considering coercive and controlling behaviour. I have taken the opportunity below, to highlight the insidious reach of this facet of domestic abuse. My strong impression, having heard the disturbing evidence in this case, is that it requires greater awareness and, I strongly suspect, more focused training for the relevant professionals.” 30. Whilst the facts found in F v M may be towards the higher end of the spectrum of coercive or controlling behaviour, their essential character is not, and will be all too familiar to those who have been the victim of this form of domestic abuse, albeit to a lesser degree or for a shorter time. The judgment of Hayden J in F v M (which should be essential reading for the Family judiciary) is of value both because of the illustration that its facts provide of what is meant by coercive and controlling behaviour, but also because of the valuable exercise that the judge has undertaken in highlighting at paragraph 60 the statutory guidance published by the Home Office pursuant to Section 77 (1) of the Serious Crime Act 2015 which identified paradigm behaviours of controlling and coercive behaviour. That guidance is relevant to the evaluation of evidence in the Family Court. 31. The circumstances encompassed by the definition of ‘domestic abuse’ in PD12J fully recognise that coercive and/or controlling behaviour by one party may cause serious emotional and psychological harm to the other members of the family unit, whether or not there has been any actual episode of violence or sexual abuse. In short, a pattern of coercive and/or controlling behaviour can be as abusive as or more abusive than any particular factual incident that might be written down and included in a schedule in court proceedings (see ‘Scott Schedules’ at paragraph 42 -50). It follows that the harm to a child in an abusive household is not limited to cases of actual violence to the child or to the parent. A pattern of abusive behaviour is as relevant to the child as to the adult victim. The child can be harmed in any one or a combination of ways for example where the abusive behaviour: 1. Is directed against, or witnessed by, the child; 2. Causes the victim of the abuse to be so frightened of provoking an outburst or reaction from the perpetrator that she/he is unable to give priority to the needs of her/his child; 3. Creates an atmosphere of fear and anxiety in the home which is inimical to the welfare of the child; 4. Risks inculcating, particularly in boys, a set of values which involve treating women as being inferior to men. 32. It is equally important to be clear that not all directive, assertive, stubborn or selfish behaviour, will be ‘abuse’ in the context of proceedings concerning the welfare of a child; much will turn on the intention of the perpetrator of the alleged abuse and on the harmful impact of the behaviour. We would endorse the approach taken by Peter Jackson LJ in Re L (Relocation: Second Appeal) [2017] EWCA Civ 2121 (paragraph 61): “Few relationships lack instances of bad behaviour on the part of one or both parties at some time and it is a rare family case that does not contain complaints by one party against the other, and often complaints are made by both. Yet not all such behaviour will amount to ‘domestic abuse’, where ‘coercive behaviour’ is defined as behaviour that is ‘used to harm, punish, or frighten the victim...’ and ‘controlling behaviour’ as behaviour ‘designed to make a person subordinate...’ In cases where the alleged behaviour does not have this character it is likely to be unnecessary and disproportionate for detailed findings of fact to be made about the complaints; indeed, in such cases it will not be in the interests of the child or of justice for the court to allow itself to become another battleground for adult conflict.”

My Findings

[35]My impression of the mother was that she was a straightforward and truthful witness. She had a tendency to provide long answers which didn’t always relate to the question that she was asked but I am satisfied that she was doing this out of a desire to provide a full answer to questions, and not because she was trying to lie or evade answering questions.

[36]Her oral evidence was largely consistent with her written evidence and what she told the police. She was at times emotional, particularly when recounting the incident where the Father strangled her outside of Sainsburys in April 2021.

[37]My impression of the Father is that he was not an honest witness. The answers he gave me in the witness box were not consistent with much of his written evidence or with the clarification document prepared by Mr Azam that was sent on 21st May, despite him confirming the truth of this document at the start of his evidence. At times they were not consistent with his own answers in oral evidence.

