H (International relocation; controlling or coercive behaviour; covert recordings; half-sibling tie), Re [2026] EWFC 43 (B)

[2026] EWFC 43 (B)

In the Reading Family Court

In the Matter of the Children Act 1989

6 February 2026

In the Matter of: H, a boy, aged 2 years and 4 months

Between

MApplicant

FRespondent

Ruling on Applications

No information that may lead to the identification of the child or the parties to this case may be published without the Court’s permission.

Date 2026-02-06

Introduction

[1]The Court is concerned with the welfare of H, a boy, aged 2 years and 4 months. This determination is given at the end of a three day hearing to determine child arrangements for H, namely, whether he should live with both of his parents under a shared care order as his Father contends, or whether he should live with his Mother and spend time with his Father, as his Mother contends. Central to his Mother’s plans is relocation to South Africa; therefore I must determine this specific issue within the broader determination of H’s child arrangements pursuant to his welfare interests.

Brief History

[2]The parties met on an online dating app in January 2022, moved in together to the Father’s property in March 2022, and married in June 2022, first in Europe for administrative reasons, followed by a larger celebration in South Africa in 2023. The relationship began to deteriorate early in 2023 during the Mother’s pregnancy, with the Mother reporting escalating verbal abuse, controlling behaviour and restrictions on her movements and family contact. The Father has an older child, Y, born via an informal arrangement with a friend; he told the Mother during their relationship that he had no parental rights or responsibilities for her. The Mother describes becoming increasingly distressed post-natally due to the Father’s behaviour, culminating in two police call-outs on 2 April and 29 April 2024 and the Father’s arrest on suspicion of coercive and controlling behaviour and common assault. Following police advice after the 29 April incident, the Mother left the family home with H in May 2024.

[3]The Father issued a C100 application on 10 April 2025 seeking a Child Arrangements Order. The Mother issued her C2 application on 30 July 2025, seeking permission to relocate permanently with H to South Africa. At the DRA on 12 January 2026, the court directed that the Mother’s overarching allegations of coercive and controlling behaviour would be considered at the final hearing, in line with Cafcass recommendations. Interim child arrangements orders were made, including the extension of the Father’s time with H to two overnight stays per week from January 2026. Police disclosure was ordered, and the Mother was granted permission to rely on covert audio recordings evidencing the parties’ interactions.

Parties’ Positions and Representation

[4]The Mother seeks permission to relocate to South Africa, contending that such a move would best meet H’s welfare needs owing to:(i) her lack of meaningful support in the UK and the precarious housing circumstances she and H face;

(ii) the presence of an extensive, reliable and practical support network in South Africa;

(iii) her ability to return to her former profession as a financial planner in South Africa, providing financial stability that she cannot presently achieve in the UK;

(iv) concerns about the toxic and destabilising effect of the historic relationship dynamic and the Father’s behaviour upon her mental health and parenting capacity;

(v) the relative benefits of a supported, stable daily environment for H.

[5]She alleges that the Father engaged in coercive and controlling behaviour throughout the relationship, relying on contemporaneous police and safeguarding records, witness statements, and covert recordings as evidence. She describes a pattern of verbal denigration, intimidation, financial control, isolation from family, interference with caregiving, and gaslighting. She submits that these matters directly affect H through their impact on her ability to parent safely and stably in the UK.

[6]The Mother accepts that relocation will affect H’s relationship with the Father, but proposes a structured, generous programme of direct and indirect contact, including extended holiday blocks in both jurisdictions and regular video communication. She also undertakes to obtain a mirror order in South Africa to ensure enforceability. At this final hearing, the Mother is represented by Frankie Shama of counsel.

[7]The Father opposes relocation and seeks an order under which H remains living in England, progressing in due course toward a shared-care arrangement. His primary submissions are that:(i) he vehemently denies the allegations of coercive control, stating that the recorded incidents reflect mutual conflict, miscommunication and cultural differences rather than abuse;

(ii) the covert recordings are selective, staged, or lacking context, and do not represent the true nature of the relationship;

(iii) the Mother’s case is exaggerated, retrofitted to support the relocation application, and inconsistent with her own comments to professionals in April 2024;

(iv) relocation would substantially harm H’s relationship with him and with his elder half-sibling Y, whom he now sees regularly;

(v) his travel to South Africa would be financially prohibitive, while the Mother’s earning capacity and support in the UK are both understated.

[8]The Father says he always intended to be a fully involved parent and that he and H share a loving bond. He believes the Mother is significantly overstating the challenges of her UK support network and could achieve financial security and stable housing in England, including through employment opportunities available to her.

[9]He further says that prior discussions in which he appeared to agree to relocation occurred under pressure, in conditions of emotional strain, or on imperfect information, and should not weigh in the welfare balance. The Father is represented by George Harley of counsel.

[10]I am grateful to counsel for their helpful conduct of the hearing and for their comprehensive submissions delivered in writing at the start of the hearing, and orally this morning. While each urge competing inferences, the assessment of the evidence and the proper findings are for me to determine.

Issues for Determination

[11]The central issues for determination are:(i) Domestic abuse: whether the Mother has proved, on the balance of probabilities, the alleged pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour by the Father, as relevant to the welfare evaluation under PD12J.

(ii) Welfare and child arrangements: whether H should remain living in England with a view to shared care, or whether the Mother should be permitted to relocate with him to South Africa.

(iii) Proportionality: whether the interference with the Father’s Article 8 rights inherent in relocation is justified, necessary and proportionate to secure H’s long-term welfare.

