F v M [2025] EWHC 621 (Fam)

[2025] EWHC 621 (Fam)Case No FD24P00124
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LLDate 17/03/2025
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE HAYDEN
Between
FApplicantMRespondent
Jason Green (instructed by Dawson Cornwell LLP) for ApplicantAdele Cameron-Douglas (instructed by Osbornes Law LLP) for RespondentHearing Hearing dates: 11 th– 13 th February 2025
Approved JudgmentThis judgment was handed down remotely at 2pm on 17 th March 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives..............................THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE HAYDENThis judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.
[1]On 10th December 2024, I listed this matter for a fact-finding hearing in the context of an application brought by the father (F), pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, in relation to his son (Y). Y is now 13 months old. It is convenient to identify a number of principles: a fact-finding hearing “can be an inquisitorial (or investigative) process, which at all times must protect the interests of all involved” (see PD12J, FPR 2010). As in all family proceedings “the Court’s only concern…is to get at the truth” per Lady Hale in Re A [2012] UKSC, para. 36. The parameters of a fact-finding hearing are well established and conveniently summarised by Cobb J in Re B-B (Domestic Abuse: Fact-Finding) [2022] EWHC 108 (Fam). It is unnecessary to rehearse them here.[2]F has filed four substantial statements; M has filed three. Each has now set out, in schedule format, the findings they respectively seek. The background to this hearing is highly antagonistic. Each of the parties has made serious allegations against the other. Some of those allegations have a criminal complexion to them. Though the major protagonists would appear, on the face of it, to be F and the mother (M), the extended family, on both sides is, though to differing degrees, deeply involved in this high octane and profoundly corrosive dispute. F’s case is that M has been manipulated and controlled by her family. There is compelling evidence that M’s family are organised criminals involved in very serious crime, centred in Berlin. M’s case, as pleaded in her statements, is that F has been coercive and controlling towards her.[3]F is a 32-year-old man. He was born in Beirut, Lebanon and moved to live in England with his family when he was 7 years old. M is 23 years of age, born in Berlin, Germany. The family is inter-related. The maternal grandfather is the nephew of the paternal grandfather. The parties first met in August 2022 in Berlin. They were introduced by their families, and it was arranged that they would be married. M’s family is a large one, she is one of twelve siblings, most of whom, it must be said, have criminal records for serious criminal offences.[4]F’s family is not quite so large. He is one of six siblings. His experience of life has been very different from that of M. His parents, most conspicuously his mother (PGM), have placed a very high value on hard work and academic achievement. They are a high achieving family. F describes his family as Muslim but adds that they “have very much assimilated into British culture”. Two of the older sisters live independently. Three live in London, one with her female partner. This is regarded as quite unremarkable by the paternal family. Each of these sisters are graduates with successful careers. I find that PGM, in particular, has encouraged all her children, irrespective of gender, to look outwards to the world, encouraging them to travel and to enjoy independence. Their religion and culture are important to them but coexist alongside Western values and beliefs.[5]F is very much respected by all his family. He obtained a First-Class Honours Degree in Business Management and Leadership and is now employed as a Senior Technology Analyst at a major Bank, specialising in Risk Finance. As an intelligent man, F quickly appreciated that he and M came, effectively, from different worlds with dramatically differing experiences and expectations of life. I am satisfied that even before the marriage, the fault lines between the two families had begun to crack open. I have heard evidence from F and from PGM that the maternal grandmother (MGM) was combative and unwelcoming from the first meeting. She certainly expresses herself volubly. Within minutes of being in the witness box, she began shouting angrily, complaining that F was behind a screen and avoiding the questions put to her by Mr Green, on behalf of F. Her hostility towards F and the paternal family was visible immediately and throughout her evidence. She had failed to understand that the screen arrangements were at the request of her daughter’s legal team and not designed to give some advantage to F.[6]It is pertinent to note, at this point, that at an earlier hearing, I sanctioned ‘special measures’ in the courtroom, as I have stated, at the request of Ms Cameron-Douglas, on behalf of M. Mr Green did not oppose the application. Though the parties’ accounts strongly conflict, there was mutual recognition of M as vulnerable. On F’s account, that is said to be in consequence of the maternal family’s behaviour generally and towards her in particular. On M’s written account, F was said to have been coercive and controlling towards her. Another important consideration was the fact that as a 16-year-old girl, M was severely beaten, to the extent that her life was compromised. She had to spend a significant period in ICU. This ordeal has had an impact on her, which I will return to below. I mention it here because I regard it as a facet of her vulnerability which supported my view that the quality of her evidence might be diminished without ‘Participation Directions’, per Rule 3A.2A, FPR 2010:
“3A.2A. (1) Subject to paragraph (2), where it is stated that a party or witness is, or is at risk of being, a victim of domestic abuse carried out by a party, a relative of another party, or a witness in the proceedings, the court must assume that the following matters are diminished— (a) the quality of the party’s or witness’s evidence; (b) in relation to a party, their participation in the proceedings. (2) The party or witness concerned can request that the assumption set out in paragraph (1) does not apply to them if they do not wish it to. (3) Where the assumption set out in paragraph (1) applies, the court must consider whether it is necessary to make one or more participation directions.”
