1. This judgment concludes the hearing of an application to determine child arrangements in respect of ChildA (“ChildA”). He was born on 28 December 2016 and is now 8 years and 7 months old. The applicant is his father, Mr X (“Mr X”) who is aged 66 and lives in Cornwall the respondent is his mother Ms Y (“Ms Y”) who is aged 48 lives together with ChildA at a confidential location in what I understand to be a refuge some distance from Cornwall 2. The parties were both sailors working around the world and had known each other for a number of years when they formed a relationship in 2015. They were then based in South Amercia. In 2016 Ms Y asked Mr X whether he would have a child with her. He plainly agreed because ChildA was born at the end of that year. The parties married 6 months before ChildA’s arrival. 3. In 2017 the parties moved to Europe, and then in 2018 back to South America. In 2021 they moved to Cornwall and have remained living here since, with a brief period in 2022 when Ms Y returned to her country of origin for some months, and Mr X later joined her. 4. The parties separated in July 2024 and ChildA has not spent time with Mr X since. Mr X made an application on 7 August 2024 to spend time with ChildA and to know ChildA’s address which resulted in the current proceedings. 5. Mr X has been concerned that Ms Y may leave the country with ChildA to return to her country of origin. On 8 August 2024 the court made a Prohibited Steps Order without notice to Ms Y preventing her from doing so. That order remains in place. She in turn is concerned that Mr X has access to boats and a plane, and may go abroad with ChildA if he spends time with him. 6. In September 2024 the Local Authority prepared a Child in Need assessment because Ms Y reported that Mr X was abusive towards her. The social worker spoke to ChildA, who said that “When Mum and dad argue sometimes I go to my friend who lives at [REDACTED] if we are on the boat I sit on my little dingy. Mum and Dad argue about being together When dad is drunk it’s 'bad news' he is fine with me but he is not nice to Mum.” And “he does miss not being able to see his father” 7. Cafcass provided a safeguarding letter dated 27 September 2024 which records that Ms Y said that Mr X had been physically abusive towards her, and that he was controlling and coercive. Mr X said that Ms Y was making those allegations to support her immigration application to remain living in UK. The letter stated that a fact-finding hearing is likely to be required given the serious nature of the domestic abuse concerns raised by Ms Y, and that in light of those concerns Cafcass could not endorse ChildA spending time with Mr X. 8. The court ordered the parties to file statements to address the concerns around domestic abuse so that the court could determine whether a separate fact-finding hearing was required. On 26 November 2025 District Judge Taylor recorded in an order that “a fact-finding hearing may not be needed because the allegations of abuse are unclear and may be largely historic and have not prevented contact taking place previously.” He ordered the Local Authority to prepare a section 7 report. 9. On 16 January 2025 a toxicology report was received that identified that Ms Y had consumed excess alcohol between approximately end of June to end of December 2024, but that the results could not be confirmed because her hair had been chemically treated. The results did not demonstrate excessive consumption of alcohol in the 4 weeks prior to testing. 10. On 21 January 2025 a hearing took place before Deputy District Judge Loughridge. At that stage the parties had still not filed their statements to address the disputed allegations. The court determined that “the court requires more detailed information to enable it to decide whether a separate fact-finding hearing will be necessary to decide the disputed allegations.” 11. On 10 February 2025 a toxicology report was received that identified that Mr X had consumed excess alcohol between approximately the middle of September 2024 to the middle of January 2025. The results did not demonstrate excessive consumption of alcohol in the 4 weeks prior to testing. 12. The Local Authority filed a section 7 welfare report dated 3 March 2025, prepared by Social Worker Emma Stephenson. She reported that a. In February 2025 ChildA had said he did not want to see his father “right now” – “maybe in 12 months” or ”a couple of months”. On reflection he thought that maybe he would want to see him “but only for a couple of hours”. He would want to ask his father for money to buy an Xbox. b. ChildA spoke about both of his parents drinking, but that Mr X “drank a lot of the time” and “when his father was drunk referred to him as a ‘twat’, and followed this up by stating his father would shout and argue a lot with his mother.” c. ChildA had struggled maintaining positive relationships with other children because his play revolved around fighting and guns, but that over time he as been more able to regulate himself and manage his emotions better. d. the staff where Ms Y is currently living would require Ms Y and ChildA to relocate again if arrangements were made for either direct or indirect contact and that “the Local Authority would not wish to jeopardise this further and cause further instability for him”. e. “there is no evidence to suggest Mr X poses any risk to ChildA”. f. the Local Authority has been unable to implement contact arrangements and would cease its involvement with the family. 13. In terms of any recommendation, the report is not clear. It concludes that “contact should be in place between ChildA and his father, however this should not cause any further disruption for ChildA and should not be at the cost of the current accommodation making him and his mother relocating again.” 14. The Dispute Resolution Appointment was listed before me on 12 March 2025. The Local Authority recommendations were already available, and there was no longer any purpose in conducting a separate fact-finding hearing. I listed the final hearing at which the court would consider making findings in respect of the parties’ allegations. This judgment is the result of that final hearing. The parties’ positions 15. Mr X seeks an order that ChildA moves to live with him. He considers that is the only way ChildA will have a relationship with him. He would not prevent ChildA from spending regular time with Ms Y. 16. Ms Y broadly accepts the recommendation in the section 7 report that there be no direct or indirect contact so that her accommodation is not prejudiced. The hearing before me 17. It was my intention to treat the hearing as a final hearing — ie to determine any disputed allegations of abuse and then consider the issues around ChildA’s welfare in order to determine what child arrangements order is best for him. However, neither party has sought to address the welfare issues in their statements or during the hearing. In effect therefore the hearing has been used solely to hear evidence and submissions concerning the allegations of abuse Ms Y makes against Mr X. 18. The reality therefore is that whilst I heard evidence from the social worker concerning the section 7 report, the parties treated the hearing as if it were a separate fact-finding hearing. The allegations of abuse 19. The allegations Ms Y makes and seeks to prove are summarised in her schedule of allegations. For the avoidance of doubt, the court has not limited the number of allegations she makes. The schedule simply provides a helpful structure to identify what it is she seeks to prove. It set out below her allegations and Mr X’s response. i) Coercion and control Mr X was emotionally and psychologically abusive to her and ChildA