Participation

[12]The Mother alleges domestic abuse. Section 63 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 engages the vulnerability provisions. Pursuant to FPR 3A and PD 3AA, participation directions were made (separate waiting rooms; screen during her evidence). Legal Framework – Factual Determinations Burden and Standard of Proof

Legal Framework – Factual Determinations

[13]Where a finding is sought, it is for the party seeking the finding to establish it on the balance of probabilities. The court must be careful not to reverse the burden of proof: it is not for the Father to establish that the allegation of domestic abuse is not made out. However, through careful forensic analysis, the court ought to be able to make straightforward findings drawn from the evidence, without recourse to the burden of proof as per Cobb J in Re B-B (Domestic Abuse Fact-Finding)

2022 EWHC 108

(Fam).

[14]If, having considered all the evidence, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that an event or pattern of behaviour occurred, then it is treated as having happened; if that threshold is not met, it is treated as not having happened. This is the binary nature of fact-finding.

Parties’ Evidence

[15]The evidence of parents is of the utmost importance and I must make a clear assessment of their credibility and reliability. As to credibility, it is common for witnesses to lie in the course of investigation and hearing. They may do so for a variety of reasons – shame, misplaced loyalty, antipathy toward another party, fear, confusion and distress being examples. Even if I determine that a witness has lied about one matter, it does not follow that he or she has lied about everything.

[16]There is a separate but related issue of witnesses being mistaken, which concerns their reliability rather than their honesty. I must remember that a witness’s memory is a fallible reconstruction. It can be influenced by outside factors, later events, the litigation process, and lawyers’ drafting. Past beliefs may be reshaped to fit current views, and witnesses may also be motivated by a wish to present themselves well.

Domestic Abuse – Definitions and Approach

[17]This is a case where the central allegation is domestic abuse through a pattern of coercive control comprising emotional, psychological and economic abuse. As described in PD 12J at paragraph 2A, the definitions of domestic abuse in family proceedings are as set out in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.

[18]By PD12J paragraph 3, “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;

[19]“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;

[20]By section 1(4) DAA 2021 – adopted into para 2 PD12J – “economic abuse” means any behaviour that has a substantial adverse effect on [the victim’s] ability to— (a).

(b) obtain goods or services

[21]Domestic abuse may cause both direct and indirect harm, including via the impairment of a parent’s capacity to meet the child’s needs.

[22]The Court of Appeal in Re H-N and Others (Children) (Domestic Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearings)

[2021] EWCA Civ 448

emphasised that many cases centre on a pattern of behaviour rather than isolated incidents. Patterns of coercive and controlling behaviour may be more significant than any single event.

[23]It is common experience that victims of domestic abuse may try to hide what is going on, even from those closest to them. It is common experience that abusive relationships may last for a long time and that victims of abuse may struggle to remove themselves from such a situation, for a whole range of reasons including fear, shame, lack of resources, family responsibilities, cultural or societal concerns and/or their own conflicting emotions towards their abuser. Further, their capacity to react to events may be compromised or blunted by their past experience or their mental or physical health. Where the abuse is not physical but psychological, emotional and/or financial, those subject to it may not even recognise themselves as victims of abuse, particularly where the behaviours develop over time.

[24]Vulnerable parents may appear compliant, inconsistent, or tolerant of unacceptable behaviour, and their conduct should be evaluated in that light. I bear all this in mind when assessing the evidence against the issues in this case – where the Father relies on the Mother’s tolerance and some inconsistency in her reports to the police and support services as indicative of dishonesty and unreliability.

Assessment of Evidence

[25]The Bundle comprises 454 pages with witness statements from the parties, photographs, transcripts of audio recordings, medical records, third party disclosure from police and social services, Cafcass safeguarding, and expert evidence on South African law. There is a supplemental 52 page bundle of police disclosure, and I have also read the Father’s police interview transcript of 11 May 2024, and a withdrawal statement made by the Mother on 3 November 2024. I will not refer to every document in this ruling, but I have considered it all. My findings were reached only upon the evidence as a whole, viewed in context, without reliance on demeanour or stereotyping, in accordance with modern authority.

[26]In addition to his section 7 report filed on 24 December 2025, I had the benefit of hearing oral evidence from Theo Epie who was cross-examined by the parties over a court session. I have heard from both the Mother and the Father, who were each skilfully and robustly cross-examined for around two hours each.

The Evidence of Mr Theo Epie (Cafcass)

[27]Mr Epie is an experienced family court adviser. In his Section 7 work he undertook enquiries with both parents, considered agency material and listened to one of the covert recordings. Before he began his oral evidence he listened to the remaining three recordings. In his oral evidence he stated that in his assessment of the domestic abuse issue, deriving from allegations of financially and emotionally abusive controlling behaviour, was a “swing factor” in the overall welfare evaluation for relocation: if findings of controlling or emotionally abusive behaviour were made, he would support relocation; if not, he would not. He regarded the case as finely balanced but emphasised that the impact on the primary carer of being prevented from returning home, if abuse were found, would be highly relevant to the welfare outcome.

[28]Mr Epie highlighted as “a striking feature” that there had previously been an agreement to relocation, linked to financial conditions. He recorded that the Father had, at points, consented to the move on terms that the Mother made no claim on the “marital pot”/family home, and that a recurrent emphasis on money was present across the materials. He considered the Father’s comment recorded in a medical note – that he was “fighting to retain the house … as he doesn’t believe [Mother] deserves to share it” – to be consistent with the Mother’s account and not child-focused.