[38]When pushed to elaborate on his abusive behaviours he often told me that he could not recall any specifics of them before blaming the Mother for his abusive behaviours, either because he said she provoked her in arguments, she had an affair or because she stopped his contact with D. For example, he told me he could not recall what he said to the Mother during the altercation outside Sainsburys in April 2021. Given that only the previous day he had volunteered the information found in the clarifications document that he had called her a whore, I was left with the strong impression that he was trying to minimise his abusive actions by saying that he could not recall, rather than being open and honest with the Court.

[39]The Father showed very little insight into the harm that his actions had caused the Mother and D, even if it was just limited to the actions that he alone admitted. He was unable to properly articulate how these will have made the Mother feel and he was willing to agree, albeit very briefly, that D would have been upset and scared by his behaviours but he then very quickly went on to blame the Mother. He struck me as a man who has given very little thought to how much his behaviour has harmed the people who were exposed to it, perhaps because he has refused to take responsibility for it.

[40]The Father said on a number of occasions that he regretted his actions and that he wished to apologise to the Mother. However it was clear from his apology that he thinks the Mother is as much to blame as he is for his abusive behaviour. Although I am sure that he regrets his actions in exposing D to the level of harm that he did, I am not satisfied that he fully understands why he behaved in the way that he did. Throughout his evidence he significantly minimised his past behaviour.

The Mother’s Recordings

[41]Some of the most compelling evidence in this case comes from several recordings that the Mother made of incidents when she locked herself and D in either the bedroom or bathroom to protect herself and D from the Father. The Mother was unable to say precisely when these incidents took place but they appear to have largely happened between July 2020-July 2021, when D was 4 years old. The Mother got a butterfly tattoo in July 2020, which the Father mentions on a number of occasions during these incidents. It is important to note that D was present for almost all, if not all, of these incidents. She can be heard engaging with the parties during the arguments.

[42]The Father agrees that these are accurate recordings of what took place but he says that the Mother provoked him in advance of the recordings and was behaving differently because she was recording. The Father’s behaviour cannot be excused by any suggestion that the Mother provoked him into behaving this way. I am mindful that many perpetrators of domestic abuse blame their victims for their own behaviour and this is a prime example of the Father doing precisely that. He alone is responsible for his own actions and I do not accept that the Mother provoked him into perpetrating such terrifying abuse towards the Mother, in front of his 4 year old daughter.

[43]I am satisfied that during these incidents the Father’s behaviour was abusive and must have been absolutely terrifying. He was shouting loudly, trying to kick down the door, swearing at the Mother, speaking about the Mother in an incredibly abusive way and threatening to harm and, at times, kill the Mother. This would have been frightening and harmful for D, who was 4 years old at the time, to witness. D will have seen her Father act in an incredibly abusive and aggressive way and will have seen the impact on her Mother of her Father’s actions. She must have been deeply frightened for her safety and her Mother’s safety.

[44]It is significant that throughout these incidents the Father berates the Mother for saying things like “I am scared” or for trying to remove D from the situation. The Mother tells him on multiple occasions that she is afraid of him and that D is afraid of him. His focus during these incidents was entirely on whether the Mother was undermining him to D and not, as it should have been, on whether hisactions were harming his child. Even when he was being incredibly abusive in front of his child, he still blamed the Mother for any harm that D might have experienced from it. I accept that the Mother did all that she could during these incidents to protect D from the Father’s abuse and keep her physically safe from him. It was simply not possible to shield D from the Father’s behaviour completely and D will have suffered emotional harm from witnessing this.

[45]Throughout these incidents the Father calls the Mother a “psycho” and a “schizzo” and says that her actions are the actions of someone who is mentally unwell. Largely he is referring to the Mother’s actions of locking the door and blocking his access to D. For instance the Father says to the Mother that she is shouting because she is a psycho who cannot control her nerves (despite the fact that he is shouting during this argument) and then he says “You’re round the fucking twist, even when you’re sober, you fucking psycho. That’s why you had those tattoos done, because you’re fucked up, because you don’t know what you’re doing to yourself.” [160]. On another occasion he says to her “You should go to a doctor. You should see a psychiatrist, do you understand? You must get mental health treatment. Because you’re angry with me and you’re angry with D.” [148].