[7]In the witness box, PGM told me that she had been against the marriage and that she communicated that to her son. From the outset, she was opposed to a traditionally arranged marriage. She told me, in her evidence, that she was surprised that her son had elected such a course. F explained to me that having dated Western women, he had begun to think that the principles and beliefs of a more traditional Muslim marriage might make him happier. He greatly respects his parents. I had a sense that he was trying to replicate the commitment and warmth of his parents’ marriage. He also greatly respects his own mother and again, I sensed, he thought he might only find her equal as a wife in a woman from a traditional Muslim background. The wedding went ahead despite the doubts that, I am satisfied, had begun to creep in. F’s sisters did not attend the wedding in Berlin. F told me, and I accept, that was “due to the gossip that was circulating about their living arrangements and way of life”. I have no doubt that in their absence, they were sorely missed by the paternal family.[8]Manifestly, the tensions within the family had begun to surface. F told me he had begun to see his wife’s family as “misogynistic” and “homophobic”. Nonetheless, there was an evolving attraction and growing affection between F and M themselves. F told me that he had hoped that M, living as a married woman in England, would develop independence and a greater degree of freedom. The couple’s activities all indirectly promoted these goals. F was candid about it. He had hoped to show his wife a different way of life from that she experienced with her family. I was left with no doubt that she knew this and was intrigued by it. However, I do not think that F was always alert to the tensions that created for her. Though, in her evidence, she is studiously defensive of her family, she is also, I find, genuinely and sincerely respectful of her husband. I was left with a clear impression that she had a strong experience of divided loyalties. In the circumstances, this was not only unsurprising, it was also, perhaps, inevitable.[9]M told me, at one point, that there were times when she wished F had been more “traditional”. At the time she said that, I did not entirely understand what she meant, but as her evidence developed and as I watched her responses in the courtroom, I grew to understand that she considered that her family would have been more respectful of her husband if he had been a little less liberal and rather more traditionally authoritative. On their visits to the UK, F told me that M’s family would treat him disrespectfully. The brothers would make F pay for extensive taxi journeys, which they were in a position to afford themselves. F had to move out of the matrimonial home to stay with his mother when M’s parents and/or siblings stayed. F considered that they thought he was weak. M recognised this and, I believe, this was what she had meant when she said that she sometimes wished her husband had been more ‘traditional’. In the context of her evidence as a whole, I suspect she might have wanted to add to that ‘when her family was around’.[10]M’s family were as perplexed by F’s approach to life as he was by theirs. The tenets of Islam, which include a strong belief in the importance of heterosexual marriage and the obligation of a man to protect his family, as head of the household, can appear to be ‘homophobia’ and ‘misogyny’ to those who are not as assiduously committed to a rigorous interpretation of the Islamic code or who may interpret it differently.[11]One particular incident, which is highlighted by M’s Counsel, relates to an occasion when M and F were meeting with M’s parents for dinner. There is little doubt from my reading of the many text messages that F was physically, as well as emotionally, attracted to his wife. The WhatsApp messages are full of mutual intimacy:
“[15/12/2023, 11:46:01] [M] ⁠⁠ : Ich dachte schon du bist die ganze zeit so komisch [15/12/2023, 11:46:19] [M] ⁠ : Habibi [F] [15/12/2023, 11:46:30] [F]: I miss you [M] [15/12/2023, 11:46:34] [F]: You are my heart [15/12/2023, 11:46:41] [F]: You are my literal heart [15/12/2023, 11:46:53] [M] ⁠ : Wir sehen uns inshaallah um 4? [15/12/2023, 11:47:04] [M] ⁠ : I miss you too [15/12/2023, 11:47:19] [M] ⁠ : Hab dich ganz doll lieb habibi [15/12/2023, 11:47:40] [F]: Yes bebe see you downstairs at 4 [15/12/2023, 11:47:54] [F]: Which restaurant have you decided on! [15/12/2023, 11:47:57] [F]: ?* [15/12/2023, 11:47:19] [M] ⁠⁠ : The restaurant we went to on your birthday is nicer… [15/12/2023, 11:52:37] [F]: Please don’t put on too much make up ” bist die ganze zeit so komisch [15/12/2023, 11:46:30] [F]: I miss you [M] [15/12/2023, 11:46:34] [F]: You are my heart [15/12/2023, 11:46:41] [F]: You are my literal heart inshaallah um 4? lieb habibi downstairs at 4 you decided on! went to on your birthday is nicer… much make up ”

[15/12/2023, 11:46:41] [F]: You are my literal heart

[12]I have a clear sense that F knew that he had fallen short of the expectations of his wife’s family. However, the whole code by which he lived his life caused him to recoil from those more traditional relationship models. They were anathema to him. His obvious respect for his sisters and his mother left him entirely unable to behave in the way that, paradoxically, might, sometimes, have made it easier for his wife. However, on some level, he also wanted to signal to M’s family that their daughter and sister was now his wife, anticipating that they would gradually absorb this change and respect it as consistent with their own belief structures. One illustration of this tension is the last comment in the text exchanges above. F says to M “please don’t put on too much make up”. Ms Cameron-Douglas advances this as an example of F’s controlling behaviour, asserting that F is telling M how she should look. Whilst controlling a person’s appearance certainly can be a feature of ‘controlling behaviour’, this will always depend on context. In F v M [2021] EWFC 4, I emphasised the importance of identifying patterns of behaviour:
“109. The overall approach to the assessment of evidence here is the same as in any other case. What requires to be factored into the process is the recognition of the insidious scope and manner of this particular type of domestic abuse. The emphasis in Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, is on "repetition" and "continuous engagement" in patterns of behaviour which are controlling and coercive. Behaviour, it seems to me, requires, logically and by definition, more than a single act. The wording of FPD 2010 12J is therefore potentially misleading in so far as it appears to contemplate establishing behaviour by reference to "an act or a pattern of acts". Key to assessing abuse in the context of coercive control is recognising that the significance of individual acts may only be understood properly within the context of wider behaviour. I emphasise it is the behaviour and not simply the repetition of individual acts which reveals the real objectives of the perpetrator and thus the true nature of the abuse.”
In the earlier paragraph, I had observed the following:
“108. … I do consider that a tight, overly formulaic analysis may ultimately obfuscate rather than illuminate the behaviour. I respectfully agree with the general approach taken to evaluating evidence expressed by Peter Jackson J (as he then was) in Re BR (Proof of Facts) [2015] EWFC 41 and Baker J (as he then was) in Devon County Council v EB and Others [2013] EWHC 968. Whenever Judges are called upon to resolve issues of fact, we do so by evaluating separate strands of evidence and then considering them in the context of the whole. Some features of the evidence will weigh more heavily than others and evidence which may not be significant, in isolation, may gain greater relevance when placed in the context of the wider evidential canvas. It seems to me that the definition in the FPR (see para 101 above) provides some useful guidance, when it is broken down: Coercive Behaviour: i. a pattern of acts; ii. such acts will be characterised by assault, threats, humiliation and intimidation but are not confined to this and may appear in other guises; iii. the objective of these acts is to harm, punish or frighten the victim. Controlling Behaviour: i. a pattern of acts; ii. designed to make a person subordinate and/or dependent; iii. achieved by isolating them from support, exploiting their resources and capacities for personal gain, depriving them of their means of independence, resistance and escape and regulating their everyday activities.”
