JX (A Child) (Fact-finding hearing), Re

1. THE RECORDER: This is my oral judgment in case number ZE24P00831 at the end of a five-day fact-finding hearing in respect of cross allegations of domestic abuse.

2. I am today concerned with the welfare of JX, a child of

2. The parties are the applicant mother, represented by Ms Perry KC and Ms Coleman of counsel, and the respondent father, represented by Mr Newton KC and Ms Sweeney of counsel. I would like to thank counsel for their assistance in this hearing and their timely and considerate questioning of the witnesses.

3. The mother was assisted by an interpreter for the first four days and we have a different interpreter today who I would also like to thank for her assistance.

4. I will in my judgment refer to “the mother” and “the father” and I do so for ease of reference and no disrespect is meant to either party. I may also refer to JX as “the child”.

5. I have had the benefit of re-reading, having read before the hearing and then while preparing my judgment notes, the main bundle of 977 pages but, in particular, mother’s six witness statements in respect of which some procedural issues were dealt with in examination-in chief, father’s seven witness statements and I pause to note here that the witness statements without exhibits ran to 267 pages — so lengthy amounts of evidence there — each party’s Schedule of Allegations and the exhibit bundle of 377 pages. There was also a contact notes bundle of 536 pages in respect of which I have been directed to specific pages.-

6. I have also been directed to and listened to the whole and specific parts of video and audio recordings and I have considered all the material that has been emailed to me since day 1, including the screenshot of one of the video recordings showing the mother seemingly with a blade in her hand and a photograph of the steps outside the former matrimonial home where it is alleged an incident took place, together with transcripts of the two sets of bodycam footage and one transcript of the father’s call to the police.

7. I heard the evidence of the mother on days 1 and 2, on oath, aided by an interpreter and the father on days 2 and 3, on affirmation. I spent day 4 reading the evidence and viewing and listening to the recordings. The materials in this matter are voluminous. I spent the morning of today collating my notes, having afforded many hours in between day 4 and today to revisit the immense amount of evidence in order to give this oral judgment this afternoon. That includes, in addition to that, the majority of a day when I was actually vacated. I note the considerable work of all those involved undertaking the sorting and considering of evidence including outside of the court and working day. My view is that this compensated for the lack of time in the listing, even within the extended timeframe of five days. Certainly, if I was setting the witness template now, I would allow the whole of day 1 solely for judicial reading at the start.

8. I have considered all of the evidence before me and just because I do not mention any particular fact does not mean that I have not considered it.

9. Briefly, by way of background, the parties met in 2014 when backpacking in Country B. The mother is now 44 and was born in Country C. The father is 36 and was born in the UK. They lived together in Country C from 2014 to 2016 and were married in 2016. They moved to the UK in 2016 and, following a brief return to Country C, moved back to the UK in 2017.

10. After initially renting a flat in London, they purchased the former matrimonial home in 2019 and had one child (JX) who currently resides with the father at a confidential address in East Anglia.

11. The parties have not lived together since the middle of 2024 when, following an incident in the middle of 2024, the facts of which are disputed, the mother was arrested, held overnight and arrested on bail, charged with two counts of assault by beating. Her criminal trial was due to start earlier this year but was adjourned.

12. Currently, there is an interim child arrangements order in place with the child living with the father and spending time with the mother on a fortnightly cycle, 21 hours in one week and 16 hours in the second. This arrangement was made by consent, following the recommendations of an independent social worker, Mr Matthew Jeary, and I have been involved with the matter since March and made the recent interim child arrangements orders.

13. Pausing here for a very brief chronology of the proceedings, there is chronology at page 32 of the bundle and I understand there were issues in agreeing it. Therefore, given there have been numerous applications in the proceedings, including some in respect of directions and some in respect of contact, which I will not detail at length, I am just going to mention, having considered the court file briefly, the matters that have led to this fact find hearing.

14. Currently, the child lives with the father and has done since he left the family home with JX in June 2024. The mother made an application in July 2024 for a child arrangements order for the child to live with her, a specific issue order to return the child to her care and a prohibited steps order to prevent the father removing the child from her care. She made allegations of domestic abuse against the father, financial control, physical, psychological and emotional abuse.

15. Father made a cross application the same month for a child arrangements order for the child to live with him, a prohibited steps order and a port alert, alleging domestic abuse against the mother, coercive and controlling behaviour, physical and verbal abuse and threats to harm and kill and abduction. Father also made applications for a non-molestation order and an occupation order.

16. DDJ Norris determined it was necessary and proportionate for there to be a fact-finding hearing at a hearing in February 2025. It was originally listed before me for two days in March. When it came to me, I felt it was woefully underlisted and, given we have needed five days with all the stops pulled out, that was correct, so that hearing was used for directions and the fact find hearing was relisted for four days. But in the interim, directions were given for a section 7 report by Mr Jeary, alongside a section 37 report by the London Borough of Tower Hamlets.

17. Mr Jeary made recommendations for contact against the backdrop of the allegations and at a hearing in June 2025, I made interim child arrangement orders for direct and indirect contact and granted the London Borough of Tower Hamlets an extension for their report.

18. There was a PTR at which I set ground rules for the mother, given her neurodivergence, provided a date for her to make an application for an intermediary, which was not applied for, and we agreed the witness template.

19. The hearing was originally listed for four days, from 7 to 10 October 2025. On the morning of the first day, it became apparent this time was too short. In particular, given the lack of an agreed reading list, none having been received as directed, the size of the bundles, the recordings not having been provided to the court in accessible formats and the lack of transcripts of those recordings, plus the additional time needed given both the ground rules and the interpreter and the number of documents sent into court by emails in the days immediately preceding the hearing, including two C2s.

20. There was a significant risk that the hearing would not conclude in the time available and so before it began, I had counsel in and the hearing was extended to five days, the last day being today, 28 October 2025.

21. On day 1, two C2 applications were considered and both parties were granted permission to adduce further witness statements, the father’s seventh and the mother’s sixth. There were also issues with the position statements. Mother’s counsel had filed theirs, limited to 5 pages in line with the court directions but then filed a supplemental 16 page opening note to assist with submissions and an 8 page note of the law. The father had filed two position statements, the first in line with the court directions and the second in response to the mother's opening note.

22. The opening note was not considered by the court and the court made it clear it would deal with the matter on oral submissions only. The court was asked by the mother’s counsel in submissions to consider the note on the law and the court said it would be read, but as the law in respect of fact find hearings is well established, and given it noted that two recent authorities listed in the note were not citable, the court would consider this alongside its own legal framework.

23. I also mention here the ground rules. Having seen a psychological assessment of mother which refers to her score being slightly above the threshold for problematic ADHD symptoms, the court set ground rules. It was mindful of the Family Procedure Rule 3A, Practice Direction 3AA and the FJC’s Guidance on Neurodiversity for Practitioners which I revisited in advance of the fact find hearing starting. It also considered the Advocate’s Gateway Toolkit 5 and, specifically, the section on foundations or setting conditions and the Equal Treatment Bench Book, and the court is satisfied that the ground rules were such as to assist the mother to participate and give evidence in proceedings including having topics for questions, cue cards and regular breaks.

24. I pause here also to mention the issue with the audio recordings and the videos. They must be sent to the court in a way the court can access in advance of a hearing. They had not been but, fortunately, this was remedied by the end of day

1. Also, the court was concerned about the length of some of these recordings and the expectation the court would be able to view or listen to them in their entirety, especially given the time set for judicial reading. One recording was 2 hours and 22 minutes. I do note some of that was silence and this was addressed by the use of transcripts and the court being sent references to the critical parts of the longest audio recording to listen to.

25. Also, the reading list requested by 15 September had not been sent in so the court referred to the one that was in the mother’s counsel’s position statement which I was told was essentially the same. The agreed reading list was provided to me in the early afternoon on day 1 and, as with the recordings, the reading list, I would stress, must be sent in as directed in advance of the hearing. It was sent too late.

26. Finally again, I just want to note this trial has been effective, given everyone’s flexibility, including the court staff, especially when the court sat later on days 1 and 2 and started slightly earlier on days 2 and

3. So thank you to everyone involved.

27. If I turn now to the issues in the case. The mother has made a number of admissions in respect of the allegations made against her, including physical abuse, and has told the court she is ashamed of some of her behaviours. The father has denied all the allegations, save in oral evidence, he accepted that patches of the child’s skin were red in relation to the mother’s allegation regarding the father being responsible for the child burning their face, and he did accept some aspects of refusing to speak to the mother during their relationship. The parties also agree that there were several arguments between them during their relationship and on the dates that give rise to various allegations on both sides.

28. Summarising the areas of dispute, the mother’s position is she admits some of the allegations made by the father but also makes allegations about the father controlling every aspect of the parties’ lives, controlling and dominating decisions relating to the child, physical and verbal abuse and him being emotionally controlling and having an abusive manner, causing psychological harm and making her feel oppressed, manipulated and powerless, referred to by her counsel as her lack of agency and control.

29. Her case is also that the father has continued to case build against her, manipulated evidence and there is continued punitive behaviour in these and the criminal proceedings in respect of contact and seeking to criminalise her.

30. Father’s position is throughout the relationship, the mother was physically abusive. In dispute is the extent of the abuse and that she displayed coercive and controlling behaviour towards him which included threats, humiliation, and intimidation to punish and frighten the respondent. His position is the mother has made up her allegations against him, the reason for this being she wanted him to go through what she had been through and that his behaviours are a justified reaction to the domestic abuse he has been subject to. Broadly, his position is that his ongoing conduct in relation to contact is to safeguard the child.

31. I turn now to the relevant law. Domestic abuse has been raised as an issue which engages Practice Direction 12J. [29] of Practice Direction 12J provides the court should, wherever practicable, make findings of fact as to the nature and degree of any domestic abuse which is established and its effect on the child, the child’s parents and any other relevant person.

32. Section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which has been incorporated into Practice Direction 12J, defines behaviour as abusive if it consists of any of the following: Physical or sexual abuse, violent or threatening behaviour, controlling or coercive behaviour, economic abuse, psychological, emotional or other abuse and it does not matter whether the behaviour consists of a single incident or a course of conduct.

33. Controlling and coercive behaviour has been defined in [3] of that Practice Direction: “ ‘Coercive behaviour’ means an act or a pattern of acts of assault, threats, humiliation and intimidation or other abuse that is used to harm, punish, or frighten the victim; ‘Controlling behaviour’ means an act or pattern of acts designed to make a person subordinate and/or dependent by isolating them from sources of support, exploiting their resources and capacities for personal gain, depriving them of the means needed for independence, resistance and escape and regulating their everyday behaviour.”