[46]Whilst the Father has accepted that his words were verbally abusive he does not acknowledge precisely how abusive and harmful they were. This is an example of the Father gaslighting the Mother, telling her that her actions are those of someone who is mentally unwell. The Mother’s actions were appropriate and necessary to ensure that she and D were safe. The Father shows absolutely no insight into his own actions at the time, of shouting, swearing and threatening the mother of his child in front of his daughter: he is holding the Mother to a much higher standard than he held himself to. This would have caused the mother to suffer from emotional harm and it would have eroded as her self-esteem and self-worth.

[47]Another way in which the Father emotionally harmed the Mother during these recordings was to say degrading and belittling things to her, these include:a. “I don’t give a shit about you. I said, D is important for me, I shit on you. I said open the door. Open that door. I said open the door” [136]

b. “I don’t give a fuck about you…I don’t give a damn about you...it’s great cause I don’t give a damn about you. You won’t be telling me what I’m to do with my child.” [141];

c. “You fucking tattoo fan, you fucking butterfly” [145];

d. “you’re fucked up, do you understand? You’re fucked up...you fucking bot” [150];

e. “You must not touch [D], do you understand? I said don’t fucking touch her, I’m afraid you’ll infect her…you had your ta-ta-tatoo done, fuck knows where. You must not touch her, do you understand.” [155];

f. “Are you a fucking stinker? Everything needs to be aired here.” [157];

g. “You’ve got fucking schizophrenia, do you understand? No, you’re round the fucking twist, it runs in your family.’ [159];

h. “I regret having had [D] with you, do you understand? I regret that, fuck. I’d rather she were born by someone else. Not you. I regret that.” [160];

i. “This is so fucking trashy, you bimbo, you’ve had a fucking butterfly tattooed…I fucking told you to have a dick tattooed on your forehead instead of those butterflies...”[162];

j. “And you? What have you done to yourself? The woman of thirty two, with a child and a husband, had fucking butterflies tattooed on her neck. Like a fucking kid. It’s clearly trashy.” [162];

k. “Get out, fuck off, have another tattoo done, fuck. Have a dick tattooed on your ass, let it penetrate it, it’s always fucking like that.” [163] and then he tells the mother to go to a brothel;

l. “I won’t surely allow [D] to be with you…you to bring her up, that’s for sure, as you’ll destroy her.” [164];

[48]It is clear throughout these recordings that the fact that the Mother got a tattoo without telling the Father was a significant source of contention between them. The Father says that he was annoyed about this because she spent the parties’ joint money on this tattoo and she may have exposed herself to health risks, such as HIV. I do not agree.

[49]The Father is actually annoyed and upset because she did it without asking him, and he intended to punish her for it. The reason he was annoyed that she did it without asking him is because he felt ownership over her body and he did not like that she had taken control of her body by getting a tattoo without asking him. The Father says the following about the tattoos:a. D says “Look there’s a butterfly here. Look. A butterfly. A butterfly.” And the Father says “You don’t want to have the fucking butterfly removed, so suffer. I told you. You don’t want to have the butterfly removed, so suffer. It’s up to you.” [137];

b. “Go and get a tattoo. A dick.” [152];

c. F “I keep drinking because you have tattoos. I keep drinking as you’ve had them done without telling me about it” M “You keep drinking all the time.” F “I keep drinking as you have tattoos. You have had them done without telling me, I did not know.” M “This is not your body and you don’t own me.” F “Ok. And this is not your body, so I will keep drinking. You don’t own me” [152-3];

d. “You’ve crapped on me, I’ve already told you once. I won’t fucking repeat myself. You’ve crapped on me in this way, do you understand? You fucking surprise. It was a fucking successful surprise.” [163];