In the earlier paragraph, I had observed the following: Coercive Behaviour:

Controlling Behaviour:

[13]Sometimes in this context, dictating a woman’s appearance can be motivated, in an abusive relationship, to make her less attractive to other men. As I commented in F v M (supra), restriction of food, which has an impact on appearance, may also be designed to subordinate, or render a person dependent. The essence of that kind of behaviour is corrosion of autonomy and assumption of authority. F’s requests concerning M's makeup were, I am satisfied, nothing of that kind. He told me in evidence that he disliked the fashion for heavy makeup and thought his wife very much more attractive with less. It perhaps requires to be emphasised that he was not suggesting she wore no makeup. There is a sphere of interaction between any couple in which either makes suggestions about the other’s appearance or expresses a preference for a particular style, which is entirely healthy, normal and respectful. All this said, I think F was, on this occasion, also aware that if his wife wore less makeup than usual for dinner with her parents, they would see this as an assertion of his authority. It was probably intended to send such a signal. For the reasons discussed above, it was also a signal M was content should be sent.[14]The text messages also reveal the following: on 30th July 2023, M went for a manicure appointment; she told F she was getting her nails done and shared a photograph. He responded by saying that he “loved the colour”, he added that “the colour is perfect”. F then asked her what she thought and she responded “I find it very beautiful”. His repost was “I find you very beautiful”. On 12th January 2024, F booked a pregnancy photoshoot. M was pleased, stating that there will “be nice memories”. On 4th March 2024, M went for a haircut. F said he could not wait to see it, stating “you always look beautiful”; “Today you look glamorous and you deserve it”. On 6th March 2024, F sensitively reassured M, who was self-conscious about her weight gain, following the birth of her son.[15]M had begun using a running app to keep track of her exercise and to set her goals. This was shared with F. I have already noted that they shared a joint enthusiasm for keeping fit, from the very beginning of their relationship. The sharing of this information is now said to be controlling of M, in that it represented F censoring her whereabouts. I consider this to require a distortion of the evidence. The messages between the two, exhibited within the bundle involved F encouraging M and congratulating her:
“OMG.”; “Well done. So proud of you.”
F then asks M whether she had “turned the map on… your app. To track your walking.” M responds “thanks for reminding me”. F also says, in the same exchanges, “I will be home in 1 hour and 15 to give you both a hug.” For clarity, that relates to mother and baby. M responds “Habibi [F]. We are waiting for you x”.[16]It has also been contended that F has been controlling regarding the family finances. This is an entirely unsustainable allegation. F was the only earner but it is clear that he regarded his financial obligation to his wife not only as a duty, but as a pleasure. My incidental observations regarding the mother’s lifestyle serve effectively to refute the allegation. Most importantly, she was barely able to bring herself to make this allegation in her oral evidence. Additionally, it is common ground that M has a quite extraordinary amount of clothes and handbags, many of which were provided by her own family.[17]The text messages also reveal the following exchange during the course of one of M’s family’s visits:
“I’m starting to find it really disrespectful when you keep asking when they’re leaving. They haven’t even been here three days.”
To which F replies:
“I am asking you as my wife if they are leaving so I know if I need to drop them to the airport so we can arrange something before they go.”
[18]I suspect F’s response is slightly disingenuous and that he was indeed looking forward to his in-law’s departure. However, I see no evidence at all that this is controlling of her relationship with her family. On the contrary, it strikes me as a young couple negotiating their own space. M is certainly not a supplicant in this exchange.[19]Understanding and penetrating the cultural morés of the maternal family is not easy. On the one hand, M was a young woman living a sufficiently liberated life to be a striker in a women’s football team in Berlin. On the other hand, her life in Germany, significantly narrated by F, but not convincingly challenged by M, was also one of constriction. I was told shopping trips would be with her mother, visiting restaurants would be accompanied by her older sister.[20]PGM told me that she thought from the outset that the marriage would be doomed to failure, but to her great surprise, she considered that the exact opposite emerged. It is necessary to state that which has been so striking at this hearing, namely that, notwithstanding the nature of the allegations and counter allegations, M and F have spoken of each other with instinctive and unfailing kindness and respect. This was so apparent and so manifestly at variance with M’s pleaded allegations, that it jarred, and I eventually asked M whether she retained hopes for a future in her marriage. M rather evaded the question but, though she ultimately told me that she did not, she left me with an impression that, for her, the issue was unresolved.