34. Those definitions were further considered in Re H-N [2021] EWCA Civ 448 (“Re H-N”), [29] to [32] which I have firmly in mind including the endorsed approach taken by Jackson LJ in Re L (Relocation: Second Appeal) [2017] EWCA Civ 2121 that: “Few relationships lack instances of bad behaviour on the part of one or both parties at some time and it is a rare family case that does not contain complaints by one party against the other, and often complaints are made by both. Yet not all such behaviour will amount to ‘domestic abuse’, where ‘coercive behaviour’ is defined as behaviour that is ‘used to harm, punish, or frighten the victim…’ and ‘controlling behaviour’ as behaviour designed to make a person subordinate…’ In cases where the alleged behaviour does not have this character it is likely to be unnecessary and disproportionate for detailed findings of fact to be made about the complaints; indeed, in such cases it will not be in the interests of the child or of justice for the court to allow itself to become another battleground for adult conflict.”

35. Economic abuse has been defined in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 under section 1(4) and is repeated in paragraph 2A of Practice Direction 12J as: “ ‘Economic abuse’ means any behaviour that has a substantial adverse effect on B’s ability to — (a) acquire, use or maintain money or other property, or (b) obtain goods or services.”

36. I remind myself of the guidance given by the court and consideration has been given to the allegations of domestic abuse by the Court of Appeal in Re H-N and K v K [2022] EWCA Civ

468. I also remind myself of the examinations of principles which were set out by Cobb J (as he then was) in Re B-B (Domestic Abuse: Fact-Finding) [2022] EWHC 108 (Fam) in particular [26]: “(i) The burden of proof lies, throughout, with the person making the allegation. In this case, both the mother and the father make allegations (in some respects overlapping) against each other on which they seek adjudications; (ii) In private law cases, the court needs to be vigilant to the possibility that one or other parent may be seeking to gain an advantage in the battle against the other. This does not mean thatallegations are false, but it does increase the risk of misinterpretation, exaggeration, or fabrication; (iii) It is not for either parent to prove a negative; there is no ‘pseudo-burden’ on either to establish the probability of explanations for matters which raise suspicion; (iv) The standard of proof is the civil standard — the balance of probabilities. The law operates a binary system, so if a fact is shown to be more likely than not to have happened, then it happened, and if it is shown not to cross that threshold, then it is treated as not having happened; this principle must be applied, it is reasonably said, with ‘common sense’; (v) Sometimes the burden of proof will come to the judge’s rescue: the party with the burden of showing that something took place will not have satisfied him that it did. But, generally speaking, a judge ought to be able to make up his/her mind where the truth lies without needing to rely upon the burden of proof; (vi) The court can have regard to the inherent probabilities of events or occurrences; the more serious or improbable the allegation the greater the need for evidential ‘cogency’; (vii) Findings of fact in these cases must be based on evidence, including inferences that can properly be drawn from the evidence and not on suspicion or speculation [14]; it is for the party seeking to prove the allegation to ‘adduce proper evidence of what it seeks to prove’; (viii) The court must consider and take into account all the evidence available. My role here is to survey the evidence on a wide canvas, considering each piece of evidence in the context ofall the other evidence. I must have regard to the relevance of each piece of evidence to other evidence and to exercise an overview of the totality of the evidence in order to come to the conclusion whether the case put forward by the person making the allegation has been made out to the appropriate standard of proof; (ix) The evidence of the parties themselves is of the utmost importance. It is essential that the court forms a clear assessment of their credibility and reliability; (x) It is, of course, not uncommon for witnesses to tell lies in the course of a fact-finding investigation and a court hearing. The court must be careful to bear in mind that a witness may lie for many reasons, such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear, and distress. I am conscious that the fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything (see R v Lucas [1981] QB 720); I have borne firmly in mind what Lord Lane CJ said in Lucas, namely that: ‘To be capable of amounting to corroboration the lie told out of court must first of all be deliberate. Secondly it must relate to a material issue. Thirdly the motive for the lie must be a realisation of guilt and a fear of the truth. The jury should in appropriate cases be reminded that people sometimes lie, for example, in an attempt to bolster up a just cause, or out of shame or out of a wish to conceal disgraceful behaviour from their family. Fourthly the statement must be clearly shown to be a lie by evidence other than that of the accomplice who is to be corroborated, that is to say by admission or by evidence from an independent witness.’ (xi) That my function in resolving disputes of fact in the family court is fundamentally different from the role of the judge and juryin the Crown Court. As the Court of Appeal made clear in Re R [2018] EWCA Civ 198: ‘The primary purpose of the family process is to determine, as best that may be done, what has gone on in the past, so that that knowledge may inform the ultimate welfare evaluation where the court will choose which option is best for a child with the court’s eyes open to such risks as the factual determination may have established, a point which I myself considered in F v M [2019] EWHC 3177, in a judgment which was referenced with approval in Re H-N. (xii) At all times, I must follow the principles and guidance at PD 12J of the Family Procedure Rules 2010.”

37. Where repeated accounts of events have been given, I must think carefully about discrepancies in accounts. They may arise for a number of reasons. One possibility is they are lies designed tohide culpability and another is that they are lies told for other reasons. Further possibilities include faulty recollection or confusion at times of stress or where the importance of accuracy is not fully appreciated or there may be inaccuracy or mistake in record keeping or recollection of the person hearing or relaying the account.

38. The possible effects of delay and repeated questioning upon memory should also be considered, as should the effect on one person of hearing accounts given by others. As memory fades, a desire to iron out wrinkles may not be unnatural. A process that might inelegantly be described as “story-creep” may occur without any necessary inference of bad faith.

39. I also remind myself of the consideration of coercive and controlling behaviour in K v K, in particular, [63] to [70] and coercive control in F v M [2021] EWFC 4 (Fam).

40. The court approaches propensity evidence with some care. However, if evidence is relevant and admissible, in circumstances in which there is a pattern of behaviour, conduct on one occasion may be taken into account in going to show that conduct of striking similarity is more likely to be true on other occasions. I also note Cobb J’s comments in Re B and B in which he referred to a party being very confused over the dates and the sequence of certain events. The judge in that case did not hold the same view as the father that this was because the mother was lying, but believed that this could be attributed to being genuinely confused, possibly because of the passage of time since the events occurred and possibly because of the intense emotional and possible psychological turmoil associated with them.

41. I do note the courtroom is an alien environment and contested family proceedings create an emotionally charged atmosphere and I make clear I do not make an assessment of any witness solely by virtue of their behaviour in the witness box. I further remind myself it is often unreliable to draw a conclusion from a witness’s demeanour alone as to whether they are telling the truth. An approach of that sort may reflect conscious or unconscious bias or prejudice and the objective and reliable approach the court adopts is to focus on such matters as the internal consistency of the evidence, its logicality and plausibility, details given or not given and consistency against other sources of evidence including what the witness may have said on a previous occasion and other probable or known facts.

42. However, where facts are not likely to be found in contemporaneous documents, my assessment of credibility does include the impression made on the court by the witness with due allowance being made for the questions that may arise from the process of giving evidence.

43. I also note the court is not bound by the cases put forward by the parties but may adopt an alternative solution of its own. Judges are entitled, where the evidence justifies it, to make findings of fact that have not been sought by the parties but they should be cautious in doing so and I remind myself of Re A (No. 2) (Children: Findings of Fact) [2019] EWCA Civ 1947 and, as to witness credibility, Re A (A Child) (No 2) [2011] EWCA Civ

12.

44. I also note, as flagged in the mother’s counsel’s legal note at [15], the case law in respect of continuing conduct in Re AF (Abduction: Hague Convention: Slovakia) [2023] where Paul Bowen KC, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court noted at [34]: “A person’s controlling behaviour may even express itself in an abuser’s willingness to, and the manner in which they, conduct court proceedings against the abused party, as Hayden J recognised in F v M.”

45. The issues for the court ultimately tasked within these proceedings is to focus on the child and her needs in determining questions about her upbringing and it is the child’s welfare that is my paramount consideration. The concept that domestic abuse is harmful speaks for itself and if any explanation is needed, it can be found in [4] of Practice Direction 12J and [31] of Re H-N. The parties’ and the child’s rights pursuant to Article 6 and Article 8 are engaged and I have also borne in mind when approaching consideration of the evidence the Family Justice Council’s guidance in relation to covert recordings.

46. I mention now my impression of the witnesses and a brief analysis of some of the evidence given.

47. I have heard the oral evidence of the mother on oath and the father on affirmation, each of whom was subjected, in my judgment, to appropriate and fair cross-examination, both parties being afforded breaks as per the ground rules or when needed.

48. Mother, in examination-in-chief, told the court how remorseful she was about her behaviour and explained to the court what courses she had done to address this and how she is managing her ADHD. She also commented on the June 2024 audio recording and was asked about Mr Jeary’s report, in particular, [21] at page 236 and her reflections on the child having heard her behaviour. She told the court how ashamed she was and how the child could be a victim. My impression is that she genuinely regrets her past actions and is focused on the child’s best interests.

49. Generally, I found mother tried to assist the court. Indeed, at times, her evidence was compelling, but I also found that she sometimes was not always clear and could give rambling and sometimes evasive answers. For example, when asked about the October 2023 scissor incident, she gave a relatively long answer that was not overly relevant, in my judgment, and she had to be reminded to answer the question. She would not say whether the scissors were large or small but referred to them being a pair they were using in the kitchen every day. She struggled, in my view, to accept they were long, something which to the court was quite clear from the photograph handed up.

50. Another example of her not answering clearly was when asked why she had not set out the two most serious incidents that she seeks findings on until her fourth witness statement, labelled, “the fifth”. The court notes she said she had not because she mistakenly thought the father would not stop contact and then she realised she needed to include it. I do not fully accept this explanation. Given she says in [1] of her third witness statement: “The father has filed two statements and has gone over the whole of our ten year relationship. I would like to respond in detail.”

51. But I do accept she did not want to complicate things, given the criminal court proceedings and given she has to raise the child. However, this was an example of the mother’s answers evolving and taking time to develop the content.

52. I note that in relation to these sometimes evasive, sometimes long answers, this may have been in part because the mother gave evidence in her second language and she was being asked repeated questions in respect of the same topic. Questions were translated into her first language and generally answered in English, sometimes with the mother checking words in her first language.

53. Another concern with the mother’s evidence was when she said she could not translate a word during an argument in her first language, saying it was just a sound, but then the interpreter saying it was a word and gave the translation, “bastard,” and, after discussion with the mother, “fuck.” The court notes this could be the mother minimising things or having issues with translation or it could be, as the word “fuck” in English can sometimes be used, something the mother spoke as an almost involuntary utterance. But it was an example, in my judgment, of a not completely comprehensive, clear answer.

54. One example of the mother seeming to minimise, in my judgment, was in relation to the cardboard box incident when she referred to the cardboard box as paper and strips. I also found her evasive on the occasion of her being cross-examined about leaving the hospital after her C-section and noted some inconsistencies between her oral evidence and written evidence. For example, in oral examination, she said she had told the first of three hospital staff she fell in respect of the first staircase incident. But in her witness statement, she had not told anyone. I do not accept, as she said in oral evidence, that her saying she had not told anyone is consistent with telling the hospital staff who greeted her but not the two medics who treated her.

55. She had to be reminded to answer questions put and, in one instance, I felt she seemed to stall when not wanting to answer a question about the last time they discussed a town in the north of England, but by contrast, I noted that where she has a clear recollection, she was quick to answer. There were at least two occasions when the parts of the father’s case she disagreed with were put to her and she responded instantaneously and decisively and I found this compelling.