[29]Having listened to all four recordings, Mr Epie described a pattern of emotional abuse: repeated verbal denigration, mocking and intimidation, isolating behaviours, and what he described as “gaslighting” (for example, threatening to call the police while being the aggressor). He considered the Mother to be attempting to defuse situations while the Father escalated them, and rejected the proposition that the recordings could be dismissed merely because the Mother made them covertly; in his view, her covert recording did not manufacture the Father’s responses.

[30]On finances, Mr Epie identified indicators of financial control/abuse: the Father’s self-positioning as sole controller of finances; money-centred disputes captured on audio; pressure around documents/post-nuptial terms; and consent to relocation being made contingent upon the Mother forgoing financial claims. He also regarded the Father’s proposal that the Mother rely on social housing rather than share equity as misaligned with H’s welfare, given the Mother’s role as primary carer and the realities of access to such support.

The Evidence of the Mother

[31]The Mother relies upon a number of written accounts, including her principal witness statements at pp. 191–212 and pp. 425–426, her detailed police statement dated 10 May 2024, and her withdrawal statement dated 3 November 2024. In her oral evidence, she confirmed each document as accurate and provided further explanation and context where necessary.

[32]Having heard the Mother give evidence, and having evaluated her written accounts alongside the contemporaneous material, I am satisfied that she was a thoughtful, careful and principled witness. Her evidence reflected the perspective of a person who has endured a lengthy and difficult relationship environment yet who has consistently sought to preserve dignity, stability, and workable future arrangements for the parties’ young son.

[33]Although the strain of the proceedings and her current circumstances were, at moments, apparent, she maintained control of her emotions, responded clearly, and demonstrated a strong command of detail. Her presentation was measured and sincere throughout. Where she was unsure, she said so. She made appropriate concessions without hesitation. Importantly, she did not use her evidence as an opportunity to criticise or disparage the Father; rather, she repeatedly emphasised the need for constructive co-parenting, a theme which emerges consistently within both her written evidence and her responses under cross-examination.

[34]On behalf of the Father, Mr Harley submits that there were material inconsistencies between the Mother’s contemporaneous accounts to police and specialist domestic abuse services and her later accounts to Cafcass and to this court, and invites me to infer dishonesty. I do not accept that submission. Any differences that exist are minor. When considered within the broader context of the relationship as the Mother described it, they are readily explicable and do not undermine her reliability. They are, in my judgment, the ordinary and understandable variations that occur when a person recounts distressing and complex events at different stages, for different purposes, and under varying emotional pressures.

[35]Viewed as a whole, the Mother’s evidence is consistent with the account of a person attempting – often under considerable emotional pressure – to manage and navigate a volatile and controlling partner. She explained convincingly that, in the earlier stages of the marriage, she sought to preserve the relationship. As separation became increasingly likely, she attempted to placate the Father in the hope that he would engage in mediation and that arrangements could be resolved without contested litigation. Her decision to withdraw her police complaint is entirely consistent with both her contemporaneous MG11 withdrawal statement and the wider narrative she has provided: she did so because the Father refused to participate in mediation unless she withdrew support, and she believed she had “no rights” and could not continue in the situation that had developed. I accept that explanation.

[36]I also accept her account of why she once believed the Father might have an autistic spectrum condition. She was attempting to understand behaviour she found confusing and distressing. She explained that she sought a framework that might render that behaviour comprehensible, and that contemplating ASC allowed her to avoid confronting the more painful possibility that his actions were deliberate or “mean.” That explanation was credible, coherent and consistent with her overall presentation and evidence; she was seeking understanding rather than apportioning blame.

[37]Her oral evidence was detailed, coherent and consistent with her written material. She clearly described her steps in seeking help – from the health visitor, the Family Centre, SADA, and the police – and was candid about her fears, her confusion at points, and her desire to keep matters out of court for H’s sake. She also gave a careful and credible account of the events of 29 April 2024 and of the circumstances of the Father’s arrest on 10 May 2024.

[38]Overall, I find the Mother to be a credible and reliable witness. Her evidence is internally consistent, supported by contemporaneous records, and presented with thoughtfulness and restraint. She approached these proceedings without hostility and with a clear desire to achieve cooperative parenting arrangements and emotional stability for H.

The Evidence of the Father

[39]The Father relies upon his witness statement and the attached exhibits. In oral evidence, he adopted his written statement and was taken through the contents of his police interview of 11 May 2024. Having considered his evidence in the round and his responses to questions in cross-examination, I regret that I am unable to place significant weight upon his account.

[40]In his police interview of 11 May 2024, the Father made admissions inconsistent with his later accounts, including(i) shouting at the Mother post-natally following the baby-bag incident;

(ii) the removal/retention of documents and car keys; and

(iii) the frequent use of abusive and degrading language, acknowledged in substance when taken to the Mother’s list. Those admissions sit uneasily with his witness statement and oral evidence, in which he sought to minimise or deny the same matters.

[41]Within the interview itself, the Father oscillated between acceptance and exculpation – acknowledging words used, yet insisting they were not abusive ‘in context’; admitting a threat of violence, yet downplaying its seriousness, and shifting responsibility to the Mother’s supposed ‘provocation’. That internal inconsistency is emblematic of a continuing minimisation rather than genuine insight.

[42]The interview is also inconsistent with the contemporaneous audio material. The recordings demonstrate repetition, escalation, and a pattern of intimidation (including crowding and interference with breastfeeding) incompatible with his interview portrayal of isolated frustration or benign intent.