throughout the marriage, including by: a. Mr X placed her under undue pressure to marry him despite her already being married; and he threatened to report her to the UK authorities for already being married Mr X denies the allegation and states that she makes that allegation now to explain her bigamy. b. Mr X forced her and placed her under pressure to move to Europe with ChildA in 2017 and to South America in 2018 and from country to country against her wishes Mr X denies the allegation. c. Mr X took possession of her passport against her wishes, including locking the passport and her visa in a safe in the family home in Cornwall. He cancelled her visa application on 13 October 2022 against her wishes Mr X denies the allegation. He accepts that he sent an email but that it said that her application should be cancelled unless it the visa could be issued without one month to avoid loss of her French residency. d. He told her that she must do as he says because she is his wife Mr X denies the allegation. e. In July 2024 he removed the door to her bedroom in the shared accommodation house he owned. He prevented her from using the kitchen and bathroom. Mr X denies the allegation. He says that the door was removed in January because he was staying there. f. He controlled her money and controlled how it was spent Mr X denies the allegation and states that she had her own debit card with Lloyds, that he regularly topped up her South American bank account and Barclays account. ii) Verbal abuse Mr X was verbally abusive to her and ChildA throughout the marriage including by: a. Calling her names ‘rat, ‘skank’, ‘parasite’, ‘fucking idiot’ and a useless woman” and a “stupid woman from a third world country” often in front of and in earshot of ChildA. Mr X denies the allegation. b. Calling South Americans “natural idiots”, a “waste of time and space” and calling the her home in South America] “a shithole” in front of and in earshot of ChildA Mr X denies the allegation. iii) Emotional / Psychological Harm Throughout the marriage Mr X was emotionally and psychologically abusive to her and ChildA including by: a. Calling a German family Nazis in front of ChildA in Europe. ChildA started to repeat this Mr X denies the allegation. b. Owning unlicensed guns, causing control and fear in her Mr X denies the allegation and refers to a photo of Ms Y posing with a gun. c. Teaching ChildA code words to identify where he is when not with Mr X, placing ChildA and Ms Y at risk Mr X denies the allegation and says that the allegation is a distortion of a fun code he had with her. iv) Physical Abuse Mr X was abusive to her and ChildA throughout the marriage including by: a. Hitting ChildA on the head. He poked ChildA in the body and on the ribs hard on numerous occasions Mr X denies the allegation b. On 3 March 2023 hit Ms Y’ss head in the deck surface of a boat, strangled her and damaged her finger and damaged her breast Mr X denies the allegation. He accepts the parties had an argument and that there was shouting, but Ms Y fell over and was not assaulted. Her breast “injury” was just an infection possibly caused by a form of mastitis. c. On 23 June 2024 kicked a door into Ms Y’s face causing damage to her teeth inside her mouth Mr X denies the allegation. He says she had an infected birthmark, not an injury caused by him. The law 20. The purpose and nature of a fact-finding hearing has recently been considered in Re H-N and Others (children) (domestic abuse: finding of fact hearings) [2021] EWCA Civ 448. 21. The purpose of a fact-finding hearing is to consider whether one party’s behaviour towards the other is abusive to the extent that it has a bearing on what child arrangements orders should be made. a. Specific incidents, rather than being seen as free-standing matters, may be part of a wider pattern of abuse or controlling or coercive behaviour. b. In terms of what constitutes abuse, PD12J paragraphs 2A and 3 include the following definitions each of which it should be noted, refer to a pattern of acts or incidents: i) "'domestic abuse' includes behaviour of one person towards another person if they are each aged 16 or over and are personally connected to each other, and the behaviour is abusive in that it consists of any of the following— • physical or sexual abuse; • violent or threatening behaviour; • controlling or coercive behaviour; • economic abuse, meaning any behaviour that has a substantial adverse effect on the other person’s ability to acquire, use or maintain money, or to obtain goods and services; • psychological, emotional or other abuse; and it does not matter whether the behaviour consists of a single incident or a course of conduct. ii) “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; iii) “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; 22. Hayden J in F v M [2021] EWFC 4 identified that 'coercion' will usually involve a pattern of acts encompassing, for example, assault, intimidation, humiliation and threats. 'Controlling behaviour' really involves a range of acts designed to render an individual subordinate and to corrode their sense of personal autonomy. Key to both behaviours is an appreciation of a 'pattern' or 'a series of acts', the impact of which must be assessed cumulatively and rarely in isolation. 23. Consideration of whether the evidence establishes an abusive pattern of coercive and/or controlling behaviour is likely to be the primary question in many cases where there is an allegation of domestic abuse, irrespective of whether there are other more specific factual allegations to be determined. The principal relevance of conducting a fact-finding hearing and in establishing whether there is, or has been, such a pattern of behaviour, is because of the impact that such a finding may have on the assessment of any risk involved in continuing contact. 24. When faced with a dispute about allegations of behaviour the principles to be applied are as follows: a. The Family Court is a civil court of law. Where an allegation of domestic abuse is made, but not admitted and the court goes on to conduct a 'fact-finding' hearing to determine whether the allegation is proved, it does so under the ordinary civil law. b. The focus and purpose of a fact-finding investigation in the context of a case concerning the future welfare of children in the Family Court are wholly different to those applicable to the prosecution by the State of an individual before a criminal court. Criminal law concepts, such as the elements needed to establish guilt of a particular crime or a defence, have neither relevance nor function within a process of fact-finding in the Family Court. Thus it is fundamentally wrong for the Family Court to be drawn into an analysis of factual evidence in proceedings relating to the welfare of children based upon criminal law principles and concepts. For example, in the context of the Family Court considering whether there has been a pattern of abusive behaviour, the border line as between 'consent' and 'submission' may be less significant than it would be in the criminal trial of an allegation of rape or sexual assault. c. The burden of establishing truth is on the parent who makes the allegation. d. It is for that parent to satisfy the court, on the balance of probabilities, that 'the occurrence of the event was more likely than not' [ Re H (Minors) (Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) [1996] AC 563 ]. e. This is a binary analysis in which each allegation is either found to be 'proved' or 'not proved': "In our legal system, if a judge finds it more likely than not that something did take place, then it is treated as having taken place. If he finds it more likely than not that it did not take