56. I also found her to be open and honest when she paused for nearly a minute when asked why she said in a witness statement she was scared, and then asked what she was scared of. She did not give an answer and then said: “To be honest, I do not know why it is there.” She did not try to provide an explanation when she could have.

57. I also note that in the absence of a cultural expert, I have been told that some things are considered differently in the culture of Country C, such as threats to kill are deemed to be jokes or if said in an argument, they are a sign a person is angry. I will go on to consider this in the light of the specific allegations but noted that when it fitted the narrative of her allegations, the mother seemed to rely on the culture of Country C, such as the threats to kill or asking the father to kneel being part of Country C’s more seated culture, or relied on UK culture when it came to naming the child.

58. Also, I observe that she seemed different between how she gave evidence on day 1 when she had to be reminded to speak up, was often silent and reminded not to use gestures to answer questions that could not be picked up on the tape, and day 2, when she regularly conversed with her interpreter, almost like they were having a chat, and had to be asked what she had said, and she spoke over Mr Newton KC in cross-examination and had to be asked not to. However, I note this could be explained by her neurodivergence or by becoming more comfortable with the courtroom environment and I have borne these things in mind when assessing all of the things I have noted when assessing the mother’s evidence.

59. The father, in examination-in-chief, updated the court in relation to contact on Friday, 10 October 2025 with the court not sitting and saying how it was one of the first things he addressed, telling the court that he had said to his solicitor contact could be arranged to replace the mother’s contact that was being missed. He also told the court, when asked about how important he felt the child’s contact with the mother was, that it was a tricky subject but, in the best interests of the child, absolutely important including for development and social skills, then saying it was of vital importance. My impression of these answers was they were slightly superficial and there was a performative element to them.

60. In cross-examination, I found the father overall a clear witness and this did assist the court. However, he did try to address the court on a number of occasions, which was not helpful, and he had to be told not to do so. This included on the morning of day 3, asking if he could revisit an answer from day

2. He did not always give yes or no answers when the question required it and often deviated into comment, often repeating phrases such as doing something because it was in the immediate aftermath, a phrase which, in my view, has a negative spin to it and so was therefore not helpful and, in my view, skewing the narrative to his own.

61. The court also had to ask him not to talk over counsel, especially when asked more open questions, for example, when asked what risk he posed a co-parent if fabricating allegations against them. It seemed to me that talking over counsel occurred more frequently when being asked some of the questions he found harder to answer. He also apologised on two occasions when raising his voice which he said was the highest level he raised his voice to, for example, when asked about being a controlling person and whether he controlled the mother being called "Mummy" in her own language.

62. The father told the court he was on anxiety medication and the court notes that raising his voice appeared to follow becoming more anxious. Indeed, at one point, after some rapid but, in my judgment, fair cross-examination, challenged by counsel, he started shaking and covering his face with his hands. The court briefly adjourned for the father to have a break and compose himself.

63. I also found some words he used in evidence of concern. The way in which he said he welcomed his time in court and the emphasis I found he put on this, notwithstanding him going on to say he was frustrated by delays.

64. I also found the way he responded to counsel was sometimes rather direct and almost confrontational, for example, when asked a question that he said was a double negative, when asked about whether he was lying, or asking why counsel was talking over him after the court had asked him not to talk over counsel.

65. I found when inconsistencies or things being misleading were put to the father in evidence, he generally had an explanation, for example, why he used the word “forced” when the evidence suggested mother asked him to do something but had not forced him.

66. My overall view is the father gave his evidence in a way that was intended to fit within the framework of what a court would consider within Children Act proceedings. For example, when cross-examined in relation to his reaction to the child breaking a figurine, him saying: “We tried to remain calm and role model appropriate behaviour for our children.” As I have already said, my impression was that there was a performative element to some of his responses and I have had this in mind when assessing the father’s evidence.

67. Standing back now and looking at the evidence overall and re-evaluating any provisional views expressed above, there are a number of conclusions that I reach which impact various parts of the factual matrix. It is necessary for me to articulate my findings in a linear way but, in reality, the strands of information which inform my decision are intertwined and each of the responses I give is informed by the whole context.

68. I will also comment that by the end of 2023 and the start of 2024, the parties’ relationship was, on the evidence before me and I believe is in part accepted, provocative and volatile and often the behaviours, such as the arguments the parties agree took place with some frequency, were taking place in front of the child.

69. Taking the father’s allegations first, I start by taking 1 to 4 of his schedule, that throughout the relationship, the applicant was physically abusive towards the respondent.

70. Allegation 1 is that in the spring of 2023, the applicant picked up a small, flat cardboard box containing a small plate and hit the respondent over the head which scratched, cut his head and was painful to touch.

71. The mother accepts this but says it was the cardboard box of the type she ordered from Amazon every month of thin paper. She does not accept it contained a plate or that the father was cut on the basis he is then seen smiling in the photo she exhibits, in particular, at exhibit bundle

248. I do not find that him smiling in the photo would mean that the incident did not occur. Father’s evidence is repeatedly he would try to placate the mother, in particular, during her pregnancy, and the court notes she was having her C-section the next day.

72. The father said this incident happened after an argument about something to do with how he looked for the photos and I do accept on the evidence I have read and heard that the mother had very clear expectations as to how things should be, not always resulting from her accepted bossy tendency, but some of which appears to be cultural, such as her attitude to debt, and that if things did not meet her expectations, she could lose self-control, as she has accepted, and lash out, here, with a box.

73. In oral evidence, the mother referred to how miserable her pregnancy was and how unhelpful the father was and so, as she said, she swiped. She said she was so ashamed she swiped the cardboard pieces to his head and is really, really sorry, but did not think he was scratched.

74. The father’s position in oral evidence was the box was a hard, thick, cornered box of the type that would be used to transport a plate, and that, in my judgment, is consistent with the mother’s evidence of it being a box from Amazon. I do not accept that the father was exaggerating here and on the balance of probabilities, taken with the mother’s admission that she hit him on the head with a cardboard box, I accept the father’s account and find that the father was hit over the head by the mother with a cardboard box of a type containing a small plate and it scratched the father’s head and was painful to touch.

75. Turning to allegation 2 that at the end of March, the beginning of April 2024, the applicant hit the respondent on the back of his head while he was pushing the child in the pram.

76. The mother accepts in her schedule that she touched father on the head, but states it was more of a push than a hit. Her witness statement, which was served in October 2024, says in [55] on page 419 that she hit him on the back of the head as she was so upset and frustrated. Her oral evidence said that it was more like a push but so as not to minimise, could say, “hit.” She does not mention he was pushing the child but does say the father walked away so she went in the opposite direction and went home.

77. Father’s position is the mother hit him on the back of the head while he was pushing the pram and he turned to see her walking away in anger.

78. In my judgment, if the father was pushing the pram thus facing away from the mother, he would not have been able to anticipate the mother hitting him to move out of the way, thus being hit as per both parties’ accounts. Given this, and given the father has set out the details and given the mother told the court she is not good on details and given the inconsistencies between pushing and hitting in her evidence, I accept the father’s account of this incident and, given the mother’s admission, on the balance of probabilities, I find that allegation proven and that mother hit the father on the head as he was pushing the child on a walk.

79. Turning to allegation 3, in May 2024, the applicant, whilst the child was present in the room, hit the respondent in the face with an open hand, knocking his glasses to the floor. The applicant shouted at the respondent, tore and ripped his T-shirt down the front, grabbed the respondent’s glasses, squeezed them in her hand throwing them off the respondent and in the process, cut the respondent’s nose and drew blood. The respondent’s glasses broke in the process.

80. This incident also gives rise to the respondent’s allegation 11, that during the incident which took place on this day, the applicant threatened to kill the respondent. The applicant stated the child was hers and she would do anything for the child and take things to the end, stating, “I will kill you. I will kill everyone.” The applicant also threatened to remove the child to Country C.

81. I will deal with these allegations together. I note also that this incident gives rise to the mother’s seventh incident under her allegation 4, but I will deal with that later.

82. The mother accepts there was a physical fight but says it was because father was not doing the hoovering when she asked him and she was concerned about the child and dust. The court heard details of the argument. The father said he was at his laptop, working, so said he would do the vacuuming later. The mother did not accept he was working, given he was just opening his laptop and so closed it when he did not look at her and then, when he re-opened it, she closed it again.

83. The mother says father grabbed her arm and she thought her arm would break and then he pushed her against the wall and kicked her. The father said they did not touch and they were both grabbing the computer.

84. Although the mother accepts the father’s T-shirt ripped, she says it was because it was old and in oral evidence, she did not accept she grabbed his glasses. She demonstrated in the witness box how she pulled at him, touching the glasses which came down, scratched him and fell on the floor. However, I note in her second witness statement at [27], she does refer to grabbing his glasses, albeit unintentionally, and grabbing his T-shirt, her account being it was to move his hand away. In my judgment, she sought to minimise what had happened with the glasses during cross-examination.

85. The mother also accepted the child started crying, but in written evidence, she says it was because she shut the door to avoid the child seeing the situation, but in oral evidence, suggested it was because the child was surprised by the sound after the glasses fell rather than the altercation. These are examples of the mother’s inconsistencies of account in relation to this incident and I bear this in mind when considering the evidence, but also, as with each allegation, I am mindful of her neurodivergence, the inconsistencies that may arise from English being her second language and given the passage of time and that there were many arguments and incidents which may be confused, which has led, for example, to the mother’s sixth witness statement where she says she confused two events where her foot was hurt and she attended hospital.

86. The father’s account, as set out in [58] onwards of his first witness statement, is the fight escalated after he refused to let the mother take his laptop and she grabbed his glasses and squeezed them, throwing them off him. In my judgment, this is an example of where the mother had expectations of how things should be done and wanted them done to her specification, that is to say, the vacuuming done then and there and when something is not done, she loses self-control.

87. The father has also exhibited photos at Exhibit 12 of his T-shirt and scratched nose. The T-shirt does not, in my judgment, appear to have ripped given age, but seems to have been ripped with a degree of force. Therefore, having considered the evidence, on the balance of probabilities, I find the incident as detailed in allegation 3 happened, but I also note that father states in his witness statement at [58] that he ignored the mother’s initial behaviour in shutting the laptop and, as I will go on to consider further in my judgment, I find the father’s way of communicating with the mother or not communicating with her which he says was to calm her down and is his way of going into a shell, made her more angry and this contributed to the argument escalating.

88. Indeed, as the father accepted in respect of a mid-December 2023 argument, in my judgment, they both have to share some blame in the way these arguments escalated and concluded.

89. In respect of allegation 11 and coercive behaviour, the respondent says the mother said, “I will kill you. I will kill everyone.” I do not accept — and I note again, I do not have a cultural expert to assist me — that in Country C, “I will kill you,” if said in a non-aggressive tone, is a joke and if you fight that it means you are angry, and that, as the mother said in cross-examination: “If this was a Country C court, they would understand.”