[43]Unlike the Mother’s minor and contextual variations – which were explicable in light of her efforts to stabilise a volatile situation – these inconsistencies are not easily reconciled with the Father’s overall presentation. They tend to suggest a retrospective attempt to minimise, re-characterise or justify conduct, rather than a candid effort to grapple with it or to repair the relationship.

[44]I found the Father to lack insight into both his conduct and its impact on the Mother. His evidence was marked by a persistent self-referentiality; as was put fairly by Mr Shama, almost every answer returned to his own needs, frustrations and grievances, particularly concerning H and the post-separation arrangements.

[45]When his focus did turn to the Mother, it was principally to displace responsibility onto her. He asserted that she provoked him, “pushed his buttons”, blocked him, or otherwise caused the behaviour captured in the audio recordings and reflected in the police disclosure. This pattern of attribution was consistent and notable throughout his oral testimony. At times, his contempt for the Mother bled into his responses to counsel, which became increasingly more rebarbative than contemplative.

[46]The Father repeatedly reframed his conduct as a function of his frustrated emotional state, a desire for dialogue, or a lack of control over external circumstances such as visiting maternal family members. He thereby avoided addressing the conduct itself. The emphasis was on his feelings about the context, rather than on the inherent unacceptability of the behaviour that followed.

[47]When asked directly about language used in the February and April recordings – including terms such as “fucking retard” and “lying cunt” – the Father resisted acknowledging this as abusive. He contended that “it depends on the context,” and suggested that such words were not necessarily verbal abuse.

[48]This inability or unwillingness to recognise plainly abusive language is significant. It evidences continuing minimisation of conduct that is objectively degrading and intimidatory. Even in court, confronted with his own words in his own voice, he sought to explain them away as occurring in the heat of an argument, as mutual, as culturally-framed sarcasm or as otherwise excusable. The same dynamic was apparent when he was confronted with his threat to break the Mother’s jaw. He admitted making the threat but claimed it was provoked by the Mother’s behaviour and tone; he downplayed its significance on the basis that “she didn’t look frightened”; and he characterised her reaction as a “victory smile”. That analysis is incompatible with an appreciation of the gravity of threatening violence within a domestic context. His explanations reflect an effort to justify rather than to accept responsibility.

[49]The Father appeared to expect that the court, like the Mother, would accept his narrative – namely, that the behaviour recorded in the audio sessions was merely the product of a man driven to the end of his tether by an unreasonable, selfish spouse. In advancing that narrative, he attempted to impose upon the court the same reframing and inversion of responsibility that the Mother described as permeating the relationship. This approach betrays an entrenched inability to evaluate his behaviour from an external, objective standpoint.

[50]The Father accepted in oral evidence that he does not consider the Mother to be entitled to any share of the matrimonial assets. He struggled to depart from this position even when taken to his own counsel’s position statement, which contemplated a sale of the family home and division of the proceeds. He expressly declined to adopt that stance.

[51]His reasoning on this issue disclosed both a lack of understanding of fundamental matrimonial principles and a marked sense of personal entitlement. He stated that he had “worked all [his] life” for the property and that the Mother “did not deserve” to share in assets acquired during the marriage. This reinforced the impression of a witness unable to separate personal grievance from objective analysis.

[52]There is, moreover, a striking contradiction in his position on domestic abuse. On the one hand, he denies that the Mother is a victim of domestic abuse; on the other, he asserted that she should apply for council housing on the basis that she is such a victim. This inconsistency underscores the self-serving quality of parts of his evidence and is emblematic of a witness whose account shifted to meet the immediate demands of his argument rather than the underlying truth.

[53]A discrete issue arises in relation to Y, the Father’s daughter and H’s half-sibling. The evidence here is limited, inconsistent, and – on my assessment – reflective of a narrative that has shifted in response to the Father’s litigation needs. The Father explained that he has no legal responsibility for Y and that she was conceived pursuant to an informal arrangement in which he “donated” sperm to a friend, rather than as part of a parental relationship. Yet he now places substantial reliance on Y as a sibling tie justifying H’s retention in England.

[54]The documentary and oral evidence demonstrate that Y entered the Father’s life only after the parties’ separation, and that he had not met her before October 2024, by which time proceedings were advanced. He says he sees Y around four times a year, and that H has met her only once. I accept Mr Shama’s submission that the Father’s presentation of Y fluctuates markedly: when it assists his case, he characterises the relationship as meaningful and foundational to H’s welfare; elsewhere, he maintains that he has no parental role, rights or responsibilities in relation to her. That inconsistency undermines the weight he seeks to place upon Y within H’s welfare landscape and supports the conclusion that the Father’s reliance on this factor is, to a significant extent, opportunistic and shaped by litigation rather than by an established or developing sibling relationship.

[55]In summary, I found the Father to be an unreliable, self-referential and defensive witness. He lacked insight into his behaviour and its impact upon the Mother and H. His evidence was marred by:(i) the minimisation of abusive conduct;

(ii) repeated attempts to transfer blame to the Mother;

(iii) significant inconsistencies between his statement and his police interview;

(iv) a refusal to accept objective descriptors for behaviour that is plainly abusive; and

(v) self-centred reasoning regarding both the past relationship and future arrangements for H.

The Covert Recordings

[56]I have listened to the recordings and have transcripts. I treat covert recordings with appropriate caution; however, the words spoken and the dynamics captured are contemporaneous primary evidence.