[50]Throughout these recordings the Father makes a number of threats to cause the Mother significant harm, these include:a. “open [the door], I’m going to fucking break it down, you’ll see. Do you want drama? I said open the door….”Open it, I’m going to fucking break it down, you’ll see.” The Mother says “Do it” and smashing sounds are heard. [136]

b. “I’m coming back in five minutes. Unless you come out, I’ll break the fucking door down. And I’m telling you now, I’m telling you right away. If you don’t come out in five minutes, I’ll break the door down. You’ll see, you fucking butterfly” [137];

c. “Are you going to open it or do you want me to break down the fucking door?” [139];

d. “Fuck you are going to regret it, you’ll see. You are going to regret it, you’ll see, just leave that room. You’ll see what I will do to you.”[143];

e. “You’ll see, just enter the living [room?], I will fucking hit you in the head right away. Just come here, in the living [room?] and you’ll see. For closing that door. You’ll see. For not allowing me to see the child, you’ll see any time now.” [145];

f. “You’ll regret it when I come home from work tomorrow. When I come back from work tomorrow, you’ll regret it…as soon as I come tomorrow…You’ll see what I’m going to do…”[150];

g. M “it’s because you don’t respect me. F “because of your butterfly. Fuck off. M “You keep beating me and you’re a psycho” F “Beating? Beating, huh? As you’re locking me out? By force? You’re taking the child away from me? Teaching the child that her dad is evil? What bad things am I doing to her?” M “I haven’t said anything like that.” F “You’ll see what I’ll say in court. Just fucking try to say something and you’ll see. I’ll destroy you, I’ll fucking destroy you in court, you’ll see. What have you said, what the fuck have you said that I’ll mistreat the child? [147];

h. “If you try to go downstairs I’ll beat the shit out of you and you’ll see just try to come back today” [152];

i. “I’ll fucking hit you in the head right away when I get there, you’ll see. Just go there…I’ve warned you before that I’ll fucking throw you out of this house this evening. Just try once more. I’ll fucking teach you to respect me.” [161-2];

[51]The Father told me in his evidence that he may have made threats to hurt or kill the Mother but they were just threats and he did not think that she would believe them. This is despite the fact that the Mother tells him on a number of occasions during these incidents that she was afraid of him and despite the fact that he was often shouting and trying to break down the door when he made these threats. I am satisfied that the Mother would have been afraid of the Father and would have believed that he did intend to seriously hurt her, as might well have D. For the Father to suggest otherwise shows a significant lack of insight into the harm that his actions have caused the Mother and his daughter.

[52]The Father’s evidence in respect of these threats was particularly poor. He initially said that “That sort of words were used only at the time when I already found out that my wife was cheating on me. You can check the dates- before I would not be using words like that.” At no point during any of these recordings does the Father accuse the Mother of cheating on him: the source of his annoyance is largely that the Mother has locked herself and D away from him or that she got a tattoo. He later went onto describe an argument where he made threats to harm the Mother as “just a casual argument” and that there were often arguments where he made threats to harm the Mother.

[53]The Father also makes an admission within these recordings that he has hit or beaten the Mother. The mother tells him that he is pushing her and D, seemingly because she has locked a door that he wants access to. The Mother says “you’re pushing both me and her.” and the Father replies “so what that I’m pushing both you and her?” [159].

[54]A common feature within these recordings is the Mother telling the Father that he is drunk, this clearly being a source of contention between them. The Father admits in his responses to the Mother that he is drunk, that he does drink a lot and that he plans to continue to drink. This is in contrast to the Father’s denials within the proceedings that during these arguments he was drunk or that his alcohol use had a part to play in his behaviour becoming more aggressive and more out of control.

[55]The Mother was asked in cross-examination whether she took responsibility for times during these recordings where she called the Father names such as telling him that he was a moron. In circumstances where the Father was being incredibly abusive towards her I think that the Mother was justified in saying these things to him. She is human and she is allowed to voice that she thinks he is behaving badly in front of their child, which is what he was doing. I do not think that this is even close to being evidence that she was just as bad as the Father during these arguments.