90. In my judgment, when the mother lost self-control, it was a phrase she would often say and there is evidence before the court, in particular, an audio recording of her doing this on another occasion in a tone that, in my judgment, is threatening. She also said in oral evidence when speaking about the June 2024 incident that she always said, “I will kill you,” when she was annoyed. Therefore, I accept she said it on this occasion and notwithstanding that she did this often when she was annoyed, I find it was a threat to the respondent.

91. I find that allegation 11(a) and (b) overlap. The evidence is that she said: “I will kill you. I will kill everyone,” and I find she did say this. But, noting how particularised other parts of the father’s evidence are in relation to what the mother said and there being an absence here of particularisation in respect of the allegations regarding what she said about the child being hers and the threat to take the child away to Country C, and given both parties accept that after the altercation, the mother comforted the child with the father saying the mother was closest to her, I do not find, on the balance of probabilities, save for saying, “I will kill you. I will kill everyone,” which was a threat to the father, this allegation proven. Or, put another way, I find this allegation part-proven in that I find that the mother said, “I will kill you. I will kill everyone,” as a threat to the father.

92. I also find that the child, although not in the same room, was on the other side of the door and, given both parties refer to the child starting to cry, on the balance of probabilities, I find JX would have been exposed to the argument and that neither party took immediate steps to stop or go to JX, knowing the child was there. In my judgment, that was not in JX’s welfare interests and it would cause the child emotional harm.

93. Turning to allegation 4, that in June 2024, on arriving home, the applicant told the respondent to, “Get ready,” and he understood this to be a reference to the mother’s earlier statements threatening violence, after putting the child to bed, the applicant began shouting at the respondent and the applicant hit and pushed the respondent before hitting him around the head with a baby bottle full of water. The applicant dug her nails into the respondent's arm and pinched his back. Whilst doing this, the applicant used words to the effect of, “You hurt me, so now I am going to hurt you.” The applicant made gestures to the respondent with a frying pan, telling the respondent to kneel so she could hit him with it and the applicant ripped the respondent’s glasses off his face and ripped his T-shirt.

94. The incident behind this allegation also gives rise to allegation 12, that during the incident on that date, the applicant picked up a glass kettle and other objects and threatened to throw them at the respondent. The applicant threw the respondent’s work phone causing damage to the case. The applicant made threats to kill the respondent, stating: “If you leave, you will try and take my baby away from me and I will kill you, so just die.” The applicant also made threats to kill the child, stating that if the respondent were to leave, she would kill the respondent and the child, put the respondent down into the grave, to kill the respondent and put him down and made threats to kill: “You are freaking dead. Be ready.”

95. I will deal with these allegations alongside each other and I note this incident gives rise to the last incident particularised under the mother’s fourth allegation, but I will deal with that later.

96. There is an audio recording in respect of these allegations and it was made covertly. The mother, in examination-in-chief, told the court how she was remorseful and ashamed, listening back to this. She deeply regrets it and her lack of self-control. I accept what she said and note again the work and courses she has done to address her behaviour.

97. The father was cross-examined in relation to making the covert recording, placing one of his phones in the kitchen cupboard. He, when asked why he did not take a video, as he had had time to conceal his phone to do so and had videoed her in the past, explained that it did not seem like a good idea as he said the threats were quite intense and it would be a bad idea to provoke her. He said this, despite having taken a video of her in October 2023, telling her he was doing so when she was advancing on him holding a large pair of scissors. I query why, if he thought recording the mother on video would provoke her, he recorded her previously when holding a blade in her hand, moving quickly towards him in the small flat they shared with their child. Taking the risk of provoking someone holding a blade in a small space, to me, is not in the welfare interests of the child who is present within the same space.

98. The reason the father gave for the recording was the lead up to his return home from the event in June 2024. The background, in brief, was the mother had agreed to look after the child that day so the father could go to the event. The mother was invited but did not want to go. I pause here to say I do find her expectation was that the father would be the primary carer on Saturday, evidenced by the way she refers to his responsibilities on those days in the WhatsApp messages at 18.34 that day and noting [19] of her first witness statement. Whether she was ill or tired, as the court heard from the mother, or doing it in spite, as is the father’s case, the day before the event, she told the father she would not look after the child. I do not make a finding about that, nor am I being asked to. However, the father then arranged to take the child to the event and I note from the WhatsApp messages that despite being at the event, he responded quickly to all the mother’s messages in relation to updates about the child.

99. I do not find that, as the mother’s counsel put to the father in cross-examination, he deliberately stayed late to provoke the mother with a view to case building, although I would pause here to say if he was case building, it is noted that there is limited contemporaneous evidence of the behaviour he accuses the mother of from October 2023 to June 2024.

100. The mother’s WhatsApp responses, in my judgment, quickly became disproportionate to the issues on a day when, if she was tired and ill, she may well have welcomed time to recuperate with the child in the father’s care. The mother’s messages start to escalate in concerning content when the father is not home at 6.00 pm and include messages saying: “JX is not yours.” “You did not keep the promise.” “I won’t let you have JX anymore.”

101. The promise from the messages seemed to be that the father would come home at 6.00 pm if he had gone on his own, but I note these messages are one-sided and that is an inference coming from the contents of the father’s messages.

102. They then escalate to messages saying: “You are freaking dead” “Be ready, you are dead.”

103. The father had fed the child and, although they got back after 8.00 pm, in my judgment, it was not so much after the time that the mother told the court was part of the child’s routine of falling fast asleep 7.30 pm to 8.00 pm, and I accept that the father expected an argument when he got in, in the light of the mother’s WhatsApp messages and their history of arguments as a couple. But I do note, she put the child to sleep and there is a considerable period of silence at the start of the recording when nothing happens.

104. In my judgment, having listened to the recording, the father did provoke the mother during their argument, after she had got the child to sleep, by needling her in the way he kept questioning her and by the manner and tone he uses when he speaks to her. For example, I note the emphasis he put on the word “death” when he asks why death is the only answer in response to her repeating the word “die”, or his annunciation of the word “separating” which, in my judgment, was provocative and patronising, in particular, given the mother repeatedly refers to the father not listening or talking to her.

105. For example — and I am going to give some references — at 1.38.57, saying that he was not talking for a month, or at 1.49.43, saying: “You are not going to listen to me.” Or at 1.42.45, saying: “And you don’t even talk to me and then make it better.” Or at 1.53.03: “You have been ignoring me all this time.”

106. Mother’s counsel referred to this as case building and, indeed, the father does say to police in the bodycam footage about “documenting stuff,” with father setting out each of his allegations and, in my view, trying to get the response he wanted. For example, at 1.57.55, in relation to the mother leaving the country and trying to, in my judgment, lead her to say she would go, but to which she very clearly says: “Of course I’m not going back. Why would I leave this country?”

107. In fact, it is the mother, not knowing she is being recorded, who raises the concern that if the father leaves, he will try to take her baby away, saying, at 1.40.32: “If you leave, you will try to take my baby away from me.”

108. Indeed, when the talk starts in the audio recording, it begins with the mother asking the father if he wants to keep the baby.

109. The mother, also in cross-examination, when recalling this night, says the father did not apologise and I accept on the evidence before me, this was always important to her and she just wanted him to finish and go to bed. She says he brings up more and more things. She later refers to being set up to the police and during the audio recording, this is touched upon, where she says to the father at 1.55.06, that he does not do anything and tricks her into battle. I accept that she was concerned that she may be separated from her baby if the parties separated and that this was on both of their minds, in particular, since the mother said she did not love the father anymore in April 2024.

110. The fact the mother did not know she was being recorded but the father did, has led me to afford differing weight to the things they both say during this recording. That said, I accept the father’s case he felt it was the only way to illustrate the type of behaviour he says he experienced from the mother and I accept he was expecting the argument, in particular, given her WhatsApp message at 20.11 at Exhibit Bundle 84, “Be ready. You are dead,” which I have referred to already.

111. I would also comment that even if provoked, the mother’s behaviour was, in my judgment, not acceptable or proportionate, even in the face of provocation or being stressed and exhausted, in particular, given the child was asleep in the flat, including the mother’s raised voice which, to me, listening to the recordings, sounds like screaming and shrieking at points. Her repeated threats to kill, in particular, the tone used when she repeats, “Die,” and even if this was the usual thing for her to do, and the father in cross-examination referred to some of the threats that she made that night not being her usual threat to kill, the inference I draw was that he was accustomed to others. There is evidently, and as the mother has accepted, a loss by the mother of self-control.

112. The parties both give different accounts of what actions were occurring at the time of the recording but the mother clearly says at points the father has hurt her and she accepts that she told him to kneel but says she did not hold a frying pan over her. But I note in the video of the mother’s arrest, there is clearly a frying pan visible at the very end of the kitchen counter.

113. From the recording, it sounds as if she was threatening the father with objects. She also says to the father he needs to be beaten, at 2.03.36 and the father can be heard asking her to get the frying pan down and then to put the frying pan down. The mother also accepts in her written evidence throwing the child’s bottle, although not deliberately at the father. I also note the police disclosure and the mother’s oral evidence, in particular, regarding the mother’s use of her nails.

114. Having considered the evidence, I accept it was a frying pan, as per the father’s evidence, it being to hand and that the mother also picked up the baby bottle and threw it, hitting him with it, dug her nails into him and ripped his glasses from his face and ripped his T-shirt. I note the photographs at father’s exhibit

16.

115. I pause here to say, given her remorse at the recording and that she does make repeated threats to kill, I accept she may be minimising parts of the incident or is not able to recall what she did in the moment, being out of control, and I did have to remind her in cross-examination that if she did not remember something, she could say so.

116. Therefore, I do find in relation to this incident that the mother’s recall of events is not clear and, indeed, at one point, my impression was she was remembering the recording, not the incident itself, when being asked about where she says father grabbed her on her arms.

117. In my judgment, it is not just the mother who recalls the incident in a way that could be said to be skewed towards her own narrative. I have listened in particular to ten specific parts of the recording where the mother makes threats to kill, including where the mother says: “I will fucking kill you. Just die and I will kill you. I will put you down. I will kill you everything. I will make everything die.”

118. I note the contents of the father’s seventh witness statement and that he says it was and remains his interpretation of those all-embracing statements that the child was included in the threat. It may well be his interpretation after this period of time that that is so, in particular, given the number of times the mother threatened to kill him, often when she had lost self-control. However, on the balance of probabilities, having reconsidered the statements and listened again to the recording, I do not find that the mother made a threat to kill the child. I also do not accept that the father’s interpretation in the immediate aftermath of this event was that the child was included in the threat. Indeed, when the father called the police, he was asked what he thought the mother meant by saying she would kill everyone. He said: “She meant to kill me. I don’t know if she means the baby.”

119. On the bodycam footage of him later, when asked if he believed, “She was going to kill you and your baby,” he says: “I don’t know but I have to believe this is a fucking possibility, don’t I.”

120. There was, in my judgment, some doubt expressed and by the time he was interviewed by the police and asked if the mother would hurt the child, he answered: “No. She never would hurt JX.”