[57]I have considered Mr Harley’s closing submissions that the recordings are self-selected, capture only fleeting “moments of imperfection”, and cannot demonstrate a wider pattern; that the Mother provoked the exchanges knowing she was recording; and that, applying Hedley J’s well-known dicta, the court should not elevate ordinary parental lapses into findings of abuse. I have approached the material consistently with the Family Justice Council’s 2025 Guidance on the Use of Covert Recordings, which requires careful scrutiny of motive, context and reliability, but does not mandate their exclusion.

[58]I found Mr Epie’s professional evaluation careful and balanced. His description of the audio recordings as depicting emotional abuse – mockery, intimidation, gaslighting, and crowding – was corroborated by my own listening. I concur in his view that the covert nature of the recordings does not undermine their probative value. They portray a consistent pattern: verbal denigration and slurs; mocking and mimicry; crowding and refusal to leave spaces; pressure to “cooperate”; assertions that the Mother needs “permission” to see family; persistent focus on money and post-nuptial terms; and, on 29 April, forcible removal of H from the Mother’s arms while she was attempting to breastfeed, coupled with threats to call police.

[59]Accordingly, I do not accept the Father’s criticisms. The content is not performative; the demeanour and words are the Father’s, and the behavioural pattern is consistent across episodes captured over a ten-week period. Taken with the police disclosure and safeguarding records, the recordings evidence a course of conduct under the following headings: (i). Verbal abuse (insults, profanity, discriminatory slurs). The language is repeated, escalating, and directed at degrading the Mother rather than advancing discussion:• . “Joke’s on you, shithead.” — direct insult during an argument about whether the sister can visit. 0:07:01 (17 Feb 2024, 16:24)

• . “Isn’t that … snowflaky shit a bit homo?” — slur used while the Mother is crying and asking for a yes/no answer. 0:06:42–0:06:49 (17 Feb 2024, 16:24)

• . “What homo activities are you two gonna plan for that weekend?” — derogatory framing of an anticipated family visit. 0:02:26–0:02:29 (17 Feb 2024, 16:32)

• . “What homo plans, you didn’t answer me… Is not my problem you have AD fucking HD.” — profanity used to belittle her attention span while breastfeeding. 0:04:02–0:04:08 (17 Feb 2024, 16:32)

• . “Are you too gutless to say something?” 0:07:43–0:07:45 (17 Feb 2024, 16:32)

• . “…just stand fucking by it for once in your life… you have like a spine of your mother.” 0:01:40–0:01:45 (4 March 2024)

• . “…you’re too fucking retarded to just get it… You are inviting resistance because of your selfish, self-driven needs.”” 0:03:45–0:04:04 (4 March 2024)

• . “…All three of you are like, absolutely retarded… struggling with the subject…” 0:08:21–0:08:30 (4 March 2024)

• . “…genius. What a dumbass.” 0:18:33–0:18:39 (4 March 2024)

• . “…I know that when you lying cunts, you’re going to go back on your words…” 0:22:03–0:22:27 (4 March 2024) (ii). Mocking, derision and humiliation

• Mimicking:

“[the father mimics the mother crying] … ‘That shit doesn’t work on me anymore.’” 0:05:43–0:05:47 (17 Feb 2024, 16:24). See also 0:07:59–0:08:11 (17 Feb 2024, 16:32) — p.238 (“Oh really? I can do that too [mimics crying]”). The 4 March 2024 recording evidences mimicking, repetition and a high-pitched parody voice from the outset and throughout. • Belittling and taunting: “Your teacher intimidation tactic doesn’t work on me … the more you try it … it backfires.” 0:03:08–0:03:13 (17 Feb 2024, 16:32); “What difference does it make? What you’re gonna fucking lose? You have nothing…” 0:13:03–0:13:10 (4 March 2024) • Persistent ridicule: “Neeeext. Oh you wanna play your lawyery fucking games again?” 0:05:56–0:06:00 (17 Feb 2024, 16:32) • Infantilising: “What are you, 5 years old?” (repeated) e.g., 0:03:32–0:03:34 and 0:05:03–0:05:06 (17 Feb 2024, 16:32) • Contempt and taunting about silence: “…I only need to pay like fifty percent attention to you…After yesterday, if I were you I would shut my mouth. The utter disrespect.” 0:05:24–0:05:31 (4 March 2024); “I haveto excuse myself. Are you for fucking real? … [the mother’s name], are you for fucking real?” 0:08:51–0:08:56 (4 March 2024) (iii). Intimidation, coercion, and boundary violations • Refusal to leave the child’s room when asked at H’s bedtime: “Make me.” 0:01:20 (29 Apr 2024, 19:35); “Or what? Are you gonna hit me?” (said repeatedly while crowding). 0:15:00–0:15:01 (4 March 2024) • Compulsion/threat to force compliance about “documents”: “You’re not cooperating. You will be compelled one way or another.” 0:08:41–0:08:43 (29 Apr) • Physical intimidation / blocking movement: “You are blocking me from walking anywhere.” (the Mother’s description in the moment). 0:09:16–0:09:19 (29 Apr) • Interference with breastfeeding / taking the child: despite repeated requests “I am going to feed him now,” he persists: “Let him go … Lethim go. … He is not yours” followed by the child’s cries and the Father’s comment “We will give you some proper food” 0:11:17–0:12:49 (29 Apr) (iv). Financial control. Financial leverage and the discouragement of independent legal advice recur within the recordings: • Cost policing a family visit (refusing permission while demanding a budget): “What’s gonna be the expenditure for the weekend? … Why can’t you keep calm? Is it triggering you talking about money?” 0:08:40–0:08:53 (17 Feb 2024, 16:32) • Accusation of consuming his ‘spending money’: “It’s been too … I don’t have any spending money. You eat it all up.” 0:04:34–0:04:37 (29 Apr). Followed by “And for two years you have [had] the spending money every month.” 0:04:52–0:04:55 • Pressuring about a post-nuptial agreement and discouraging legal advice: “Same thing as with the post nup?” 0:10:55–0:11:02; “…what kind of fucked up post nup do you want?” 0:22:32–0:22:43; “So tell me exactly what you need a fucking lawyer for” 0:13:05–0:13:10; “Post nup… I put a post nup in front of you, you go sign it… You don’t have to [get a lawyer]. You just need to write one for yourself” 0:22:03–0:22:27; “Not comfortable with one that might be binding?” 0:22:32–0:22:43; “Unless you manage to quickly divorce me… you’re not in the best of luck…” 0:23:12–0:23:20 (4 March 2024) • Pressuring to ‘sign two documents’ immediately despite her saying no and requesting written proposals first (commanding posture tied to legal/financial compliance): “No! I want you to sign two documents … Sit down. Sit down… Come there and sit there.” 0:05:08–0:05:48 (29 Apr) (v). “Gaslighting” (denial, inversion of blame, pathologising) • Dismissing calm behaviour as “hysterical” while she is breastfeeding and states she is calm: “You’re hysterical … borderline having a panic attack … I wanna see your heart rate.” 0:06:28–0:06:45 (17 Feb 2024) • Rewriting her attempt to end a hostile exchange as a character flaw: “You want to finish the conversation or is it gonna be one of yours again where you’re not finishing?” 0:09:21–0:09:24 (4 March 2024) • Pathologising her: “Your arrogance is astonishing. I find it fascinating. You should be a case study. Swear to God. You should be a case study. Have you done a self-assessment of any of the like you know, major like profiles. You don’t even understand what you’re saying do you?” 0:09:19–0:09:42 (17 Feb 2024) I deal briefly here with the submission that the Mother was “gaslighting” the Father by asking him to undergo an ASC assessment. I have accepted her evidence that she sought to understand behaviour she found confusing. By contrast, the recordings show the Father deploying pseudo-diagnostic language to belittle and taunt her. This is another instance of attributing to the Mother manipulative intent she did not display, while engaging in such conduct himself. • Dismissing her fear as ‘irrational’ and shifting blame: She says, “I am scared of you.”

He replies: “It’s irrational … who hurt the other person?” 0:06:32–0:06:54 (29 Apr) — p.248–249. • Claiming motives she does not have / framing legitimate questions as manipulation: “Why are you going on with this charade?” 0:10:30–0:10:33; “…all your petty games…” 0:11:13–0:11:28; “What was the whole point of that charade?” 0:12:20–0:12:23; “…you’re playing for time… petty games…” 0:22:03–0:22:27 (4 March 2024) • Asserting a false narrative / flipping the dynamic: throughout the 4 March 2024 christening discussion, culminating in “You don’t behave civilly” 0:15:41–0:15:44 (while he behaves uncivilly), and “I am listening to your words exactly” 0:16:23–0:16:24 (whilst misrepresenting them). This technique escalates on 29 April when he threatens, “I’m gonna call the police right now” 0:11:45–0:11:48, despite escalating the situation in the breastfeeding dispute. • Filming her distress to discredit or intimidate: “Where’s my phone — I record this … There you go, you can cry now — it’s on record.” 0:06:16–0:06:28 (17 Feb 2024, 16:24)(vi) (vi). Control through isolation • Repeated refusals to give a straight answer about the sister’s visit; assertion that she needs his “permission” to see family; reframing a simple yes/no as “lawyer games”: ◦ When Mother says “I am allowed to visit my friends and family with…” he interrupts, “With permission.” 0:03:29–0:03:31 (17 Feb 2024, 16:24) — p.226–227 ◦ “That’s not what the law says” (re: travelling to Guernsey). 0:03:41–0:03:46 (17 Feb 2024, 16:24) — p.226–227 • Threat to isolate from family networks: “I’ll make sure that you are blocked from every family one…” 0:14:38–0:14:50 (4 March 2024)

[60]These behaviours, taken as a whole, fall squarely within the behaviours contemplated in PD12J as constituting coercive or controlling behaviour. Findings Financial control and abuse

Findings

[61]I find that the Father sought to control the finances during and after the relationship, including taking 90% of the Mother’s salary each month, leveraging financial conditions around relocation, exerting pressure for post-nuptial terms, and using money as a point of domination in disputes. This amounts to financial abuse within the meaning of the act.

[62]I accept that the Father loves his son. However, I am satisfied that a significant aspect of his opposition to relocation has been to place pressure on the Mother to forego or limit her financial entitlement, or – when she raised objection – to penalise her for seeking it. As Mr Epie observed, this approach is not welfare-led. Wider Coercive or Controlling Behaviours.

[63]In his considered oral evidence, Mr Epie observed that in his assessment, the broader question of pervasive controlling or coercive behaviours beyond the financial domain is more nuanced. I am sure that the covert recordings, taken together with the police disclosure, evidence a pattern of such behaviours as I have set out in detail above, and corroborate the Mother’s evidence. Hedley J’s reminder that the court should not expect “model” parenting addresses isolated, context-specific lapses; it does not extend to repeated, patterned behaviour of the kind established here.