[56]I have considered very carefully whether these recordings were staged and whether the Mother was acting differently because she was recording. I do not think that this is borne out: the Mother is genuine in her fear of the Father in the recordings and the Father’s behaviour is extreme and abusive. The Father says that the Mother provoked him before recording him but he did not mention this during the arguments that they were having. This is an example of the Father blaming Mother for his behaviour when he should be taking responsibility for it.

[57]In taking these recordings the Mother was gathering evidence to protect herself in future and I doubt that the Father would have made the admissions that he did if the Mother hadn’t provided such conclusive evidence of the Father’s abuse.

The Father’s Recording

[58]The Father provided a transcript of a recording of one of the incidents in September when he attended D’s school unannounced to see her. At this point it appears that the previous agreement that he should see D on weekends has broken down and he had not seen her for 3 weeks.

[59]This recording shows that D was exposed to an argument between her parents because her Father wanted to take her away and her Mother refused to allow it, saying that D was afraid of her Father and her Mother was afraid that he wouldn’t return her. In the context of the abuse that the Mother had suffered and the messages that she had been sent, these are reasonable fears for her to have had.

[60]There is a more concerning aspect to this recording because it shows this exchange between the Father said to D: F “Hi D. I love you very much, remember?” M “She knows it, I tell it to her every day” F “And it’s mum’s fault that we can’t meet, you know? Mum is to blame…bye. We’ll meet soon. Bye.” [392]

[61]This shows that the Father is still prioritising his own feelings over those of D. He is telling D about his negative views of the Mother, rather than focusing on D’s feelings. It shows a lack of consideration for D’s perspective: it would have been more harmful for her to hear him saying this about her Mother than if he had just said that he loved her and wanted to see her. It was not necessary to engage in this level of conflict and, whilst I don’t consider that this behaviour was abusive, it does show the Father’s lack of insight into D’s experience of the parental relationship breakdown.

Text Messages

[62]After the parties’ relationship broke down the Father sent the Mother a number of text messages. He admits to sending these messages and he acknowledges that they are abusive. As I have already found in respect of other abuse perpetrated by the Father, I do not think that the Father fully appreciates the impact that these messages will have had on the Mother.

[63]Firstly these messages contain incredibly crude and vile remarks made to Mother about the sexual relationship that she might be having with her new partner. These messages are numerous and they are relentless. They are not appropriate and will have been very upsetting for the Mother to read.

[64]Secondly these messages contain threats that the Father is going to tell the Mother’s family, including her Mother and sister, all about the fact that she has entered into a new relationship with another man. He says:a. “you are a real slut because of what you’ve done, everybody in [Country Y] already knows.” [367] and

b. “you are a real slut because of what you are doing. And remember, I won’t change my mind about it. I’ll tell everyone the truth. Your mum will know that you are a slut.” [367];

c. “You are a real whore to me, and I’ll always think of you this way, you deserved this opinion. I don’t want to see you bitch, ok?” [367];

[65]Even bearing in mind that the Father felt hurt and upset because he believed that the Mother had been cheating on him with her new partner, these messages are completely unacceptable. They contain threats that the Father is going to tell her family intimate information about her sex life. He is belittling of her, he is misogynistic and his actions were emotionally abusive.

[66]Thirdly the Father makes further threats to the Mother in these texts, including:a. “I’ll take [D] away from you, I don’t know when, but be prepared for this.” [368]

b. “Tell your fucker not to approach me or I’ll kill him or somebody else will” [368]

c. “I’ll repay you for being a hoe, you’ll see. We’ll be talking for the last time tomorrow. Because I won’t let D see you fucking him. That’s it.”[369]

d. “I also want to go on holiday with D, you are not the only one who can be with her, I won’t let it happen and that’s it.” [370]

e. “I’m taking D to [Country Y] and if you don’t agree, we will see in court, do whatever you like, it’s up to you.” [370].