place, then it is treated as not having taken place. He is not allowed to sit on the fence. He has to find for one side or the other." ( Re B (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) [2008] UKHL 35 , Baroness Hale at paragraph 32). f. If the court decides that an abusive allegation has not been sufficiently proved, the court must assess future risk on the basis that the event 'did not take place'. g. Just because a party has lied about one issue, does not mean that they have lied about all issues: parties lie about issues for a variety of reasons. Where the court finds that a party has lied it must consider the reasons for that lie within the context of the case. 25. What that means in this case is that where Ms Y makes an allegation and Mr X disputes it, it is her responsibility to persuade me that it is more likely than not that her version is correct; it is not for Mr X to disprove it. Once I have determined which allegations (if any) she has proved, I must take a step back and consider the bigger picture to see whether the proven allegations suggest that there has (or has not) been any pattern of abusive (ie controlling or coercive) behaviour by Mr X towards Ms Y or ChildA. The written evidence 26. The court has a bundle running to 395 pages. I have read it all. The most significant documents are a. Ms Y’s statements dated 4 March 2025 and 17 July 2025 b. The statement she has filed made by [REDACTED] dated 11 August 2025 c. Mr X’s undated statement made in response to Ms Y’s first statement d. The undated statement he has filed made by [REDACTED] e. Police disclosure f. Ms Y’s medical records Live evidence 27. In addition I heard evidence from the social worker Ms Stephenson, Ms Y, Mr [REDACTED] and Mr X. 28. I did not hear evidence from [REDACTED] because his evidence is not challenged by Ms Y. 29. The hearing was a slow process because Ms Y had the benefit of a Spanish interpreter. Whilst the parties attended court, the interpreter attended remotely by video conference. The result was that it was necessary for anyone in court speaking to pause after each phrase so that it could be translated for Mr Y’s benefit. 30. At several points throughout the hearing Mr X complained that the involvement of the interpreter was slowing the process unnecessarily, and hampering him from maintaining a flow of thought process. I am satisfied in light of a cognitive assessment obtained from Dr Taylor that it was necessary for Ms Y to have the benefit of an interpreter to ensure that she was fully involved with the hearing. I acknowledge that the result was a slow process that tested the patience of some in the room; but that was a necessary and proportionate price to pay to ensure a fair hearing. 31. It is also the case that Mr X was supposed to be assisted by a Qualified Legal Representative who had been appointed to ask questions of Ms Y on his behalf. The intention was that the QLR (based some distance from Cornwall would attend remotely by video. In the event the QLR could not join via his computer for technical reasons. He was joined by telephone but the line quality was so bad that those in the court room were struggling to understand what he was saying. Ultimately Mr X sent me the list of questions he wished to put to Ms Y, and I put them. The alternative would have been to adjourn the whole hearing, which was something to be avoided if at all possible. Again, I am satisfied that my putting the questions was a reasonable step to ensure an effective hearing and provided a fair process to each party. Social worker Ms Stephenson 32. Ms Stephenson told me as follows: a. She has had no involvement with the family since February 2025 – ie 6 months ago — shortly before her section 7 report was signed off. b. She saw ChildA on 3 occasions. Initially he was consistent that he wanted to see his Dad, but in February changed his position to that set out in the section 7 report. She does not know his current wishes and feelings. She did not consider that Ms Y has been coercive towards ChildA, but that ChildA has been influenced by her. She does not consider that such influence could be described as “parental alienation”. ChildA is a “confident and assertive boy who is very well able to articulate his views and feelings”. The only negative comments he has made about Mr X is when Mr X was under the influence of alcohol. c. The section in her report where she records what Mr X told her about the incident in South America when Mr X fell into the water was a direct quotation from him. He had told her that both parties were “wasted” and accepted that he fell on top of Ms Y and caused her some injury, and that after that incident she had an injury to her breast. d. She was worried that ChildA was obsessed with talk about guns, and that guns were “normalised” in the household. e. ChildA had told her that he had a secret code with his Dad, and that was an unusual scenario. Her discussion with ChildA was around more than just the code word “generator”: ChildA told her that because some time had passed he had started to forget some of the words. Her worry is that use of a code would prevent any contact supervisor from exercising supervision adequately; and that ChildA could disclose his mother’s whereabouts via code language, putting her stability at risk. f. It is not the view of Local Authority that the outcome of a fact-finding hearing would make a significant difference whether or not the allegations were proved: ChildA has been exposed to a lot of arguing but has not gone into detail about physical incidents between his parents. He has been consistent that he wants to see his father. In her view if he could be protected from exposure to further incidents then whether or not the allegations of abuse towards Ms Y are proved does not directly affect her recommendation. If the allegations of abuse to ChildA himself were proved then it would affect the recommendation. g. ChildA’s needs were absolutely being well met by Ms Y. She did not consider that the best solution was now for him to return to live with Mr X in the family home. Social Services have no history relating to a period when ChildA lived with Mr X alone, so that is “untested”. h. She saw the family home and acknowledged that Mr X could not have locked Ms Y into the rooms i. The position is “particularly complex” and it has been a “really difficult balance” between ChildA’s wishes and feelings and the physical risk presented by Mr X. If a way could be found to enable ChildA to spend time with Mr X without risking the security of Ms Y’s accommodation then she would recommend it. j. I asked her about the extent to which she had taken account of Practice Direction 12J, and particularly the presumption that a child who witnesses abusive behaviour is also to be considered a victim. She was not familiar with that Practice Direction. 