[21]What emerges, on the preponderant evidence, is a picture of a couple who found they had much in common. They both enjoyed an active physical life. M, as I have said, had been a keen footballer. I asked if M had joined a football team here. F reminded me that she became pregnant within a few months of the marriage and so football was out of the question. He also told me that “we found a women-only gym, but she had to cancel that after six weeks as we got pregnant”. I noticed F’s use of the plural in that sentence, most particularly “we got pregnant”. That spontaneous use of the word “we”, I find, reinforces the broader evidence indicating that both M and F were strongly and mutually committed to this pregnancy.[22]F told me that M enjoyed travelling throughout the UK. This was common ground. F said M had been to more places in 6 months than he had in 7 years. PGM said that M related well to the whole family and participated actively in family life. When PGM was giving evidence, she told me how much M liked her cooking. I asked her what M’s favourite was; she immediately responded that M liked her cheese rolls best. When she said this, I noticed M beam with pleasure in the courtroom. At Ramadan, M broke her fast with F’s family every evening, along with her husband. The baby (Y), born in January 2024 was, on both their accounts, very much wanted and loved.[23]In her evidence, M volunteered, spontaneously and, in my judgement, authentically, that she thought F is a good and loving father. F was equally warm about M’s instinctive capabilities as a mother. Looking to the future, M said that she wanted her son to have a full relationship with his father and see him very regularly. As she said this, her focus was entirely on Y’s needs, recognising, intuitively, that his relationship with his father is his right and not a gift to be bestowed by any other person. She volunteered that this makes it difficult for her to decide where to live in the future. F, who adores his son, stated in his evidence, without a moment’s hesitation, that he could never separate his son from his mother. In the context of private law family disputes, these last remarks are vanishingly rare. They are also, almost of themselves, antithetical to coercive and controlling behaviour.[24]F was, rather amusingly, less than complimentary about the city he has lived in most of his life and where his wife came to join him. Though he obviously had some affection for it, he considers it rather a quiet place and told me that M referred to it as “sleepy town”. I again noticed M smiled at this manifestly accurate recollection. Notwithstanding that M appeared to settle well and happily in the UK, she repeatedly expressed a wish to return to visit her parents in Germany. The paternal family took the view that she must have felt homesick.[25]As events unfolded, the couple was only together for approximately 14 months. In that period, M visited Germany four times on her own. Her family also came to stay in the UK on four separate occasions. It must be noted that M was pregnant for much of this time and would have been unable to travel at the later stages of her pregnancy and in the immediate weeks following the birth of the child. It is specifically contended that as a facet of what it is claimed was F’s ‘controlling and coercive behaviour’, that he would limit M’s travelling and try to curtail her relationship with her family. As I have observed above, F plainly hoped that life in the UK would appeal to his wife and feed an instinct in her for independence and greater personal autonomy. There is no doubt that he considered her family was an obstacle to these objectives. Nonetheless, F, in my judgement, repeatedly yielded to his wife’s request to see her parents. The messages between the two indicate that they both missed each other when she was away. When M’s family came to visit, F was respectful and polite.[26]One particularly distressing feature of the evidence in this case concerns an assault on M when she was 16 years old. The accounts of this have varied greatly. It is, however, clear that M was assaulted very badly. F told me that the surgeon had described her as “looking as if she had been mauled by a bear”. I was unclear from where he had come by that information. In any event, it is not disputed. M was horrendously beaten and remained in ICU for two months. Self-evidently, she sustained life threatening injury. It is common ground that rumours had been circulating within the family, for some time, that the assault was made by one or more of M’s brothers. The position at this hearing is that M and her family have no idea why M should have been so viciously attacked or by whom. In her evidence, MGM told me “it was outside my house”. I did not take her to be speaking literally, rather I understood her to be saying that this was why she knew nothing about it. MGM would not be drawn further. I found her account implausible and cold.[27]F told me that as the marriage had progressed, M had slowly “started opening up to me”. F said she talked about her life in Berlin and how she felt controlled by her family. He told me that she has said that their home would also be regularly raided by the police. Sometime, F thinks around February 2023, M discussed the beating she had received. He said that she told him that she had returned home late and had been viciously attacked by her brothers. She stated that she had been held down while the others punched, kicked and beat her. She told him it was not spoken about. I have found F to be honest and a broadly reliable chronicler of events. Though critical of M’s family, he is respectful to his wife. It is not necessary for me to determine who the perpetrators of this attack were. I am however, entirely satisfied that this conversation took place, and this is what M said to her husband in private circumstances and in confidence. I also note that rumours to this effect appeared to have been circulating for some time.