[67]This is evidence that when the Father is angry or upset with the Mother, he is willing to make threats to remove D from her care, including threats to involve the police or social services and threats to remove her to [Country Y]. It is also very concerning that he made threats to kill the Mother’s partner, or get someone else to. These will have caused the Mother significant fear in light of the Father’s past behaviour and will need to be carefully looked at as part of the Cafcass risk assessment.

Allegation 1: July 2015

[68]This allegation is as follows:

“In July 2015, two months before the birth of D, the Father was intoxicated. The Mother asked him to stop drinking and the Father began shouting and swearing at the Mother. When she tried to take the beer off him, he threatened to kick her in the stomach. The Father stated that if she went into labour, he would drive her to the hospital drunk or get a taxi. The Mother took the alcohol away from the Father and came at her. The Mother locked herself in the bedroom until the next morning. The Mother had taken a video recording but the Father smashed her phone”

[69]The Father denies this allegation completely. The Mother gave compelling evidence that this happened, her oral evidence being consistent with her written evidence. The Mother was a much more credible witness than the Father, who has lied throughout these proceedings and whose oral evidence was inconsistent and unconvincing.

[70]The recordings provided by the Mother show that the Father was aggressive when he was under the influence of alcohol and that when he was angry he would make threats to harm her. I accept the evidence of the Mother that the Father was abusive towards her in this way when she was heavily pregnant with D. This will have made her feel stressed, scared and unsupported at a time when she was heavily pregnant and vulnerable.

Allegation 2: July 2017 to 2021

[71]This allegation is that:

“Between 2017 and 2021, during family events, the Father caused arguments and would push, kick and raise his hands at the Mother in the presence of D. The Mother and D would hide in the bedroom or bathroom but the Father would shout and threaten to kick the door in. He would then tell the Mother that she was worth nothing, that she was a bad mother, everything was his and his only, and all the money was his and the Mother did not deserve money or gifts because she was not good to him. The Father told the Mother not to look at people walking by with flowers because she did not deserve flowers. The Father purchased wine and perfume for the Mother but did not give it to her and told her that she did not deserve it. He then poured the wine down the sink and gave the perfume to someone else. The Father also checked receipts and would highlight items that the Mother had bought for herself, such as sanitary pads or wine, the Father would start arguments and call the Mother an alcoholic.”

[72]The Father admitted that much of this was true but he denied physically assaulting the Mother or being financially abusive.

[73]I find that the Father was physically abusive towards the Mother. The Mother gave consistent evidence on this point and she told the police in 2021 that the Father had been physically abusive to her also [290]. I did not find the Father to be a credible or honest witness and I can place little weight on his assertions that there was no physical violence in the relationship.

[74]I also bear in mind that in the recordings he is quick to threaten that he will beat her and I am satisfied that there were times that he would follow through on this threats. This is why the Mother needed to lock the door when the Father became drunk and aggressive and it is why she was genuinely scared when he made these threats. There are times during the recordings that the Mother mentions that he has previously beaten her and hit her, and I find that this is because he had used physical violence against her in the past.

[75]I did not hear evidence on the financial control of the Mother and this part of the allegation is not mentioned in the Mother’s witness statements, nor was the Father cross-examined about it in evidence. There is insufficient evidence in respect of this for me to make a finding of financial abuse.

Allegation 3: April 2021

[76]This is an allegation that “In April 2021, the Father returned home under the influence. The Mother went to Sainsburys in [redacted] and the Father followed her out of jealousy and accused her of having an affair. Before going into Sainsburys, the Mother had a cigarette in the park opposite Sainsburys as the Father would not allow her to smoke. The Father called the Mother and said “where are you whore, I know that you are with someone, I will kill you” The Mother walked of the small park opposite Sainsburys, to see the Father running around the car park shouting and swearing. The Father then saw the Mother in front of the store, approached her, grabbed her coat and dragged her across the car park, pushed her against the wall and grabbed her throat and squeezed, choking her and saying he was going to hurt her. After the Mother screamed, the Father released her and shouted at he to run home. A security guard witnessed the situation from his car and asked if the Mother was okay. The Mother said yes, ran home and hid in her brother’s flat where D was.”

