“The mother presented as an anxious and stressed person, very worried about the father and about their children. These proceedings have clearly taken their toll on her. She has struggled during this process to identify the core points in her evidence, preferring instead to provide a great deal of detail and extraneous material. That said, however, the impression I formed of her when she gave her oral evidence was that she was straightforward and truthful.” “The father presented as very quietly spoken, at times almost inaudible. He had to be reminded to speak louder many times. He was appropriately emotional when discussing his children and his lack of contact with them, but otherwise he came across as generally oppositional and dissatisfied. He very much had a point, or indeed a number of points, to prove. At times that seemed to me to descend to a childish level. He was reluctant to concede that his response to the mother’s announcement that she was pregnant was hurtful and inappropriate. His concerns appeared to represent point scoring rather than any genuine uncertainty. His concerns about the mother’s description of the children as ‘white British’ seemed exaggerated, particularly where that had never been discussed by the parents. I did not believe some of his evidence… Although quiet and moderate when he initially spoke, by the end of his evidence I formed the impression of someone so consumed by his dislike of the mother and the sense he had been wronged, that he was unable to tell the truth or to reflect upon his own behaviour.”
“The mother, as I have said, presents as anxious and stressed. The father presents as very quietly spoken but also as oppositional and dissatisfied. I formed the impression that the mother was a truthful witness whereas the father lied and exaggerated on occasions. Their dislike of each other was palpable throughout this hearing as it has been at each hearing. Their relationship was clearly troubled from early on. Both are close to their parents but the relationship between each and the other’s parents was difficult. For the mother there was a language and cultural barrier with the father’s parents. For the father he resented the mother’s geographical as well as emotional closeness to her family, whereas his family was living a considerable distance away in Country X. The father clearly feels culturally different and sees criticism or perceived unfriendliness towards him as being generated by racial, cultural or gender bias.”
“7. Permission to the parties to file a further statement of evidence setting out a) any relevant events since the fact-finding hearing, b) their response to the s.7 Cafcass report, c) the order that they seek and the reasons why by10 May 2025 . 8. The parties’ statements of evidence shall be no longer than 12 sides of A4 and prepared in 12 font with 1.5 line spacings.” “11. No document other than a document specified in an order or filed in accordance with the Rules or any Practice Direction shall be filed without the court’s permission.”
“After the most recent hearing, I was left feeling like a second-class citizen. Despite presenting concrete evidence, particularly in relation to the stalking incident, I felt borderline ridiculed during my submissions. My words were not given the respect or consideration that any parent deserves. The experience was demoralising. I left the courtroom feeling as though my background, financial limitations, and lack of legal representation made me less worthy of being heard. Even the court-appointed Qualified Legal Representative (QLR), who I had been told would assist, was not present on the day. This further contributed to the sense that I was left to face a highly technical and emotionally charged process without the support or fairness I had been promised. I deeply fear that the court may hold prejudice – consciously or unconsciously regarding my financial situation and my origin. I come from a modest background, and I cannot afford high-priced legal teams. But I am no less a father, and my children’s needs are no less important. They deserve the presence of their father in their lives, just as I deserve the opportunity to parent them without unjustified barriers.” “From the outset, despite presenting clear and compelling evidence – particularly regarding the stalking behaviours demonstrated by [M] – I have felt dismissed, disbelieved and unsupported. The tone and handling of this case, combined with my inability to secure legal representation due to financial hardship, have created an uneven playing field”
“[4] Despite the high volume of cases, the need to identify and, where necessary, decide upon issues of domestic abuse is a matter that is rightly afforded a high level of importance in Family Court proceedings. Where past domestic abuse is found to have taken place, the court must consider the impact that abuse has had on both the child and parent and thereafter determine what orders are to be made for the future protection and welfare of parent and child in the light of those findings. Depending upon the circumstances, such orders may substantially restrict, or even close down, the continuing relationship between the abusive parent and their child.” “[31] The circumstances encompassed by the definition of ‘domestic abuse’ inPD 12J 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: (i) Is directed against, or witnessed by, the child; (ii) 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; (iii) Creates an atmosphere of fear and anxiety in the home which is inimical to the welfare of the child; (iv) Risks inculcating, particularly in boys, a set of values which involve treating women as being inferior to men.” “[51] Ms Mills QC on behalf of the second interveners, (‘Women’s Aid’, ‘Rights for Women’, ‘Rape Crisis England and Wales’ and ‘Welsh Women’s Aid’), submitted that ‘the overwhelming majority of domestic abuse (particularly abuse perpetrated by men against women) is underpinned by coercive control and it is the overarching issue that ought to be tried first by the court.’ We agree and it follows that consideration of whether the evidence establishes an abusive pattern of coercive and/or controlling behaviour is likely to be the primary question in many cases where there is an allegation of domestic abuse, irrespective of whether there are other more specific factual allegations to be determined. The principal relevance of conducting a fact-finding hearing and in establishing whether there is, or has been, such a pattern of behaviour, is because of the impact that such a finding may have on the assessment of any risk involved in continuing contact. [52] Professionals would now, rightly, regard as ‘old fashioned’ the approach of the DVMA 1976 where protective measures were only triggered in the event of ‘violence’ or ‘actual bodily harm’. In like manner, the approach of regarding coercive or controlling incidents that occurred between the adults when they were together in a close relationship as being ‘in the past’, and therefore of little or no relevance in terms of establishing a risk of future harm, should, we believe, also be considered to be ‘old fashioned’ and no longer acceptable. The fact that there may in the future be no longer any risk of assault, because an injunction has been granted, or that the opportunity for inter-marital or inter-partnership rape may no longer arise, does not mean that a pattern of coercive or controlling behaviour of that nature, adopted by one partner towards another, where this is proved, will not manifest itself in some other, albeit more subtle, manner so as to cause further harm or otherwise suborn the independence of the victim in the future and impact upon the welfare of the children of the family.”
“13A Orders undersection 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 13A.1 Undersection 91(14) of the 1989 Act orders are available to prevent a person from making future applications under that Act without leave of the court. Section 91(14) leaves a discretion to the court to determine the circumstances in which an order should be made. These circumstances may be many and varied. They include circumstances where an application would put the child concerned, or another individual, at risk of harm (as provided in section 91A), such as psychological or emotional harm. The welfare of the child is paramount. 13A.2 These circumstances can also include where one party has made repeated and unreasonable applications; where a period of respite is needed following litigation; where a period of time is needed for certain actions to be taken for the protection of the child or other person; or where a person’s conduct overall is such that an order is merited to protect the welfare of the child directly, or indirectly due to damaging effects on a parent carer. Such conduct could include harassment, or other oppressive or distressing behaviour beyond or within the proceedings including via social media and e-mail, and via third parties. Such conduct might also constitute domestic abuse. A future application could also be part of a pattern of coercive or controlling behaviour or other domestic abuse toward the victim, such that a section 91(14) order is also merited due to the risk of harm to the child or other individual. 13A.4 In proceedings in which domestic abuse is alleged or proven, or in which there are allegations or evidence of other harm to a child or other individual, the court should give early and ongoing consideration to whether it would be appropriate to make a section 91(14) order on disposal of the application, even if an application for such an order has not been made (since the court may make an order of its own motion – see section 91A(5)). 13A.5 Section 91(14) orders are a protective filter – not a bar on applications – and there is considerable scope for their use in appropriate cases. The court should refer toPractice Direction 12Q for guidance on section 91(14) applications and orders.”
“4. Duration 4.1 Sections 91(14) and 91A are silent on the duration of a section 91(14) order. The court therefore has a discretion as to the appropriate duration of the order. Any time limit imposed should be proportionate to the harm it is seeking to avoid. If the court decides to make a section 91(14) order, the court should explain its reasons for the duration ordered. 5.Types of application 5.1 Sections 91(14) and 91A give a discretion to the court as to the types of application under the 1989 Act that can be made subject to permission from the court. If the court decides to make a section 91(14) order, the court should consider which types of application should be specified in the order, and it should explain its reasons.”
“What is needed to justify the intervention of the court is some form of deliberate conduct which has the effect on the applicant of harassment to such a degree that the court's protection is called for. The negative impact on the applicant can include elements of psychological and/or emotional harm. The conduct of the respondent, whilst being deliberate, does not need to have been with the intention of causing that harm.”