33. I found Ms Stephenson to be doing the best she could in the circumstances, but ultimately her evidence was not terribly helpful: a long time has passed since her last involvement, and her understanding of the approach the court must take in light of PD12J was lacking to the point where it must lead me to question the basis of the recommendation made. Ms Y 34. Ms Y told me as follows: a. Mr X pressured her into marrying him because he told her that he knows everything about UK law and it would be very difficult for her as a single mother, and that her son should not be born outside of marriage. She told him that she could not marry him. He told her that the authorities will not check whether she was already married and he helped her fill in the application form. She asked him what to do and he said “tick here”. She said that she was single when they married. He would use her remarriage as a threat and say that she had a “tail” he could stand on “so watch out”, that he had a perfect knowledge of the law and could get her put into prison at any time. “If I don’t do what he wants he will threaten me and talk about this vulnerability of mine so I have to do it to keep the peace”. “He would say we are going here, and we went there.” b. When they went to South America he said “I have bought the tickets; let’s go”. She had no alternative but to live with him on the boat: he had all the money and ChildA’s passport. c. She was not aware (as stated by Mr X) that to pursue her visa application now she needs either to be married or say that she is victim of abuse. She only found out about that after a recent court hearing. It is only since she has had advice from an immigration lawyer that she has been told that she can apply to remain here because she has a child in UK. d. Mr X had the key to ChildA’s room. When she wanted to put ChildA to be and read him a story she had to ask Mr X’s permission. She did not have access to ChildA’s room. She is not suggesting that she was locked in rooms herself. She did not have access to some rooms in the house. Sometimes if she wanted to go to the charity where she volunteered he would put himself in front of the front door and she would withdraw and said “OK” to avoid problems. e. There were 2 kitchens and 2 bathrooms in the house: one set for the family, and the other set for the lodgers. Mr X would let her into the family kitchen to cook him a full English breakfast, but otherwise she had to use the lodgers’ kitchen and bathroom. She was “not completely locked away” but some things were denied her. f. The reason her diary was in the attic was that she was sleeping in the bed there, and it is a South American tradition to keep important documents flat under the bed. There was nowhere else in the attic to keep them. Mr X found the diary when he was looking for her passport, which is why she took it to the charity shop to keep it there. Mr X had locked her passport in the safe in his room, but ChildA knew the combination and she took it to the charity shop. When she went to Europe he gave her access to her passport to enable her to travel. g. She stayed with Mr X because she loved him, had a child with him and wanted a family life. She thought he would change. In the mornings before he started drinking “all was beautiful and he would say lovely things to me, but when he started drinking I was a parasite and a cockroach”. She did not go to the Police about his behaviour because he had ChildA’s passport and said that he would take ChildA away. She did ask Mr X for a break in their relationship and he said she could have one, but not with ChildA because he had ChildA’s passport. h. She had no choice but to go to Europe with him: he said he had bought the house, and “you move”. He never asked her: she had a child, so she moved with him. He always made the decisions. i. In Europe when they ran the Bed and Breakfast the guests were not friends, which is why she felt isolated. She had to keep the house clean for them. She was not completely cut off, but was not able to work or study. She was at home looking after the house and garden. She could only drive on her South American driving licence for a year, and Mr X said it cost too much for her to obtain a European licence. If he told her to drive to collect food, she did it anyway. j. Mr X would tell her to use his bank card for his Lloyds account. He would tell her to buy beer. She has been in the supermarket with no money on her own card. She did try to get a job with a care home because Mr X called her a “parasite”, but then he said that he was going to Europe so she could not accept the job. He told her that they would sign a contract and she would get the money from one of the rooms in the house that was rented out. k. She had to ask him for money to buy things for ChildA. He would say no. He would buy new things for himself, but she had to buy in a second-hand shop. l. He called South Americans a lot of things: natural idiots, a waste of time, eat shit and die, a bunch of twats and a bunch of idiots – his language was colourful. m. In South America on the boat he put his knee on her chest and tried to strangle her. She had constant chest pain after that. He broke her finger. After the incident he told her to “return to your bloody country without ChildA” or that they would go back to UK and make their relationship work; so she stayed. n. When Mr X smashed the door onto her face she thought about reporting it to the local police. She got to the entrance of the police station, calmed down and did not. at first she got a growth on the gum. The paramedic asked what happened and when she told him he called social services. o. When she did call the Police in Cornwall it was because ChildA was in bed and Mr X was loading bullets into a gun. She did not know where all the guns were hidden, but ChildA showed everything to the Police. She does not know which guns were real and which were replicas. She can distinguish a rifle from a pistol and she knows what a machine gun looks like 35. I found Ms Y to be credible: her evidence was consistent and she made a number of unguarded but consistent asides that supplemented her written evidence. I suspect that her written evidence lacked detail in part because it was prepared without the benefit of an interpreter. Observing her, I can understand why her solicitors questioned her capacity (although plainly she does have full capacity and provided a comprehensive account with the benefit of an interpreter). There were times when she did not answer the precise question asked, but that did not detract from her credibility. She gave the impression at times of being “lost”, which led me to the view that she was rather guileless; but all the more credible for it. [REDACTED] 36. [REDACTED] told me as follows: a. On the night on 3 May 2024 he was concerned for Ms Y’s wellbeing. Whilst working with him at [REDACTED] she had shared some of the difficulties in her relationship with Mr X. b. He rang her mobile a number of times because they were disconnected a number of times. He also rang 101 and then (on the advice of the 101 operator) 999, during which he was not able to hear what was happening at Ms Y’s end of the call. When he could hear what was happening, he heard the Police saying that the phone Ms Y was using was not registered in her name. c. He accepted that there were probably some details omitted from his written statement. 37. His live evidence added nothing to his written statement. What was clear was the palpable tension between him and Mr X. Mr X’s questions clearly implied that he believed that Ms Y’s relationship with Mr X was inappropriate. 