[77]The Father admits in his clarifications document that “he did state she was a whore and that his behaviour and language was abusive and may have in the heat of the moment included threatening behaviour and language”.

[78]In his evidence he was asked what threats he had made to the Mother and he said that he could not remember, despite having agreed in a clarification document only the day before that he had called the Mother a whore. I found his evidence to be very unconvincing in respect of this incident and I think the Father was claiming not to remember because he did not want to admit how abusive he was on this occasion.

[79]In contrast the Mother’s evidence was consistent with her written evidence and with what she told the police. She was asked about why she had not mentioned the security guard in her initial statement to the court and I accept her answer that she was a litigant in person at the time and did not write down every detail. She did tell the police about the security guard when she reported the Father to the police in 2021 [290]. The Mother became upset when talking about this evidence in the witness box and I think that is because this was one of the most frightening incidents. I prefer the Mother’s account over the Father’s and I find this allegation proved.

[80]The fact that the Father strangled the Mother is incredibly serious. It is a high risk behaviour and the only reason that the Father stopped strangling her on this occasion is that the security guard intervened. This too will need to be considered very carefully as part of the Cafcass risk assessment of the Father.

Allegation 4: July to September 2021

[81]This allegation is that “Between July 2021 and September 2021, the Father harassed the Mother with texts, calls and emails during the day and night. Often the Mother would receive 30 consecutive messages. Within the messages, the Father threatened to take D from the Mother, that he would destroy her, that he would send his friends on her new partner and call her derogatory names. The Father continued to question the Mother about her relationship status and called her derogatory names during handover. The Father’s harassment was reported to the police.”

[82]The Father admits to sending these messages, copies of which are in the bundle. I have already addressed my view of these messages above.

[83]The Father wanted to ensure that these messages were placed in the context of him having discovered that his wife had cheated on him with another man and having moved out of his home with his daughter. I do bear in mind that the Father will have been upset, emotional and desperate as a result of these events. I do not know whether the Mother cheated on him or not and it is not necessary or appropriate for me to make any findings in respect of this. Clearly the Father believed that she cheated on him, and that is the context in which I view these messages.

[84]The Father said in his clarification document that “F accepts that his beliefs about an affair or his upset at the breakdown of contact does not excuse or justify his behaviour.” I have to say that I did not get this impression from his oral evidence, where he constantly referenced the Mother’s affair to attribute blame to her for his abusive behaviour.

[85]These messages were abusive and harmful and they should not have been sent. They will have been very distressing for the Mother to read and will have impacted on the care that she would have been able to provide to D. It is hard to see how it will not have impacted on the Mother’s ability to be emotionally available to her.

Allegation 5: September 2021

[86]This allegation is that “On 16th September 2021, the Father turned up to D’s school unannounced demanding to see her. The Father questioned D about the Mother’s relationship status and denigrated her to D. On 20th September 2021, the Father turned up to the school unannounced again trying to pull D from the Mother’s arms. The police were called. The Mother allowed the Father to have contact with D after school for two hours. When the Father brought her back to the Mother’s care, the Father began screaming at the Mother and her partner, locked the car and opened the window with D inside and said that the Mother would not see D again if he saw her partner again and that he would get a passport without her permission, take her to [Country Y] and not bring her back.”

[87]The Father admits to much of this. He does not accept that he pulled the Mother from D’s arms but he does accept that there was a “tussle”. He was unable to give any real detail about this tussle and, given the poor quality of the Father’s evidence, I favour the Mother’s evidence in respect of this.

[88]I bear in mind in particular that the Father had been asked about the recording where he admitted to having pulled D because the Mother was blocking him from her [357]. At the time he admitted to pulling her but in his oral evidence he described this as a “scuffle”, and whilst he denied pulling D in his oral evidence he equally could not explain what happened during the scuffle. This tussle is very similar in its nature.