[28]Ms Cameron-Douglas put to PGM that she referred to Y as “her son”, the implication being, as I understand it, that she had somehow appropriated him. PGM struck me as a guileless witness, frankly bewildered by the suggestion. In my assessment, her reaction was authentic. She had only positive things to say about M and related how she had helped her daughter-in-law manage to breastfeed Y. She told me that M was pleased that she could breastfeed and thought it was a very “good thing”. PGM has daughters of her own, one of whom has faced challenges in getting pregnant. She was delighted by Y’s birth and, in my assessment of the evidence, delighted to see her son and daughter-in-law happy together.[29]It is her first grandchild. She said “maybe we love him too much. I don’t know if that’s possible”. In that response, she struck me as analysing M’s complaint to see if she had given her the wrong impression. This very thought process signalled to me that she would have been mortified if she had done so. However, there was no such self-reproach when Ms Cameron-Douglas suggested that PGM had referred to Y as “her son”. She responded, “to say it’s my son is really hurting me” and was adamant that she had not said anything of the kind. It is perhaps worth recording that she has six children of her own and that this was a much wanted first grandchild. I see absolutely no evidence at all of her undermining M as a mother, on the contrary, I see quite the reverse. PGM’s affection for her daughter-in-law remains strong, perhaps all the more surprisingly so, given her early misgivings.[30]Following the birth of Y, F was clear that M’s family were attempting to poison his relationship with his wife. MGM had not been at the birth but telephoned M and told her “I tried to come and see you but your husband specifically informed the hospital not to let me in”. I am bound to say that would involve F behaving in a way which is entirely inconsistent with the findings I have made above. F was present when this phone call took place. M was upset and switched her phone off. F told me that he had asked the nurse to confirm that it was he who had persuaded them to let the family in to visit, despite the strict rules in place as to how many people should be in the room. The following day, at the hospital, F was present when, he tells me, two of M’s brothers said, “we will take you with us, you will be with us soon”. I am not asked to make findings on this point and so do not do so.[31]When M and Y were discharged on 21st January 2024, two further brothers arrived in England. It is unnecessary for me to traverse the varying accounts of the period that followed, save to say the tensions within the family had become very high. M and F’s relationship was also coming under great strain. M’s family members, including her parents, remained in the UK until March 2024. F felt there was a real risk that M’s parents would instruct her to leave with Y and accordingly, held on to M’s passport to prevent her departure and that of his son. This is advanced as a further example of controlling behaviour, but whilst I do not endorse it, I find it was, in truth, motivated as a protective measure taken by a father who had legitimate grounds for fearing an abduction. Again, whilst it may not be beyond criticism, it is not evidence of controlling behaviour. On any view and on either account, the relationship between the two sides of the family had become rancorous.[32]Mr Green rightly focuses on the evolution of M’s complaints. It is a fact that she made no complaint of physical violence until she filed a statement on 24th September 2024. By then, she had several opportunities to do so, most conspicuously in interview to the police on 15th April 2024, when she had an interpreter present. In cross-examination, M said that it was her mother who had persuaded her to go to the police. When she said this, it struck me as an entirely unselfconscious response to the question. Her manner in delivering it struck me, if anything, as rather flat. Caught, as I believe this young woman is, between her filial duties to her parents and her loyalty to her husband, she showed no sign of intending, by this remark, to align herself with either. The remark does, however, accord with F’s view of the maternal grandmother, whom he believes is determined to break up the marriage in order that her daughter and grandson might be returned to her.[33]It had been necessary to adjourn a number of early applications before me because of the difficulty in obtaining a German interpreter. In the event, I record that M gave her evidence in English, assisted periodically by an obviously experienced German interpreter.[34]The allegations were not raised at Court at the hearing on 22nd May 2024, nor in the statement, drafted in German, filed on 28th May 2024. Similarly, at Court on 6th June 2024, none was made, though an interpreter was present on that occasion too. There were seven separate occasions when M met the social worker preparing the Child and Family Assessment, in which the allegations of domestic abuse were not raised. Ms Cameron-Douglas suggests, in her submissions, that this might have been because there was always a male present with the female social worker. Ultimately, this submission requires to be evaluated against the preponderant evidence. Again, the allegations were not raised on 20th August 2024 at a hearing before this Court, where M also had an interpreter present. Further and importantly, it must be said that the allegations themselves are somewhat inchoate.