[64]The Mother has therefore established a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour directed at her by the Father during the short marriage, and post-separation.

[65]These findings inform my welfare evaluation and the relocation decision, including the assessment of risk, impact on the Mother as H’s primary carer, and the proportionality of safeguards to maintain H’s relationship with his Father. Assessment of H’s Welfare Interests Paramountcy and the Welfare Checklist

Assessment of H’s Welfare Interests

[66]I conduct a global, holistic evaluation in accordance with Re K (A Child)

[2020] EWHC 488 (Fam)

, applying the welfare checklist and proportionality, and taking account of Article 8 rights. Proposals that significantly interfere with the child’s relationship with a parent require heightened scrutiny; enforceability and safeguards are relevant. I incorporate and rely upon the factual findings set out above when determining the least intrusive measure necessary to secure H’s welfare.

H’s wishes and feelings

[67]H is a very young child, and there is no direct ascertainment of wishes. He has been described as a loving, cheerful, and observant toddler who is meeting milestones. The professional picture is that he enjoys secure and developing attachments with both parents, with the father–son relationship strengthening through the recent progression to overnights. That is to the parties’ credit and is a relevant factor pointing to the importance of meaningful future time with each parent.

H’s physical, emotional and educational needs

[68]H’s primary needs are for stable, attuned day-to-day care, predictable routines, and the development of secure relationships with each parent. The Mother has been H’s primary carer since separation and has arranged his daily care and routines within constrained circumstances; Mr Epie assesses both parents as capable of meeting H’s basic needs and records secure attachments to each parent. Educationally and developmentally, the Mother’s relocation plan identifies accessible housing, family support and nursery options, with a clearer pathway back into work for the Mother (financial planning), which in turn supports stability of care; the Father’s plan is less developed beyond opposing relocation and seeking to increase his time in England.

[69]At the same time, H needs a strong, meaningful relationship with his Father. In the event of relocation that relationship may be preserved and promoted through regular, extended contact and robust indirect contact between visits. Mr Epie was clear that (if abuse were found) the impact on the primary carer of being unable to return home is highly relevant to H: a distressed, trapped primary carer would adversely affect H. With relocation, he said that H’s needs can be met in a calmer, supported environment while still safeguarding his paternal relationship through structured arrangements.

The likely effect of any change in circumstances, including sibling relationships

[70]If relocation is permitted, H would move to South Africa into accommodation with the maternal family, with structured proposals for contact, including regular video contact and holiday blocks in both jurisdictions; the quality and predictability of day-to-day care is likely to improve given the Mother’s network and viable employment. If relocation is refused, H remains in England, where the Mother’s housing is precarious, dependent upon third-party tolerance, and where the absence of an extended support network is a continuing stressor; the Father’s opposition to travel and historic pattern of agreeing then withdrawing consent risk further instability and conflict.

[71]As to sibling relationships, I accept Mr Epie’s evidence that sibling ties are important and should be supported. However, the connection with Y is nascent and not yet established: the Father met her only recently, sees her infrequently, and H has met her once. Y lives in Scotland, so even if H remained in England the realistic frequency would be limited to a handful of occasions annually. This relationship, while potentially beneficial in time, is not, on present evidence, a bar to relocation; it can be fostered through holiday contact and indirect means. This does not minimise the sibling relationship; it recognises its current embryonic nature and the practical reality that meaningful contact can still be facilitated.

Age, background, characteristics the court considers relevant

[72]H is from a dual national background, and benefits from the rich familial networks of both parents. The Mother’s South African family is extensive and practically available; the Father’s family lives abroad (in Europe), and he works full-time in England. Nothing in H’s background points against relocation, provided that contact safeguards and enforceability are in place; the unchallenged expert evidence confirms that mirror-order recognition in South Africa is practicable and can be achieved expeditiously when unopposed, with procedures available if opposed.

Any harm H has suffered or is at risk of suffering

[73]There are two dimensions: (i). Direct exposure to conflict: The recordings show H present and distressed while the Father crowds the Mother, insists on “compelling” her compliance, and forcibly removes H from her arms while she is trying to breastfeed, telling her, “He is not yours”, with both Mother and child audibly crying. That episode carries an obvious risk of emotional harm and exemplifies controlling and frightening behaviour in H’s presence. (ii). Harm via the primary carer: my findings include financial abuse and significant emotional/psychological abuse. Preventing relocation would embed the Mother in an environment shaped by that abuse, with the foreseeable impact on her mental health and caregiving capacity. Conversely, enabling relocation – with enforceable, structured contact – reduces that risk, supports the primary carer, and thereby reduces H’s risk of emotional harm. Mr Epie’s “swing factor” analysis accords with that reality, and I adopt it. My findings therefore, inform both the assessment of risk and the proportionality of the safeguards I impose.

How capable each parent is of meeting H’s needs

[74]Both parents are capable of meeting H’s basic care needs when he is with them. The point of differentiation is insight and child-focussed planning. I accept Mr Epie’s criticism that the Father’s stance on finances – seeking to exclude the Mother from equity and directing her towards social housing rather than engaging with realistic re-housing proposals – is not child-focused. I have also found that a significant aspect of his opposition to relocation has been to leverage or to punish the Mother’s financial claims. Those factors weigh against the Father on this limb. The Mother’s proposals are sufficiently detailed, practical, and supported by family infrastructure and employment prospects in South Africa; they include generous, structured contact and a willingness to facilitate the paternal relationship.