121. Certainly, in my judgment, at this point if the father was even just unsure as to whether the child was included in the threat, as his seventh witness statement states, but he really believed there was any possibility the mother had threatened to kill the child, he would have not left the home on his own, leaving the child there. This was put to him in cross-examination. If, as he said in cross-examination, when the words came out of the mother's mouth about making everyone dead, it shocked him as it was not her usual threat to kill and he had, indeed, felt the drop in the pit of his stomach, it is my view that he would immediately have taken the child or tried to deescalate the situation sooner than an hour later when he said he did so with the suggestion of a hug or by concentrating on the next day’s events. I also do not accept the father could not have left earlier if he had wanted to and that he could not have got past the mother who, he said, was blocking him.

122. The father was cross-examined on the things he said to the mother as heard on the audio. This included asking her if she wanted to go down that route and whether that was a warning although, as it was put to him, he did not warn her that he was recording her, and whether he tried to get her to say she wants to go to Country C. She categorically says she does not want to go. Also, I am mindful we cannot see what is happening and that the father would have behaved in a way knowing he was recording the incident. He told the court he is proud of his ability not to get angry, the inference I draw being that even if he was not recording the incidents, he wanted the court to know this is how he would have behaved in any event.

123. But the court noted in the witness box he did raise his voice on occasion, whether it was because he was anxious, challenged or needled by the cross-examination, or a combination of all or some of those, and noting he said it was the highest he raised his voice.

124. The court also notes the mother, in her first statement, comments on the father’s demeanour being unusual, saying: “He usually shouts when hitting me.”

125. The court also notes in respect of the mother’s allegation regarding the figurine, which I will come on to consider, the father accepts he raised his voice in the moment and accepted a loss of self-control. Given the other evidence of how the father behaves in confrontational situations, I do find he was modifying his behaviour on the relevant date in June 2024: “Not acting as he would usually,” the phrase that the mother’s written evidence uses, knowing he was being recorded.

126. However, on the balance of probabilities, I find allegation 4 proven as to (a), (c) and (d), and (b), save I do not find that the mother was saying words to the effect of, “You have hurt me, so now I am going to hurt you,” as she dug her nails into the father’s arm and pinched his back.

127. Turning to allegation 12, I also find allegation 12 proven on the balance of probabilities, save for the threats to kill the child. On the balance of probabilities, I do not find that the mother made threats to kill the child.

128. I also note, as the mother makes an allegation against the father in relation to this day and physical abuse, that on the recording, the mother is heard saying, for example: “You are hitting me. You are hitting me. You are pushing me.” As I touched on earlier, she did not know she was being recorded and so I afford her comments such as these significant weight.

129. Overall, I find throughout the relationship, there was a pattern of the mother being physically abusive towards the father which would have caused him harm. I once again note she has accepted some of the allegations and that she has already undertaken work to address her behaviours.

130. Next, turning to allegations 5 to 12, that throughout the relationship, the applicant displayed coercive behaviour towards the respondent which included threats, humiliation and intimidation to punish and frighten the respondent.

131. Allegation

5. I note that this is in January 2020, not 2023 as per the schedule with page numbers, and it is that the applicant threatened the respondent with physical violence. The next day, the applicant and respondent exchanged WhatsApp communication in which the respondent challenged the applicant with respect to threatening behaviour to kick the father in the face the day before.

132. The mother says in her third statement at [34] she cannot remember the exact words and she may have said something extreme like: “ ‘I will punch or kick you,’ if he does not stop abusing me verbally.”

133. The father says they had an argument over food during which the mother threatened him with physical violence and he exhibits a WhatsApp message at father’s exhibit 4 in support of this. I note the date of the WhatsApp is January 2020 and refers to the comments being made, “last night.” Therefore, having considered the evidence and what the mother says, on the balance of probabilities, I find this allegation proven but that it was on [date] January 2020 and the message was on [date] January 2020.

134. Allegation 6 is that in October 2023, the applicant threatened to kill the respondent. The applicant told the respondent she would get a knife and moved towards the kitchen. The applicant returned, threatening the respondent with a blade. The respondent ran into the bathroom and locked himself inside, remaining in there for several hours. Following this incident, the applicant accused the respondent of trying to get her arrested. The applicant made the respondent apologise for his behaviour and consequently, the respondent repeatedly told the applicant he was sorry.

135. The respondent alleges this is an example of DARVO, deny, attack, reverse, victim, offender, and seeks a finding in relation to this, although offers no expert evidence on this and there was no binding authority in relation to the term, although I note it was first mentioned by HHJ Middleton-Roy in Re GB (Parental Alienation: Factual Findings) [2024] EWFC 75 (B).

136. The father’s position is there was an argument during which the mother threatened to kill the father, following which he said, “That was stupid,” and if she did, she would be arrested and go to prison and likely never see the child again. This appears to be a theme in the evidence. The father would highlight to the mother in arguments what would happen if she did kill him and even, as heard in the recording in June 2024, suggested role-playing what would happen if he was dead on the floor, something that, in my judgment, would inflame not deescalate a situation and would also prey on the mother’s concern about her baby being taken away from her. By the father’s own account in his second witness statement at [9], he refers to saying the mother would be arrested and she got extremely angry and accused him of trying to get her arrested. He says she said she would get a knife and kill him and then moved towards the kitchen and: “She went to the kitchen and pulled out either a pair of scissors or, possibly, a knife. I could not see exactly what she had in her hand but there was a blade of some kind.”

137. [10] says the father ran into their bathroom, confirmed by the mother in cross-examination, and locked himself inside. But from the video recording, in my judgment, this does not seem to be the case. He seems to be standing outside the bathroom, waiting to capture the mother on camera coming round the corner holding the one blade, before entering the bathroom. His comment that she is holding a knife and scissors is therefore, in my judgment, disingenuous as is his text at father’s exhibit

27. If he knew it was just one blade, either a knife or scissors, why ask if she has put away the knife and the scissors?

138. The mother accepts she took scissors in her hand and approached the father and there is, as I have mentioned, the video recording of this with her walking through the flat, whilst the father moves to and shuts himself in the bathroom.

139. I do accept the mother’s oral evidence that she intended to do nothing with the scissors but I have concerns she did not accept in court it was a long pair, referring, as I have already mentioned, to them as, “The pair we were using in the kitchen every day.” The blade of the scissors is, in my judgment, long and the mother appears to seek to minimise this. In my judgment, there are risks of walking through a confined space in the way she does, holding a blade aloft.

140. However, I do not make a finding, as the father seeks, that this is an example of deny, attack, reverse, victim, offender. As I say, I do not have expert evidence on this, but I also note the mother does not deny it. Indeed, she accepts in her third witness statement that she said, “You’re dead,” or something similar, lost her temper and the father was recording it as she was holding scissors. She also raises the issue here that I mentioned earlier as being disingenuous that he was saying: “You are literally holding scissors and a knife,” when he knew it was just scissors and she asked if she was going to prison.

141. I was troubled in cross-examination that the mother said: “He wanted to film me and send me to jail so I made a show for him.”

142. I hope she continues to work towards not being reactive in situations, especially thinking about situations in the future where the child may not react in the way the mother expects or would wish.

143. In my judgment, the mother had, as she accepted, lost control. Certainly, lots of new parents are stressed and cannot, as the mother says, handle anger but they do not then pick up a blade during an argument, as she did.

144. On the balance of probabilities, considering the mother’s admissions, the parties’ statements and the recording, I find this allegation part proven. I find the mother threatened to kill the father, went to the kitchen and returned from the kitchen with scissors, approaching father with them in her hand who, having filmed her walking through the flat, then locked himself in the bathroom. But I do not find she threatened the father with the scissors or that he ran into the bathroom and I do not find this is an example of DARVO.

145. Allegation 7 is that in December 2023, the applicant shone her phone torch in the respondent’s eyes repeatedly to prevent him from going to sleep. The applicant kicked and pushed the respondent in his attempts to sleep.

146. The mother said it was dark and the father went to sleep on the sofa after an argument and she accepts she used her phone to find him in the dark and in oral evidence, she repeatedly said she was making a nice gesture to ask him to come back to bed. In my judgment, it would have been better not to try to make that nice gesture in the circumstances and leave things to calm down.

147. The father says the mother shone the light in his face to prevent him from going to sleep and kicked and pushed him as he tried to sleep.

148. Considering the evidence, I note that the mother would carry out repeated actions if things were not as she wished, such as repeated shutting of the laptop in May 2024, and on the balance of probabilities, I find she shone her phone torch in the respondent’s eyes repeatedly when he was trying to go to sleep. But I do not find the allegation of kicking and pushing him sufficiently particularised or evidenced and do not find that part of the allegation proven.

149. Allegation 8 is that in December 2023, over the Christmas period, the applicant would frequently say things such as: “Clearly, the only way you’ll listen to me is if I get really angry at you, otherwise, you’ll just ignore me. Maybe you need to get beaten or perhaps I need to hit you to make you listen to me.” The applicant continued to make these threats until the respondent left the former matrimonial home. The mother accepts this, but not that she said it frequently.

150. Having considered [53] of the father’s first witness statement and [50] of the mother’s third witness statement and noting her admission and what I heard on the audio recording from June 2024, on the balance of probabilities, I find this allegation proven.

151. Turning to allegation 9, that in the winter of 2023, the applicant made threats that if the respondent annoyed her, she would remove the child to Country C and the respondent would never see the child again.

152. The mother’s position to me appears very clear in all the evidence. She would prefer to be in Country C and feels it would be better for the child. She openly says this. She also says given her and the father’s love of travelling, they did not see the UK as a permanent home, but she says she did not threaten to take the child to Country C.

153. The father’s position is as per the allegation and he was concerned the mother may suddenly remove the child away from him. The court has no evidence of that, save from the father’s written and oral evidence and the court notes the father also states he felt moving to Country C would not be good for his career and mentions he sought advice from a friend who suggested it sounded like he was in a controlling relationship.

154. However, in respect of this allegation, I prefer the mother’s evidence to the father’s, finding, in particular, her written evidence full, detailed, open and clear, in stark contrast to where she sometimes says she is lacking in detail. Therefore, considering all the evidence and preferring the mother’s account in respect of this allegation, on the balance of probabilities, I do not find this allegation proven.

155. Allegation 10 is that in January 2024, the applicant threatened the respondent that she would go to the police, accusing the respondent of fictitious abuse. The respondent apologised to the applicant so she would stop threatening him.

156. The mother said the father had not spoken to her from December 2023 and she recorded this in her diary. The father said the mother made specific threats, including: “She would show me the bottom and go to the police.”

157. The speech marks around these threats are in different places in the father’s witness statement and in the notes that the father says he put in his chores list in January 2024 at 17.48, exhibited at father’s exhibit

29. The father also put a description after the quote, saying: “Made it sound like she was willing to make up stories to get me into some sort of trouble and make life difficult for me.” Which I found strange as, in my judgment, the quotes would be an adequate record for him. I also found it strange that whatever happened in January 2024, both parties decided to make an electronic note of it on the day. There is evidence the father, from October 2023, was collating evidence, of which this seems to be an example, but no such suggestion the mother was. That makes the mother’s exhibit at mother’s exhibit 9 all the more compelling, as she says: “I told him we may divorce. Then he was threatening that he will take JX away from me.” Therefore, I prefer the mother’s evidence on this point.