38. I found him an entirely straightforward witness, albeit one who found himself in a very uncomfortable position of being asked questions by Mr X. Mr X 39. Mr X told me as follows: a. He still regards himself as a victim in this situation who himself has done nothing wrong. b. He detected a distinct change in Ms Y’s attitude after she started volunteering at the charity shop. It was her change in behaviour that was the primary reason for difficulties in their relationship: she was more distant and was avoiding him, and he was therefore less keen on her attending the shop. He was concerned about her discussing domestic issues with her friends at the shop. She “failed” her motorbike test and then “did not succeed” in getting her motorcycle licence and she felt upset and victimised about it, which did not help the atmosphere c. He does not accept that he was drinking too much, but he had decided to reduce his drinking because “it’s not good for you and it costs money”. Ms Y was drinking more than he was and when he mentioned it she would get angry. He acknowledged that the alcohol hair testing showed that he was drinking excessively, but that was for a period “after my son had been abducted”. He would certainly never drink to the extent that he was physically sick “unlike the respondent”. d. He considers that the social worker’s record of what ChildA has said contains “all sorts of complete nonsense”. For example, ChildA says that he drank Speckled Hen beer, but you cannot get that in South America. It’s “the imagination of a seven year old”. Asked whether ChildA’s account to the social worker is true that when his father drinks to excess he becomes violent, he answered by saying “ChildA says Mummy is at home and she is pissed again”, but that unfortunately he did not record ChildA saying that. e. Specifically, ChildA’s account of the incident in March 2023 on the boat “is not correct”. It is a “very one sided account from a child” made after he was arrested and Havey “saw me dragged off in handcuffs”. He was not drunk. The family were disembarking from a dinghy to a main boat. It was windy, dark with a 6 knot tide running. He fell from the dinghy to the main boat and hurt his back. f. Later in relation to that incident he told me “we were both drunk” because they were celebrating. “I fell on top of her – it was an accident. We have already established that”. He denied kneeling on Ms Y, and denied putting his hands around her neck: “I would say kneeling on her and with my arms around her neck would be a difficult position”. When the extract from Ms Y’s diary was read to him, which repeats her version of events, he became irritated and said “You have just asked me this. How many times am I going to be asked the same question?”. In his view Ms Y could not have written that diary entry the day after it happened “because she was in no fit state”. He observed that it does not suggest an injury to her breast. “This is an accident that has been turned into an assault” and “It was a verbal fight which turned into me falling on top of her”. g. He subsequently said that it was an “altercation, argument – it was a drunken disagreement”. Asked whether he had been untruthful in his account to the social worker, which made no mention of an argument, he said “I have not said we did not have an argument”. He told me more than once, “It was categorically not an assault”. He did not say “I fucking hate you”; what he said was “I fucking hate you when you get so wasted to the point of being sick”. h. He does not accept that he caused the injury to Ms Y’s finger. The issue with her breast was caused by a blocked mammary gland getting infected. He went onto the internet and read that it affects women who give birth later in life, breast feed excessively and live in a hot climate. Later he said “I have never said that it was not caused by me”, and that the letters from the treating consultant “did not say it was definitely caused by trauma”. He subsequently said “I may have caused the injury in South America by accident”. i. As regards the allegation of assault in June 2024, the issue Ms Y had with an infection in her mouth was “a recurring problem she has” – “she has had it before and she will have it again”. He denied that he had kicked a door into her face of assaulted her in Europe. “We have pages and pages of accusation totally totally fabricated and a lot of them are distorted actual events”. Ms Y did not tell him or anyone else about the issue at the time and “surely if assaulted by someone you would report it”. j. He told me that he did not control Ms Y in any way: “She was free to go wherever she wants to go”. He did not control her financially – “we have bank statements showing her full use of all bank accounts”. He acknowledged that she did not have a job “so I provided all the money”. “If she extinguished what was in her account she would have to come to me for money like all wives or partners”. k. He knew that Ms Y was already married. He told him that she was going to leave her previous husband. He sent her emails for internet sites where she could divorce him online. When they got married she told him that she had sorted it out with her solicitor friend. She had told him that her husband was going to kill her and dissolve her body in acid. “It turned out to be 2 litres of battery acid for the boat’s batteries”, which “shows this is just a repeat, doesn’t it – it’s all very familiar”. He was not aware until March 2024 that she had not divorced her previous husband. l. He has never called her names. “Skank” is a northern expression and he expects she has picked it up on the hostel she lives in . He denied calling her mother names. “I don’t call people names and I am not vile to people”. He did not call the Germans “Nazis” – “I don’t have a problem with anybody”. m. He agreed a code word with ChildA that ChildA would say “the generator is working” if he was in a car or with people with whom he was not comfortable. Ms Y had threatened to abduct ChildA to South America, hence the need for a code. The suggestion that he had agreed other words is a lie. He suspects ChildA has heard them from Ms Y. n. Asked about the social worker’s statement that he had hidden his mobile number inside a toy to be given to ChildA, he said “I don’t recall hiding anything in a toy”. I asked him to clarify whether an ability to recall it means that he can say for certain whether he did hide his number in a toy or not. He hesitated for a moment and then said “I have not hidden anything in a toy”. Some time later he volunteered that he had taped his number to the “underside” of one of the toys, “not inside”. o. He is still under investigation regarding the weapons seized by the Police and has not been charged with an offence. A number of weapons were removed from the house, but some of them were replicas and one of them was just an ornament. 40. At times during his evidence Mr X became heated and raised his voice. He was critical of the questions asked at times, rather than simply answering them. His evidence was inconsistent. He appeared to answer some allegations by making allegations himself against Mr Y. On a number of occasions he was overly assertive and gave the impression of seeking to take control of the court process. That of itself does not undermine the truthfulness of what he told me, but it gave me some insight into his approach when challenged. I found him to be a highly intelligent and clever man who can maintain his position under pressure. 41. It was clear from the way that he gave his evidence that Mr X is exacting. That was exemplified in the distinction he drew between putting his address in a toy or under a toy. His first answer — that he did not put his address in a toy — may have been technically correct and true, but it was not the whole truth and I am afraid the way he dealt with that issue led me to question his overall honesty. He was prepared to answer a clear question in a way that distorted the truth. I accept that he subsequently set the record straight, but his initial answer was a carefully considered one and it told me that he was willing to allow me to think (at least for a time) that the social worker’s statement that he had tried to pass his number to ChildA was incorrect. It also lead me to consider that given his willingness to take such a narrow and exacting approach to evidence, that where he avoided answering questions he was doing so for a purpose. My approach to the evidence 42. I must consider all the evidence in light of all the other evidence. In doing so I must consider what weight the evidence in relation to each allegation should attract when considering whether Ms Y has persuaded me that it is more likely than not that what she says is true. 43. The most reliable evidence is likely to be contemporaneous independent evidence, for example, messages sent at the time, or video/audio recordings of incidents. The only contemporaneous (if not independent) evidence here is Ms Y’s diary entry from March 2023, although Mr X believes it was not written the day after the incident in South America. 