[75]I acknowledge Mr Harley’s closing submission that the unresolved financial proceedings may deliver the Mother a fair share of the matrimonial assets as H’s primary carer, with potential housing benefits in due course. That point does not meet the substance of the court’s concern. My findings include a pattern of financial pressure and leverage exercised by the Father; the possibility of a future award neither supplies present support nor cures the controlling dynamic that has impeded the Mother’s functioning and the stability of arrangements in this jurisdiction. The welfare question is not whether money may arrive later, but what arrangement now best secures H’s stable, low-conflict daily care.

[76]I accept that the Mother has shown notable poise and resilience throughout these proceedings and in her day-to-day care of H. That said, no parent has limitless emotional reserves. The pressures she is currently bearing – housing precariousness, limited day-to-day support in the UK, and the continuing relational strain – have been managed exceptionally well to date, but they cannot be maintained indefinitely without an adverse effect on her wellbeing and caregiving capacity. This is my assessment: the Mother has not presented herself as being close to “breaking point”; on the contrary, her stance in evidence was measured and composed. Nonetheless, she submits that her capacity to parent H would be significantly enhanced in South Africa, where she would have reliable family support and a clearer pathway back into suitable and flexible employment. On the evidence before me, I agree with that assessment, and further find that the Mother may, if anything, understate how important those supports are to her continuing to function as a highly competent primary carer in the context of the Father’s hostility to her.

[77]In reaching this view, I have borne in mind the caution, articulated in the authorities, against placing undue weight on a parent’s forecast of emotional collapse were relocation to be refused. As Mostyn J explained in GT v RJ

[2018] EWFC 26

, the court must guard against a dynamic in which stoicism is penalised and emotional volatility rewarded, and must instead undertake an objective, child-centred, global evaluation. The Mother has not sought to advance her case on the basis of predicted emotional devastation; indeed, it was the Cafcass officer, not the Mother, who drew attention to the likely emotional toll on her if she remained “trapped here by her abuser”. I am reminded by Mr Shama in his closing submissions that the Mother did not seek findings of domestic abuse within these proceedings; the need for their determination was raised and pursued by the Cafcass officer. The Mother’s demeanour and oral evidence were notably restrained. However, a holistic comparison of the two options demonstrates that H’s need for stable, low-conflict daily care and for a primary carer who is supported and well-regulated emotionally is more likely to be met if permission to relocate is granted, with appropriate safeguards to ensure the preservation and promotion of H’s relationship with his Father.

[78]I have considered the submission advanced on behalf of the Father that the Mother’s education, professional capabilities, resilience and past independence demonstrate that she is not vulnerable, and that she would not be affected by a refusal of relocation in any way material to H’s welfare. I reject that submission. It mischaracterises both the nature of the evidence and the task before the court. The Mother’s intelligence, industriousness and composure do not insulate her from the cumulative impact of the pressures under which she has been living, nor do they negate the findings I have made as to the Father’s behaviour. A parent’s strength of character cannot be treated as a limitless resource, nor deployed to argue that emotional strain has no bearing on her ability to provide stable, attuned care.

[79]The correct welfare question is not whether the Mother is capable of coping in adverse circumstances — plainly she is, and has done so admirably — but whether those circumstances are sustainable and conducive to H’s secure emotional development. On the evidence, they are not. That conclusion is reinforced by the professional assessment: Mr Epie made clear that, if the court found coercive or controlling behaviour, the implications for the primary carer’s emotional functioning would be a centrally relevant welfare factor. I accept that evidence. The presence of reliable family support, stable accommodation and realistic employment prospects in South Africa is likely to enhance, not diminish, the Mother’s caregiving capacity. In contrast, requiring her to remain in the UK in the strained and unsupported conditions I have described would place avoidable pressure on her emotional resources and, in turn, on H’s day-to-day experience of care.

[80]The Father’s submission does not engage with these realities. It presents a false choice between capability and vulnerability, and is premised on an assumption that because the Mother has coped, she can and should continue to do so. That is not the legal test. The court is required to determine the arrangement that best secures H’s long-term welfare. On the evidence, that is the relocation plan, not the perpetuation of a situation which relies on the Mother’s continued stoicism rather than on accessible, predictable support.

Range of Powers

[81]I am reassured as to mirror orders and enforceability in South Africa.

Holistic Welfare Balance

[82]Applying the Re K approach, I undertake a holistic, non-linear comparison of the two plans with heightened scrutiny on the interference with the paternal relationship. In my judgment, H’s paramount welfare is best served by the plan that secures stable, low-conflict daily care for him now, while preserving meaningful, workable contact with his Father. On the evidence, the Mother’s proposals are more realistic and protective of H’s day-to-day welfare; the Father’s proposals are less developed and depend on the Mother remaining in precarious circumstances that I have found to be associated with controlling behaviour. The impact of refusal – for both mother and child – is adverse and weighty; the impact of permission can be appropriately mitigated through conditions and a clear, generous contact regime, supported by mirror-order recognition.

[83]The proportionality of any interference with Article 8 is built into this evaluative exercise: the proposed safeguards (mirror orders/contact structure) represent a least-intrusive means of maintaining the paternal relationship compatible with H’s best interests.

[84]Accordingly, the welfare balance comes down in favour of granting the Mother permission to relocate with H to South Africa, subject to the safeguards and conditions below. I am satisfied that no lesser measure could adequately secure H’s welfare while maintaining a meaningful paternal relationship. HHJ Nott