158. On the evidence I have read and heard and given what I have said about father’s exhibit 29, on the balance of probabilities, I do not find this allegation proven.

159. I pause here to note that there is evidence the mother said to the police words to the effect of, “I want him to go through what I’ve been through.” I note she was not assisted by interpreters at this interview and I also note what the mother said to officers when she was arrested. When arrested, the mother is confused why, if she has been the victim of abuse, she is being arrested and the father is not and the officers explain it to her as there being two sides to every story and one of them has to be removed from the situation, given the father contacted the police with allegations of physical abuse and threats to kill.

160. In my judgment, any statement regarding wanting the father to go through what she has been through is, as the police disclosure states, about wanting him to be arrested and interviewed about her counter allegation, and only that.

161. I have already dealt with allegation 11 when considering allegation 3, and allegation 12, when considering allegation

4.

162. Overall, in the light of the mother’s admissions and my findings, I find that throughout the relationship, the applicant displayed some behaviours that fall within the definition of coercive behaviour towards the respondent. Specifically, I have made findings of threats that I find were to frighten the respondent and would have caused him emotional harm. But as I have also detailed, there are several instances where, in my judgment, the father’s behaviour provoked or exacerbated the mother’s behaviour in what was becoming an increasingly toxic and volatile relationship.

163. Next, turning to allegation 13, that throughout the relationship, the applicant has always demonstrated controlling behaviour towards the respondent. Specifically, the father particularises one incident on [date], the day before the child’s first birthday: “The applicant began shouting at the respondent, complaining they were not arranging the child a birthday party. The applicant said to the respondent if they did not hold a party, she would never speak to his friends or family again.”

164. The mother accepts she was upset about his family not wishing to celebrate the child’s birthday but not that it makes her a controlling person. The father says he was concerned she was once again threatening to isolate him and the child from his family and friends. It is noted the father does not refer in his witness statement to the mother shouting, as is part of the allegation, but does use the phrase: “She erupted with anger.”

165. In the light of [24] of the mother’s third witness statement, I accept she was saddened by the child not having a birthday party and once again, reacted to things not being as per her expectations and she accepts she said she would never speak to his friends or family again.

166. Given this admission, I find this part proven on the balance of probabilities, as to saying she would never speak to the father’s friends or family. However, stepping back, and in the light of my findings that allegation is part proven and the circumstances, overall, I do not find that throughout the relationship the applicant displayed controlling behaviour towards the respondent.

167. Turning now to the mother’s allegations. First that the respondent controlled every aspect of the parties’ lives.

168. Allegation 1 has three particulars. First, in February 2022 and in autumn 2022, he controlled every aspect of the parties’ lives, specifically (and I will deal with this in two sections) finance and dictating family life matters.

169. First, that the respondent was controlling and made decisions regarding the parties’ finances and sometimes made unilateral decisions without the applicant’s knowledge by opening a bank account.

170. The court notes the parties’ written evidence, in particular, [20] of the mother’s second witness statement, regarding the mother suggesting the father take the lead regarding money, which supports the father’s position on this allegation. The court also notes the letter the mother exhibits from HSBC raising concerns about the opening of her account, at mother’s exhibit 1 to her second witness statement and her evidence on this, which supports her position regarding the allegation. But the court considers it does not have sufficient further context around that and although the court does note the submissions about the father having access to evidence and devices, so the evidence is one sided, and that the mother has been limited in what she can produce, viewed in the light of the evidence regarding the mother having access to Country C accounts, the messages exhibited by the father regarding transferring the mother money when requested and discussing account opening, on the balance of probabilities, I do not find this part of the allegation proven.

171. Dealing now with the second section of this part, that the father dictated where they would live, move to, what to eat and how their home was furnished, including items for JX, I accept the father’s evidence in respect of why he did property viewings himself and that the mother was involved in decisions, noting they did go shopping, for example, to IKEA together, albeit mother’s evidence is the father then purchased furniture she did not like. Her evidence is also that he restricted them eating Country C food.

172. However, there is evidence, for example, she did purchase items for the child when in Country C, ate Country C food, went to Country C restaurants and fed the child Country C food, as evidenced, for example, by entries in bank statements, the picture of the Country C recipe book and the accounts of the child eating Country C food in the contact notes and, on the balance of probabilities, I do not find this part of the allegation proven.

173. The second and third particulars of this allegation are that the respondent displayed controlling behaviour throughout the marriage. Specifically, that he purchased a vacuum cleaner that was too heavy for the applicant. That the respondent agreed to vacuum, but stopped. The applicant was then concerned about JX starting to crawl as the floor was not being kept clean, but it did not bother the respondent as he considered dust to be good for the child.

174. The court has considered the evidence of both parties and accepts the mother preferred a different vacuum to the one that was purchased and would have preferred a light one. Father’s counsel suggested the vacuum was purchased with a view to moving to a larger property which may have been sensible, but the size still precluded mother from vacuuming herself. The court notes the father’s evidence that he usually did the vacuuming but when he did not do it and the mother raised concerns there was dust on the floor, he said it was not going to hurt the child.

175. A theme of the evidence is certainly, in my judgment, the way the parties increasingly had issues with effective communication, the father being silent or dismissive, and the mother wanting to talk, discuss and have some reassurance, sometimes losing self-control when it did not happen. I accept the mother’s evidence she was concerned about dust and the child.

176. Given that she could not manage the vacuum herself, the father, in my judgment, could have been more sensitive to her concerns and how he put his point across about the dust. But on the balance of probabilities, I do not find that the father purchased a vacuum cleaner that was too heavy by way of controlling behaviour or stopped vacuuming and I do not find this part of the allegation proven.

177. The third part of the allegation is that the applicant felt belittled and powerless, impacting her sense of autonomy and equality in the relationship.

178. The mother’s position is the father responded to her feelings in a patronising and dismissive way and said she was ridiculous and he was rational. In my judgment, an example of this was the way when worried about money, which from the evidence I note was a concern of both parties, the father responded. The mother had concerns about father buying a round of drinks and they exchanged WhatsApp messages in January 2019. The messages were exhibited to the court, although I pause to say that where they start, page 137 of the exhibits bundle, the court does not have the start of the conversation and the court again notes the father had control of most of the devices from which he has produced evidence. I query why the earlier messages, including the one immediately preceding the ones shown, sent at 7.22, being the same time, were not included and what they might show.

179. The father’s response to the mother’s concerns was that if he did not pay his share, it was stealing. His WhatsApp message says: “I will not steal,” at father’s exhibit

24. It may, indeed, be considered mean not to pay for a round but, in my view, the mother’s suggestion of not buying drinks was not tantamount to stealing, as the father’s message suggests.

180. I find the father’s response to the mother was patronising and dismissive. She would have felt belittled, powerless and unequal in the relationship when he displayed behaviour and opinions like this which he felt were right and he did not seek to reassure her. I was also concerned that when the father was asked if he could see this message was provoking, he did not think it was and said seeing her response, he did not see she was provoked, although in messages three minutes later, she was saying: “Let’s save money. Why are you an arsehole again? Fucking hell.” Which to me, is evidence she was in fact provoked.

181. He went on to say that: “This is a woman who we have medical evidence to say she is provoked and if she was provoked, we would have seen.” The court was concerned about the emphasis the father gave to, “This is a woman,” and how the way in which he made reference to the mother, his co-parent, came across.

182. In my judgment, a dismissive attitude to the mother’s position was also evident during oral evidence when the father was cross-examined specifically about his use of the word “rational” in [56] of his first witness statement and whether, in relation to a move to a town in the north of England he was saying the mother was being irrational and if so, why she was being irrational to say she did not want to move to a place she had never been.

183. I also note, as was put to the father, that the evidence about a move to a town in the north of England (that he said the mother was keen on and he told the court she showed the family a brochure when they went to Country C). The evidence was in the partial WhatsApp messages that had been exhibited, the chain, again, truncated so the court cannot see the responses from the mother or the context. I repeat my concern the father has control of many devices that contain evidence and the court does not have the full picture. The court is once more concerned it is seeing only one side.

184. However, on the evidence I have, including evidence in which the father calls the mother toxic and nasty and given the comments I have already made in respect of the audio recording and the way the father spoke to the mother in that recording which I found patronising and given the mother had, in my judgment, a clear fear that the father would take the child from her if they separated, as of course he has done since separation, on the balance of probabilities, the court finds this part of the allegation proven.

185. So in respect of allegation 1, overall, I find the father displayed controlling behaviour towards the mother making her feel subordinate, which would have caused her emotional harm. I also pause here in relation to my comment that the father has taken the child from the mother, albeit that the father’s position, as he has told the court, is that he had no option: he had to leave the flat, given the mother’s bail conditions and his sibling in East Anglia offered him accommodation.

186. Next, turning to allegations 2 and 3, that the father controlled and dominated decisions relating to the child. Allegation 2 has two parts to it. First, that before and after the child was born, the father controlled and dominated decisions relating to the child, that the applicant was not permitted to make decisions, even about the child, and was not allowed to name JX. The father went alone to have JX registered, using the names he wanted.

187. I prefer the father’s evidence in respect of this allegation in relation to naming the child, specifically, as the child has a Country C middle name which indicates the mother was involved in the name choices and there is some common ground that neither liked the other’s first choice of first names. Indeed, “JX” was neither’s first choice although I note the abbreviation “JB” which is used for the child is also the abbreviation of “JA” which the court heard was the father’s first preference.

188. The child’s surname follows the Country C convention of taking the father’s name, which is also the UK’s more common approach, which the mother said she did not wish to follow, instead wanting to adopt the sometime UK culture of double barrelling the child’s surname using both parties’ surnames.

189. I also accept the father’s evidence in relation to registering the birth, given this is supported by the fifth point in a message from the mother to the father of her to do list for the father, exhibited at father’s exhibit 37, and given the mother was unwell and did not want to leave the flat. I accept it was agreed he would register the birth alone.

190. Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, I do not find this allegation proven on the basis of the incidents particularised in the period before separation. However, I do note that since the father left the family home in June 2024, he has made almost all the decisions unilaterally about the child although he told the court the decision not to send the child to nursery was mutual.

191. In my judgment, both parties should be involved in exercising their parental rights and making decisions regarding a child’s health, welfare and education and where parents are struggling to communicate or co-parent, they can use a parenting app or email account created for the purpose. Post-separation, in my judgment, on the balance of probabilities, there is ongoing control by the father in that he has controlled and dominated decisions in respect of the child.

192. The second part of the allegation is that in spring 2023, the respondent caused the applicant to return home prematurely after giving birth to JX by C-section despite the risks and pain she was in and following this, the applicant got Bell’s Palsy.

193. The mother’s second statement says the father wanted her to go home as he did not like his sleeping conditions and the mother said she wanted to stay in hospital as she could not move. In cross-examination, the mother said there was only the option of moving from the private NHS ward to a ward of six and that returning home was not an option. However, she did leave the hospital so her evidence is inconsistent with what actually happened.