44. Next will be evidence of third parties who witnessed events. Again, other than what the social worker states ChildA told her, there is none. The reports of what ChildA said are hearsay, but admissible. However, ChildA has not been ABE interviewed, and there is only a limited amount of weight I can place on what he told the social worker when considering the factual matrix. 45. Relevant, but less reliable is what the parties themselves told third parties after the event. I have medical records which set out what Ms Y told her GP and the consultant treating the problem with her breast. I also have what she subsequently told the Police, although that was reported at a point where the parties’ relationship had ended. 46. Lastly, I have the benefit of what each party now says. The vast majority of the allegations in this case must be decided on the basis of one party’s word against the other. 47. The evidence of [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] is not helpful: Neither actually witnessed anything. To the extent that Mr X relies on [REDACTED]’s statement as evidence that nothing happened, I remind myself that it is not for Mr X to prove the negative. Analysis 48. Given my need to consider all the evidence in light of all the other evidence, I start with the allegations for which best evidence is available, and then consider the allegations which largely fall to be determined on the basis of one party’s word against the other in light of other findings. Allegation 4b – Physical abuse — 3 March 2023 — [REDACTED] 49. I start with the most serious individual allegation, which is that of the assault in Suth America on 3 March 2023. Ms Y states that Mr X hit her head into the deck of a boat, strangled her and injured her finger and her breast. Her account of that incident has been consistent. There is some corroborative (if not independent) evidence available: She recorded it in her diary, which states as follows: “3rd Friday: In South America, we went to the Marina, on the boat, CX (Captain X) and I fought physically. He put both hands around my neck. I have a dislocated finger. He threw me and I hit my head on the concrete boat. ChildA cried and shouted a lot. The neighbours came very late because of all the shouting.” “04 th Saturday Fernando came to the boat , I have a lot of pain in my neck, back and finger,” 50. She plainly does have a crooked finger of which there is photographic evidence. It is a significant and obvious injury. Whilst Mr X states that he does not know whether she hurt it on that occasion, he has not sought to suggest that it was caused on a different occasion. On balance it is more likely than not to have occurred during this incident. 51. Ms Y has had a serious medical issue with her chest. The letters from her consultant provide no definitive medical explanation, but it appears to be consistent with trauma. Mr X has been anxious to assert that her consultant diagnosed the issue as granulomatous mastitis, and has carried out some internet research to suggest that she was at increased risk of that. In fact what her consultant states in his letter of 13 March 2024 is as follows: “She revealed she had had some significant trauma to the breast about a year before she presented and has been in pain ever since. It is certainly not behaving like normal breast infection, as we have never managed to grow anything, and not only that, she does give this history of trauma so I suppose this could be just fat necrosis that is resolving in a rather strange way. It could also be granulomatous mastitis but she would be very unlucky to have developed this.” 52. That suggests that the problem with her breast could have been caused by trauma or (if she were unlucky) granulomatous mastitis. 53. On 16 July 2024 (before the parties’ separation) Ms Y told her GP about the incident, which is recorded in her medical notes as follows: “>1year ago — in South America Domestic Violence incident — husband jumped on pt and tried to strangle her and knelt on breast — caused breast abscessed — was hospitalised for this but finger not seen. Now presents with chronic mallet finger deformity — for orthopaedic referral — urgent XR” 54. Mr X’s account has been inconsistent: i) He told the social worker that “he fell on top of her which led to the injury on her breast”; “he also stated that it was a burst cyst which caused the injury”. He now denies that he was the cause of the injury to her breast, stating in his response to the schedule of allegations “The 'injuries' she is attributing to me are both infections.”. ii) He told me in relation to the photographs of her breast damage “They are not injuries”. I have to ask myself why he is so concerned to assert that her breast was not injured if it was the result of an accident. If it were an accident, why seek to limit the consequences? Subsequently he then told me “I have never said it was not caused by me”, and accepted that “it could be caused by my falling on top of her”. iii) In his response to the allegations he does not say that he “fell” on her at all, but that “There was an argument and shouting, but she fell over”. That is a significantly different account. iv) He told the social worker that it was a straightforward accident. He made no mention of any argument in the lead up to the incident. When considering whether his “falling” on Ms Y was an example of abusive behaviour the context is highly relevant, particularly a context in which the parties were drunk (or at least, Mr X says they were both “wasted”) and in the midst of an altercation or argument. He omitted that the parties were in an argument when he spoke to the social worker. Instead, her told her that “he and Ms Y were both "wasted" and he nearly fell overboard causing Ms Y to pull him back on the boat and he fell on top of her”. He has subsequently said that there was “an argument and shouting”. The omission of that detail in his previous account is troubling. It suggests an attempt to paint a very different picture of the circumstances. 55. Ms Y wrote in her diary at the time (or very shortly thereafter) that the parties had fought. She is not suggesting that she did not have some responsibility for what took place – she says they were both arguing. She records in her diary that she has (present tense) a dislocated finger, and that he put his hands around her neck. I note that in her written statement she says that he put his “arms” around her neck. I suspect that is a result of the fact that she did not have the benefit of a Spanish translator when her statement was produced. Mr X picked up on that point, pointing out that it would have been a “difficult position” to kneel on her chest with arms around her neck. However, her contemporaneous diary refers to his “hands” around her neck. Nowhere in his written evidence has Mr X denied that he put his hands around her neck. In his oral evidence he denied the whole incident, but when it was specifically put to him that he had his hands around her neck he side-stepped the question, saying “You have just asked me this – how many times I am going to be asked the same question?” He did not deny it. That matters because it became apparent that Mr X is clearly an extremely precise person: the way he drew a distinction between putting his phone number in a toy or under a toy exemplifies that. Against that background, his refusal to deny in oral evidence specifically putting his hands around her neck is significant. 