[35]In Court on 4th October 2024, M alleged that F and his brother had threatened her with a knife. The statement that followed alleged that it was F alone. Subsequently, this undoubtedly serious allegation was not pursued. Mr Green complains that all this had been unfair to F. It has certainly taken its toll on him and notwithstanding his continued courtesy to M, he has told me that his trust has been breached and he regards the marriage as over. I find that though M has grown up in a criminal family, she nonetheless and perhaps because of it, knows that allegations of this kind against her husband would be frightening and deeply distressing. He is a man of good character, working in a position of trust where his reputation is important. He has exhausted all his savings pursuing this litigation. M has also made allegations and insinuations that F has sexually abused her. This entirely unspecified allegation is no longer pursued. Notwithstanding all this, the brunt of F’s anger and criticism is not directed to her but to her family.[36]I have dealt, necessarily, in some detail with the allegations of coercive and controlling behaviour. This is where Ms Cameron-Douglas has concentrated M’s case. There are, as I have observed, some allegations of physical violence. I do not intend to address these in any further detail. They are, as Mr Green has accurately described them, “diffuse and unclear” in M’s statements. My analysis of the evidence above must also factor in M’s demeanour in the witness box. Sometimes, this is dangerous terrain, especially where it is relied on as the primary evidence by which to evaluate truthfulness. In this case, however, M’s presentation has a different significance. M showed absolutely no enthusiasm, in the witness box, for her own pleaded case or the contrastingly robust case advanced on her behalf. As I have discussed above, she was reluctant to criticise F at all. Her most repeated refrain was that “she did not feel comfortable”. She minimised and diluted her own allegations and, frequently, barely managed to come up to proof. Even where she denied F’s case, such as his claim that she told him about her beating, she did so without energy or emotion. Ms Cameron-Douglas has speculated on alternative reasons for this. She is right to do so, even though at times, she came close (at very least) to giving the evidence herself. The contrast between the case advanced on M’s behalf and her own evidence became increasingly stark.[37]Despite my findings, I found M, as I hope is now obvious from what I have said above, to be in so many ways, impressive. Her spontaneous comments (see para 23), indicate that she appears to be an instinctively good mother. F certainly thinks so. The detail and colour of the early months of their marriage is abundant in the evidence. PGM’s frank observations about the happiness in the marriage, which she never expected to see, I find to be both authentic and corroborated. It is almost an insult to this happy period in this couple’s life to describe F’s behaviour as coercive and controlling. Like F, I am not prepared to criticise M for the false case that she has presented. I have described her persistent reluctance in evidence. I agree with F that M has been under great pressure from her intimidating family, most particularly from her own mother, to abandon this marriage and to return to Germany with her son. M has been placed in an entirely invidious position. It is obvious that she continues to struggle with her almost palpable conflict of loyalties, now polarised between her family and her son’s best interests. M is certainly the victim of controlling behaviour and, in the not so distant past, a victim of the most appalling violence inflicted by men. However, her husband, as I am convinced she recognises, is not a perpetrator of such behaviour and as such, contrasts with her wider experience of men.[38]During these proceedings, which have been protracted, M has lived with Y here in the UK. She has shown obvious resilience and taken the time to learn English, to an impressive standard. She has been able to forge relationships with English speaking people. It is obvious to me that she is thinking carefully about the future both for herself and her child. Delay is not always inimical to the welfare of a child. I have a strong sense, having listened carefully to her evidence and watched her in the courtroom, that the past months have afforded M some space to think. If she will forgive me the liberty of saying so, she is an impressive young woman, who I hope may have begun to realise, has both the right and the capability to take her own decisions.[39]I do, however, find it necessary to say that where wrongful allegations of coercive and controlling behaviour are brought and consequently dismissed, that may have wider resonance. This is frequently an insidious abuse, most commonly inflicted against women. It is invariably corrosive to the victim’s self-confidence. Victims of such abuse, as the case law shows, frequently doubt their own perceptions, precisely because of the subtle but permeative nature of the harm. Garnering the evidence in such cases can be forensically challenging. Sometimes, the most harrowing experiences for the victim can seem trivial or innocuous to the outsider, who does not have the available material to place the behaviour in its wider context. Allegations, wrongly brought, may serve, for a variety of reasons, to make life more difficult for a genuine victim in the future.