194. I found the mother evasive when questioned on this allegation. When asked if she wanted to move ward, instead of answering yes or no, she said she did not want to leave hospital. But I do appreciate she is remembering an incident the day after she had had surgery, her C-section, and it may be hard to remember detail.

195. The father says they went home as the mother did not want to move from a private room to a ward of six and there is also no medical evidence in relation to the mother’s Bell’s Palsy and causation.

196. Given how the mother likes, in my judgment, to have things done to her specification and wishes, in my judgment, she would not have liked to move from a private room to a ward of six and I prefer the father’s account of her leaving hospital and find, on the balance of probabilities, that this allegation is not proven.

197. In relation to allegation 3, that after the child was born, the respondent never compromised or accepted the applicant’s opinion on any decision concerning the child, there is evidence from both parties in relation to this allegation. For example, in respect of making decisions about the child and the child’s sleeping arrangements, the mother saying that the father wanted the child to sleep on the bed and the father saying this is the mother's position on sleeping instead of JX sleeping in the cot and that the mother's position of wanting a mattress on the floor was not possible.

198. Certainly, surveying the wider canvas and all the evidence, the father, in my judgment, was dismissive about some of the mother’s concerns such as about dust, or her concern about the child’s development, as I will consider later, but on the balance of probabilities, I do not find he never compromised or accepted the mother’s opinion on any decisions concerning the child before he left the home.

199. That said, the position is different now the child lives with him. It is not clear to the court if and how the father is trying to seek the mother’s opinion on decisions and I find that the father often wants and waits for the court to make decisions in respect of the child in contact, rather than agreeing it, for example, through solicitors. This is despite, for example, in court, the father nodding when the court is expressing the need for both parties to be involved in the child’s life or, for example, when the court considered Mr Jeary’s report and considered contact arrangements. The impression the court gets is of the father agreeing with the court's view but the father does not then follow that through after hearings. An example of this that concerned the court is hearing the father’s position regarding seemingly prioritising a relative’s birthday party, who the child had met three times, over prearranged contact with the mother.

200. Turning to allegation 4, there are nine alleged incidents of physical and verbal abuse and given that this is a relatively long judgment, I will deal with those, if you are happy for that, in relatively short order.

201. First, in summer 2018, the respondent called the applicant, “freeloader”, “useless” and “worthless”, and talked down to her in a very patronising tone as if the applicant knew nothing and the respondent was always correct.

202. The mother said in her third statement that father called her useless after she quit her job and she also says he talked down to her in a patronising tone. The father does not accept this. I observed earlier that on the audio recording, even when the father knew he was being recorded, in my judgment, he sounded patronising. I also observed in cross-examination, although he corrected himself to say he agreed, at one point, he first said he had “allowed” contact to be to be broadened and extended. The word “allowed” was telling to me, suggesting a degree of control and superiority over the mother and suggesting to me his position is one of thinking he is right.

203. Again, considering all the evidence before me, in particular, the mother’s written evidence and preferring the mother’s evidence on this point, on the balance of probabilities, I find this allegation proven.

204. Next, in January 2021, that the parties were walking down the stairs in the communal parts of their apartment building, searching for the source of the smell of marijuana in the building. The parties had a verbal argument during which the respondent pushed the applicant down the stairs. The applicant required medical attention and sustained a fracture to the phalanx of her foot. She required crutches for two months following the incident. It refers to four months in her witness statement.

205. I note this is one of two allegations involving the mother hurting her foot but that she did not particularise until her fourth witness statement dated March 2025, titled her fifth.

206. She said it was because she mistakenly thought the father would not stop her seeing the child. I have dealt with this in my impression of the mother as a witness. The father says this incident did not happen and I note that the mother’s sixth witness statement addresses inconsistencies regarding when she went to hospital.

207. I do not accept that the incident happened as the mother said as, in my judgment, if it had happened as the mother said, they would not have had the exchange of messages they did, exhibited to the court. The mother explained the exchange, saying it was because they had apologised and moved on: “He said that, ‘I love you,’ and he said, ‘Sorry,’ so we were okay.”

208. She may have felt that they moved on, but I do not accept that father would have replied as he did if he had pushed her, given the other evidence about how they communicated with each other and their different communication styles.

209. To me, there was also an inconsistency regarding who she told about the injury having happened and why she did not tell them. In oral evidence, she said it was because she did not want to get the father into a wrong position but in written evidence she said it was because he was with her, which he was not.

210. The hospital notes do not contain any details in support of the mother’s position and given the inconsistencies in evidence and noting the mother did not raise this until her fourth, labelled fifth, statement, I prefer the father’s account. There was a verbal argument. The mother fell down two stairs and needed medical treatment. On the balance of probabilities, I do not find this allegation proven as to the father pushing her.

211. In May 2022, the allegation is the parties were at home and the applicant was sitting on the sofa, watching television, when the parties began arguing. During the argument, the respondent threw a glass at the applicant. It hit the wall next to the applicant and shattered over her feet. The applicant wanted to go to A and E immediately, but the respondent would not allow her. The following day, he agreed, and they attended together. The applicant did not tell the clinician what had happened as she was scared and the respondent was with her.

212. The father’s evidence is that there was an occasion where the mother needed treatment because of a smashed glass and he did not stop her getting medical treatment, now supported by the mother’s sixth witness statement where she corrects herself in respect of getting treatment on the same day.

213. In oral evidence, the mother referred to the glass smashing on the radiator, not the wall as per her witness statement, but I accept, however, this may have been a detail expanded on when recalling the incident in the witness box.

214. But again, noting there are no medical notes in support of how the mother says this happened in the documentation from the hospital, and given the inconsistencies of her evidence, corrected by a witness statement the day before the hearing started, and given the mother was not able to explain what she was scared of or why she had said this, although I accept there was an incident when a glass shattered on the mother’s foot for which she needed hospital treatment, on the balance of probabilities, I do not find this allegation proven.

215. In January 2024, the allegation is that the father threatened to take the child away with him. This arises out of the same events as the father’s tenth allegation. Referring back to what I said in relation to that, preferring the mother’s evidence, I find, on the balance of probabilities, this allegation proven.

216. The next part of the allegation, in April 2024, the respondent made the child burn their face. The mother’s position is this was due to the father and his use of the heater in the bathroom. The father said he was following the mother’s instructions regarding bathtime and use of the heater. He accepts that the child’s face was red. I have seen the photographic evidence and this was one of the father’s only acceptances in respect of any of the allegations. His position is he did not call an ambulance as the mother wanted and he researched how to treat the child’s face.

217. I accept the mother’s evidence regarding why she wanted to call an ambulance, given her evidence on the burn she suffered as a child and the speed of treatment being crucial. The father’s evidence was, on researching how to resolve mild burns, in line with that, he returned with a wet towel and the court heard after 30 minutes, the redness went down. Certainly, there seems to have been a mild burn on the child’s face on that day but on the evidence before the court, on the balance of probabilities, I do not find this allegation proven.

218. Next, that in May 2024, the respondent pushed the applicant on her forehead down some stairs by a canal and said, “Do you want to die?” This resulted in the applicant spraining her ankle and was in the presence of the child.

219. I was handed a photograph to show me the site of the alleged incident at the top of some outside stairs between the buildings. There are about 20 to 25 steps. The mother’s position is they took the child for a walk just after the child had taken their first steps, some time after 6.00 pm. They were at the top of the stairs to take the buggy down and the father pushed her.

220. I did find the mother’s account of the route rather evasive in cross-examination and struggled to square how the father could have pushed her at a time when he was manoeuvring a pushchair down some stairs. I also note the father’s position that this is simply not true and they did not walk along the canal on this date. I was pointed to various inconsistencies that support the father saying that this is not true.

221. In my judgment, it is unlikely the mother would not have mentioned in an earlier statement than her sixth that they went for a walk after 18.09 because the child had taken their first steps, in particular, as the mother was so rigid in her routine with the child and that would have clearly explained the reason for a later walk.

222. I do not accept that it took photographic evidence to jog her memory of the event. I do note that she did mention this incident to the police when arrested but do feel that as she confused the other two foot incidents, that she is misremembering an event and certainly, as she sought medical attention during Covid for the other foot injuries, she would have done so for this, if the injury was as bad as she says it was and, as she said to the police, of such a nature to still be bothering her after six weeks.

223. I also accept the submission on behalf of the father that the phrase, “Do you want to die,” is a phrase of the type used more frequently by the mother, not the father and therefore, on the balance of probabilities, I do not find this allegation proven.

224. Later that month, the allegation is the respondent grabbed the applicant’s arm so tightly she thought he would break it. It was in the presence of the child and the respondent threatened the applicant by saying she would never see the child.

225. I have already considered this incident and the evidence when considering the father’s allegations arising from this incident. Given the physical contact between the parties and the evidence I have considered already in respect of this incident, and considering the photographic evidence of the ripped T-shirt, on the balance of probabilities, I do find this allegation part proven in that the respondent grabbed the applicant’s arm so tightly she thought it would break and the child was present.

226. But given the lack of particularisation from the mother’s second witness statement at [27] in relation to the threat regarding the child (although I accept the father has made the threat at other times) and the lack of clear evidence on this in cross-examination (the mother referred to the threat being made a lot, but did not specifically expand on this instance), on the balance of probabilities, I do not find that on this occasion, the father threatened the mother that she would never see the child.

227. Turning to the allegation that in June 2024, the respondent screamed at the applicant in the presence of the child because the child accidentally broke a figurine. The mother’s position is the child broke an expensive figurine and the father screamed and blamed the mother with the child present, who was stunned and about to cry.

228. The father says he was frustrated when the figurine broke and the child may have hurt themself and was questioning why the mother put the figurine in a precarious position and was not supervising the child.

229. From this evidence, it is noted the father seems to accept he blamed the mother. His written evidence says, however, that he did not scream and he realised he was overreacting. He says that the mother got angry and said to the father: “How dare you shout at me.”

230. In oral evidence, he expanded on his written evidence and said he did lose self-control and raised his voice. That would explain, in my judgment, why the mother’s evidence states: “The father screamed at me,” or, as father says she said, “How dare you shout at me.”

231. I found the way the father told the court: “As parents, we try to stay calm and role model appropriate behaviour, and I should have said, ‘Oopsie, it’s okay,’ ” patronising in manner and one of the times where I felt he gave his evidence in a performative manner as if he felt the court wanted to hear that type of answer. I also note the father’s explanation regarding his response to a child’s mishap focused on the mother’s acts and omissions, that is to say putting the figurine where she did and lack of supervision, rather than accepting it just being an accident.

232. On balance, I found the mother’s evidence more consistent and compelling in respect of this allegation and prefer it to the father’s and, in respect of this allegation, find it proven on the balance of probabilities.

233. In relation to the allegation that in June 2024, the respondent grabbed the applicant’s arm so tightly she thought it would break, “and kicked me, and I was left with a mark and bruised leg,” I have already considered this incident at some length in relation to the father’s allegations and I commented on the weight I gave mother’s comment that the father was hitting and pushing her.