56. Mr X states in his response to the allegations that in relation to this incident Ms Y “has backdated and distorted our entire time together.” However, her evidence now is consistent with her contemporaneous diary then: she recorded at the time that he had attacked and hurt her. He is therefore incorrect to suggest that she is now backdating events to suit her current purpose. 57. The accepted facts in relation to this incident are as follows: Mr X fell in the water; the parties (or at least Mr X) were “wasted” – ie drunk. They had an argument. Mr X was for a time on top of her. As a result Ms Y dislocated her finger and more likely than not injured her breast. Voices were raised and the neighbours came to see what was happening. The question is whether Mr X did more than “fall” on her: did he bang her head on the deck, strangle her and kneel on her chest? 58. On balance, I prefer Ms Y’s account. If she were going to simply invent allegations of physical abuse, why stop at just two (this one and the allegation that Mr X kicked a door into her face)? The contemporaneous record is compelling. Mr X’s account of the context, mechanism and damage caused has been inconsistent, and I have to question why, if it was an accident, he seeks to minimise the circumstances and consequences. ChildA’s account to the social worker that when Mr X had been drinking he was “bad news” and “not nice to Mum” is consistent with my findings, if not probative of itself. 59. The allegation is proven. Allegation 4c – Physical abuse – Europe 23 June 2024 60. Ms Y alleges that whilst on the boat in Europe Mr X kicked a door into her face causing injury. She says that Mr X was drunk, and that the parties had argument about returning to UK. He denies it. It is not the case that he says something happened which has been misinterpreted or exaggerated: he simply states that it did not happen. 61. There is no contemporaneous evidence, but 3 weeks after the incident she told her GP about it who records the following: “Ms Y reports Domestic violence episode from husband whilst sailing from Europe Had door slammed in face 3wks ago lesion came up in mouth Painful and continuing to grow.” 62. At the time of that report Ms Y had already on 15 March 2024 made a report to the Police about Mr X’s behaviour towards her, including the assault in South America. 63. Mr X states that her dental issues are caused by an abscess on an infected birth mark. He told me in evidence that she has had it before, and will have it again. In his written evidence he says “She had complained previously about the gum abscess in the uk some weeks prior and I suggested she visited the minor injuries unit in Cornwall. She also had it occur while we were in South America…” 64. The medical evidence tells me that he is wrong about that. The GP notes record that the doctor “doesn’t think looks infected – like normal but large mucocele”. There is before me no medical explanation of a mucocele, but I take judicial notice of the fact that they are usually caused by an injury to the salivary glands. That might be consistent with the sort of trauma that may be caused of a door were slammed into her face, but is not probative of it. 65. Again, I have to ask why Mr X would be insistent that it is caused by something organic as opposed to injury. Why not just tell me that he did not kick the door into her face, but does not know why 3 weeks later she sought dental treatment? 66. Ms Y’s account suggests that the circumstances were similar to those of the assault in South America. Mr X had been drinking; the parties had argued; he became violent. 67. On balance I am persuaded that it is more likely than not true. The allegation is proven. Allegation 1f – Financial control 68. There is some contemporaneous independent documentary evidence relevant to Ms Y’s allegation that Mr X controlled her money and controlled how it was spent in the form of the disclosed bank statements. 69. It is common ground that Ms Y did not earn any money. In his evidence Mr X confirmed that she did not have a job “so I provided all the money”. “If she extinguished what was in her account she would have to come to me for money like all wives or partners”. That shows that de facto he was in control of the money: it came from him, and she would have to ask for it. It is not the case that all the money went into a joint account to which she had unfettered access. 70. The question is whether Mr X used that control in a way that is economically abusive. I remind myself that PD12J defines economic abuse as economic abuse, meaning any behaviour that has a substantial adverse effect on the other person’s ability to acquire, use or maintain money, or to obtain goods and services. 71. Ms Y did have her own bank account with account no ..6024. Mr X has provided some statements. I note that those will have been sent to the home address in Cornwall after Ms Y left. Whilst they were not addressed to him, Mr X has opened them and annotated them. For June to July 2024 no money was paid into her account. The majority of her spending (a total of approximately £46) related to spending in charity shops, which is consistent with her oral evidence that she was required to buy used things in charity shops. 72. Mr X provides a statement for his own account …1260 for June 2024. He has annotated that statement with the words “Her debit card to use”. What that tells me is that rather that put money into her own account, he allowed her to use his debit card, retaining money in his own account. The account suggests that he drip-fed money into that account. Various sums of £50, £100, £150 and £200 go into the account that month but the balance never rises above £177. That is consistent with his statement that she would have to go to him for money when she needed it. He closed the account on 6 August 2024 when she moved out, suggesting that it was an account in his name for her to use. The vast majority of the expenditure on that account is for payments to supermarkets – Lidl and Morrisons – and charity shop purchases. 73. The picture that paints is one of control. Mr X was in charge of the money. He would allow Ms Y to use a card in his name, but he would have full knowledge of all she spent because he would receive the statements in his name. He would put small amounts into the account and she had to ask for them. 74. Mr X has also provided statements which he says show him transferring larger sums into Ms Y’s account in South America when they were there. In doing so he has disclosed some statements for his account ending …0160. Those show that he himself was in receipt of Child Benefit for ChildA. However, the statements do not prove that he was transferring large amounts to Ms Y’s account in [REDACTED], simply that he sent some large amounts abroad. There is no evidence before the court of the account into which the money was paid. 75. Other hallmarks of control are Ms Y’s evidence that he would not allow her to get a job, and that when she found one in a care home he went to Europe so that she could not accept the job; and her evidence to me that Mr X said she could not buy things for ChildA because she did not receive child benefit for him. 76. On balance it is more likely than not that Ms Y is correct when she states that Mr X was financially controlling. The allegation is proven. The remaining allegations 77. There is no contemporaneous evidence that assists with determining the remaining allegations. I must decide them on the basis of one party’s word against the other. If I believe Ms Y’s word in preference to Mr X’s then the allegations are proven. If I believe them both equally then the burden of proof is not discharged and the allegations are not proven. 