[89]I can understand why the Father attended at D’s school in circumstances where he had been blocked from seeing her for 3 weeks, however even on his own recording of this incident he created conflict with the Mother in front of D. The Mother was acting protectively at the time by stopping contact between the Father and D and had the Father not been so abusive to her in their communications it may have been possible for them to have sorted out arrangements for D without him having to resort to attending her school unannounced and placing her in the centre of an argument between her parents.

Father’s Allegation: 2019-2021

[90]This allegation is “Emotional instability. In the last 2 years Respondent became aggressive, she would shout at my child and myself, abruptly grab and shake the child, pull her by the hands etc.”

[91]The Mother accepts that she was suffering with her mental health during this period but she says it was because of the abuse that she was suffering at the hands of the Father. I note that the Father did not raise the Mother’s mental health as a concern with Cafcass as part of their safeguarding interview but he did say that the Mother would verbally attack and shout at D, the last time being in January 2021 [198]. He did not mention that the Mother would physically harm D. The Father appears to have made complaints to the author of the s.7 report that D was harmed by her Mother’s partner, but he does not appear to have made allegations that she was harmed by her Mother.

[92]I can see from the recordings that there were times when D was caught up in the conflict that her Father had created and the Mother seems to have done things like pull her away from her Father. The Mother was then accused by the Father of hurting D, when in fact she was protecting her by removing her from the situation and from a parent who was drunk and angry.

[93]I have already made findings above that the Father weaponised the Mother’s mental health during arguments and used this to emotionally abuse her, calling her a psycho and telling her she needs to be locked up. This allegation needs to be seen within that context.

[94]I find that the Mother’s mental health was affected by the abuse that she was suffering at the hands of the Father but I do not find that the Mother was aggressive towards D in the way that the Father described. I think that the Father has made those allegations only in response to the Mother’s allegations that he himself was abusive towards her and D, otherwise he would have mentioned them to Cafcass when they were undertaking their enquiries. If the Mother’s mental health has impacted on her ability to be emotionally present for D or to snap at her more than she might have otherwise done then the Father needs to reflect carefully on who is to blame for this in circumstances where the Mother was living in an immensely pressured environment, being subjected to significant abuse on a regular basis.

Further thoughts

[95]Those are my findings and I encourage the Father to reflect carefully on them. He is going to be subject to a risk assessment by Cafcass, which sadly will take 23 weeks due to the current prioritisation protocol in London. During this time the Father would be wise to educate himself further as to the impact of domestic abuse on children and how he can reduce the risk that he might pose to the Mother and to D in respect of domestic abuse. The Father can contact the Local Authority to see if there are local services that he can be referred to, as well as doing his own research with charities such as Respect. Programmes like the Freedom Programme can be used for perpetrators and can be useful. He would be wise to use this time to increase his understanding of domestic abuse and its impact on victims and children.

[96]I have directed that indirect contact should take place and consideration will be given by Cafcass as to whether there is a safe way for this contact to move to a supervised setting to allow the relationship between D and her Father to be rebuilt. I bear in mind that when the Cafcass report was undertaken in 2022 D did have positive memories of her Father and did want to spend time with him. 2 years have now passed and it is important to obtain D’s up to date views.

[97]I remain concerned by what is said in the previous s.7 report about the Mother’s partner, Mr X and the risk that he may also be domestically abusive. The Father wishes to know the offences that Mr X has been convicted of and this is a reasonable request given that Mr X is living with and parenting D. I have strongly encouraged the Mother to do what she can to ensure that Mr X consents to third party safeguarding checks commissioned by Cafcass. Any information disclosed is confidential and must not be shared with third parties outside of these proceedings. If Mr X is not willing to cooperate with Cafcass then he needs to attend the next court hearing, where I will consider whether to make an order to obtain this information directly from the police database and for it to be disclosed within proceedings. The Mother has permission to share the final paragraph of this judgment with her partner.

Order

Domestic Violence and Harm is also relevant which provides key definitions of domestic abuse including coercive control. These are outlined further below.