234. Having also considered the following, [22] of the mother’s third witness statement, in which the mother says the father squeezed her arm with intent to break it which resulted in the bruise and he kicked her leg; [77] of the father’s first witness statement when he mentions grabbing both her arms and pushing her onto the sofa and then when she tried to get up again, pushing her down in self-defence which, even if she was not resisting and despite her size, I find would have taken some force during an argument; the police disclosure in which it records that the father grabbed the mother’s arms; the mother’s sixth statement where she says the statement about the bruise is recorded by Dr Munro as being caused by the police on arrest is wrong and gives credible reasons for this, and I do note in the police disclosure that mother had requested the body mapping and that is at page

816.

235. Also noting a recording of the mother’s arrest and noting she seemed confused but calm and does not appear to resist arrest and also considering the audio recording which I have referred to, on the balance of probabilities, I find the father did grab the mother’s arm so tightly she thought he would break it and kicked her, leaving her bruised.

236. Overall, I find the mother was subject to verbal and physical abuse during the relationship, given the findings I have made and this would have caused her physical and emotional harm and that in respect of the incidents when the child was present, in particular, in May 2024, and when the child broke the figurine, it would have caused the child emotional harm.

237. Finally, I turn to allegations 5 and 6, that the father was: “… emotionally controlling and abusive in a manner causing the mother psychological harm, to feel oppressed, manipulated and powerless.”

238. Allegation 5 is that the respondent refused to listen or compromise to resolve issues with the applicant and instead, would withdraw. He would also refuse to engage or speak with the mother to resolve any disagreement but instead, ignored her for days, weeks or months as a punishment.

239. The mother’s evidence is the father subjected her to stonewalling and the silent treatment and refused to listen and compromise, instead withdrawing. The father says he does not accept he refused to listen or compromise but accepts there were times when he refused to engage with the applicant but says that this was a coping mechanism and does not consider that by refusing to speak with the mother, this equates to emotionally controlling or abusive behaviour.

240. This, in my judgment, shows a lack of insight and self-awareness. I have already touched on some of the evidence relevant to this but I find the recording when the father knows the mother is being recorded but she does not know, very telling. The mother talks about the father not listening to her and ignoring her at various points and I have given specific references to those earlier. Indeed, at one point, the mother also said: “I’ve had a horrible last eight years here.”

241. The father said he withdrew when the mother got angry, then he withdrew more and it was a vicious circle. But in my judgment, he must have known not only could it provoke her but it could also make her feel powerless and manipulated, particularly given she was in the UK and not surrounded by her own family and friends as she was when in Country C. Indeed, she wanted to talk and resolve things and suggested couple counselling which the father did not engage with. By not talking to her, the mother in my judgment would feel completely powerless to change things.

242. I do accept the father may go into a shell when the mother said things to make him react but I find to prevent further arguments, not to speak to her and to ignore her for stretches of weeks, if not nearly a month at a time, is controlling and would undoubtedly cause her emotional harm.

243. I do not find the father’s behaviours are a justified response or reaction to mother’s behaviours or to himself being a victim of abuse. Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, I find this allegation 5 proven.

244. Finally, in respect of allegation 6, first, in September 2023 the respondent was dismissive of the applicant’s concerns that silence in their home would affect their child’s development and communication. I accept the father’s position as put to the mother in cross-examination that her expectations of the child’s development about talking were a bit high, especially as the child is bilingual. But I am pleased to see in recent contact note reports JX is doing well in the mother’s first language which mother is pleased with, calling JX in the witness box, a genius.

245. But the father accepts he was not talking and that this affected mother and so I do find, on the balance of probabilities, he was dismissive of the mother’s concerns that silence in their home would affect their child’s development and communication.

246. Further, in respect of the second particular under allegation 6, that the respondent would be unresponsive to the applicant’s efforts to obtain reassurance and instead would be emotionally cold and withdrawn. He would continue with this behaviour, extending it by being impassive and uncooperative with respect to contact arrangements for the child.

247. I have made a finding in relation to the father not speaking to the applicant and not reassuring her and find that this would make her feel powerless. This allegation is, in my judgment, partly a continuation of that. Additionally, extending this to consider contact, I am concerned the father did not find a way for the mother to have contact with her young child for two months after he left the family home.

248. In my judgment, the father waits for court intervention before progressing contact and has already mentioned the court was concerned to hear on affirmation he prioritised a family event, a relative’s birthday who the child has only met three times, over the mother’s contact. My view is the mother’s contact must take precedence save in very exceptional circumstances such as in the event of a very close family member’s special event, having rearranged the mother’s contact well in advance.

249. I note the father has got two siblings and there are many cousins and so with birthdays and other celebrations, there is a real risk, in my judgment, that many contacts could be lost under the guise of attending family events and it is my view there must always be make up contact and I am glad to hear that, as the court was not sitting on the Friday of this hearing, agreed contact with mother could go ahead.

250. I do accept that father does not have a car and that travel is difficult and he wants to ensure that the child has relationships with his wider family but, in my judgment, I repeat that the priority must be to the child’s relationship with the mother.

251. I note again how the father in examination-in-chief was quick to inform the court that as soon as the court was not sitting on Friday, he immediately took the lead with his solicitor to make up the contact and I have mentioned about him nodding in hearings when the court says both parties should be involved in the child’s life. But as I said, I am concerned he does not live this approach and does not ensure this continues into the parties’ and the child’s day to day life after and between hearings. I am concerned that, as I felt with some answers in evidence, that his response, nodding along to what the court says about this, is for show.

252. Therefore, I do find, on the balance of probabilities, the father was uncooperative with the development of contact arrangements despite acknowledging the reasons he gives, but nonetheless, I find this was controlling and would have made the mother feel powerless.

253. Therefore, I find that the father has displayed emotionally controlling and an abusive manner which continues post-separation, causing the mother psychological harm, to feel oppressed, manipulated and powerless, and given the effect on the mother and how this behaviour manifests itself, in particular, regarding contact between the child and the mother, I find it is also likely to cause emotional harm to the child.

254. Touching now upon the criminal proceedings and the mother’s position that the father seeks to criminalise her. Certainly, since the arrest, the father has had contact with the police and sought advice about pursuing a conviction. In oral evidence, when asked why he was pursuing a prosecution when he had been given the option to conclude things by way of a restraining order, with the other option being going to trial, he said he thought justice was important and it was important to be decided by a court rather than an email exchange saying, "Let's make it all go away."

255. Justice is, of course, important and that is a matter for the criminal courts but I observe that in Children Act proceedings, it is the welfare of the child that is paramount and the courts take a child-focused approach. It is a concern to this court that the father, instead of agreeing to a solution offered by way of an option that would deal with his concerns about mother’s behaviour, the restraining order, and solve things in a way that would leave them both open to focus on how they could co-parent the child, he has instead chosen the option to go to trial that may result in the mother receiving a criminal conviction.

256. A criminal conviction is likely to impact on her in many ways, including her job prospects and her ability to provide for the child and the father did not appear, in my judgment, to appreciate the trickledown effect that would have on the child.

257. I found one part of his answer highly concerning: “The child would know both Mummy and Daddy love them and are not together,” and that when JX asks questions, answers will need to be given to the child. He did, on being pressed, answer, “No,” to the question regarding whether he would tell the child about any conviction of the mother but then appealed immediately to the court, as Ms Perry KC was, he felt, talking over his answers. It seemed to me a diversionary tactic.

258. I found the father had no real insight on how a criminal conviction might affect the mother and, in turn, the child, and I was concerned that he might tell the child about any conviction, using it to tell the child about the mother in a way skewed to his narrative of events, but feeling he could justify telling the child this, it being a truthful answer to a question.

259. In my judgment, if the mother is convicted in the criminal proceedings, consideration should be given as to whether the child needs to know at all and this is something that perhaps the addendum section 7 report could consider.

260. I am also being asked to step back and look at the wider canvas, given the father has in respect of the allegations given a fairly blanket denial, although he did move to accept the redness of the child’s face and how he did not engage and talk to the applicant. I have made findings against the father and am concerned he did not have insight in cross-examination about how his behaviours could be provocative or controlling. Also, he said during the relationship he did not respond because of how he knew the mother would react. But then, once he had the child living with him at an address unknown to the mother, in my judgment, he has behaved in a way that he knows will incite or make the mother feel powerless, for example, rearranging contact for a relative’s birthday and being dilatory about make up contact.

261. To summarise and at the risk of repetition, this is case where, in my judgment, both parties have suffered domestic abuse in what became a toxic, argumentative, sometimes violent relationship, often where their behaviours were exacerbated by the behaviour of the other and then repeated in cycles.

262. As my judgment addresses, in my view, much of this is because of the different ways they communicated, the mother wanting to talk and the father refusing and being silent for days and weeks at a time. The physical abuse certainly seems to have arisen, in my judgment, where communications broke down, usually where the child was present and so, as Mr Jeary’s section 7 report acknowledges, the child has suffered emotional harm.

263. Whilst the physical abuse may have ended following the parties’ separation, what is of concern is the finding of control I have made against the father, considered alongside the observations I have made regarding the criminal proceedings and the father’s conduct in these proceedings. I am concerned the control is continuing, using the child. That is to say the father’s stance in relation to the criminal proceedings as being in pursuit of justice, the stance in relation to contact being in pursuit of safeguarding and the stance in relation to potentially telling the child what has happened to their mother in pursuit of answering questions and telling the child the truth.

264. The mother has accepted the harm caused to the child and has already done some work. As I have said, I hope she continues to address her behaviours. She has expressed insight into the harm caused to the child and I hope she continues to work to be less reactionary when things are not as she wishes and that there are no more responses such as that to the father’s wet trousers on a contact trip.

265. The father’s insight into the impact of his behaviour on the child is far less, in my judgment. He touched on it in relation to his response to the broken figurine but my impression is he sees himself solely as the victim of domestic abuse and his actions are a justified response. Indeed, in cross-examination, when asked what harm he had caused the child, he repeatedly said, “None,” or caveated it, for example, regarding a burn or when he said: “As a parent, not providing a stable environment, given my relationship with the mother.” Again, in my judgment, skewing the narrative against the mother.

266. This is not a view I share. I find the child has suffered emotional harm, given the behaviours of both parents and continues to do so, given the father’s ongoing behaviour. Also, in respect of the one incident where the father was seeking a finding of DARVO, this was an incident where the mother had made clear admissions.

267. In my judgment, both parties need to address their behaviours and how they co-parent, perhaps with any such work, a robust parenting plan, stipulations regarding communications and agreeing safeguards they feel comfortable with and which are sustainable as the child grows up, it will be possible for the parents to successfully co-parent JX, for example, with them both being involved fully in JX’s life, exercising their PR and enabling them to spend time with JX, travel with JX and see extended family to ensure JX’s cultural identity is met. I will, of course, leave such recommendations to Mr Jeary to consider in the light of my findings and Practice Direction 12J.

268. That is my judgment. . Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE Email: [email protected] This transcript has been approved by the Judge