78. Since I must consider all the evidence in light of all the other evidence, when considering whether I prefer the evidence of Ms Y to that of Mr X it is relevant that a. I did not find Mr X to be an entirely honest witness b. In relation to those allegations for which corroborative evidence is available, I have found that it supports what Ms Y states, and that Mr X’s account is not to be preferred. 79. I must therefore ask myself in relation to those allegations for which there is no corroborative evidence why I would not find the evidence of Ms Y more persuasive. Allegation 1 – Coercion and control 80. In real terms Mr X was in control during the parties’ relationship: he was a UK national, whereas Ms Y does not speak English as her first language (and the Cognitive assessment suggests that she struggles to communicate effectively in English); the boats they lived on, the house in Cornwall and all income came from him and, as set out above, he controlled it. I note that Ms Y referred to him in her diary as “CX” for “Captain X”, which is consistent with an acceptance that he was in charge. He was significantly older. Again, the question is whether he used that de facto control in an abusive way, ie to remove Ms Y’s agency and undermine her self worth. 81. Mr X demonstrated a degree of control in the way he gave his evidence: several times he sought to suggest that Ms Y did not really need the assistance of an interpreter, and he complained on the length of time the process was taking, but did so in a rather high handed way that conveyed some contempt for Ms Y’s needs. It gave me some insight perhaps into his approach, which is that he knows what is right and gave short shrift to a view at odds with his own. Allegation 1 a – pressure to marry 82. As regards the allegation that he put Ms Y under pressure to marry, I do not accept that Mr X believed she was divorced from her previous husband and only found out in March 2024 that she was still married: he knew that she was married previously and knew that she had to obtain a divorce in order to remarry. His evidence that she told him that she had sorted it out. The actual question put to him was to confirm that he married her knowing that she was already married. Notably Mr X did not answer that question, but side-stepped doing so, by telling me that she married him knowing that she was not divorced. He did not therefore deny that he knew she was already married. Given the precise nature of Mr X it is inconceivable that he would have simply taken Ms Y’s word that she had divorced her previous husband. 83. More than that, if Ms Y had told him that she had divorced her previous husband and he believed that, why tell him (as he now says) in March 2024 that she had not divorced her previous husband? That would be an admission of bigamy that Ms Y did not need to make, and would prejudice her current marriage and therefore her immigration status, in addition to giving Mr X something that he could potentially use against her. I note that it was Mr X who disclosed into these proceedings the suggestion that Ms Y was still married — it is recorded on an order dated 1 October 2024 that “The father has disclosed that the mother was married at the time she married him and is still not divorced”. At that point within these proceedings he was using her previous marriage status against her. 84. It is more likely that both of them knew that she was not divorced, but that they married in any event. 85. I found Ms Y’s oral evidence that Mr X would use her previous marriage to control her by saying “you have a tail I can stand on” compelling: it is not something in her written evidence and was an unguarded comment made when being questioned about her visa application. 86. The allegation is proven Allegation 1 b – pressured to move to South America and Europe 87. Again, this allegation must be determined on the basis of one party’s word against the other. 88. It is Ms Y’s unguarded oral evidence that “He would say we are going here and we would go there” was telling. Regarding the South America trip she said “It’s very simple: he said he had bought the tickets – let’s go”. 89. I am persuaded that in real terms Mr X was in charge. He called the shots about where the parties lived and where they went. Of itself that does not appear to have been abusive, but it formed part of a pattern of behaviour where he was in charge and Ms Y was subservient. Her views did not count for very much. Allegation 1 c – controlling Ms Y’s passport 90. In his response to Ms Y’s allegations, Mr X just says “not true”. He goes on to explain how he did not cancel her visa application, but does not deal with her allegation that he took possession of her passport. In his statement he says “her passport, when not with her, she kept in the safe at the charity shop in Cornwall”. 91. I have to ask why Ms Y would keep her passport in a shop in Cornwall. The only rational explanation is that she could not keep it safely in the family home because she believed that Mr X would take it. 92. At one point in his evidence Mr X was asked whether he kept her passport in the safe in his bedroom. He denied that, but then said it was in the safe in the basement and that ChildA knew the combination. He effectively admitted that he had locked it away. His evidence is similar to that of Ms Y, which is that the passport was in a safe and she had to ask ChildA to get it out. Mr X then repeated a pattern in his evidence of making an admission but immediately accusing Ms Y of the same thing, telling me that she had taken his passport and ChildA’s passport. He reported her to the Police for theft, and also reported that she had stolen a leather bag. 93. On balance I prefer the evidence of Ms Y. The allegation is proven. 94. However, the allegation that he cancelled Ms Y’s visa application is not well evidenced. Mr X has set out the wording he says he used in an email to the Home Office. Whilst he apparently quotes from that email, he has not provided a copy of it. Whether he is right about that or not, the fact that he was sending the emails shows that he was dominant in dealing with that application – Ms Y was not dealing with the application herself. It appears that her visa was not cancelled because it appears to have been granted on 4 November 2022. 95. What perhaps the allegation reflects is the extent to which Ms Y was reliant on Mr X to make the arrangements. 96. However, the allegation that he cancelled her visa is not proven. Allegation 1 d – telling Ms Y that she must do what she was told 97. All the evidence as set out above is consistent with this broad assertion. Mr X had put himself firmly in charge. His evidence regarding finances that if Ms Y emptied her account then “she would have to come to me for money like all wives or partners” is reflective of this approach. It may be said that it is a rather old fashioned approach. 98. Again, I prefer the evidence of Ms Y and the allegation is proven. Allegation 1 e – removing the door to Ms Y’s bedroom; not allowing her use of the kitchen and bathroom 99. It is common ground that the door to the attic room had no door: Mr X confirmed that it had been removed in 2022, although in his written evidence he said that it was removed in January. Either way, it was removed. The issue here is not the removal of the door, but the denial of privacy. It is similar to the way he enabled her to use his bank account: she could use the account but have no financial privacy; she could sleep in the attic, but have no privacy. 100. Mr X also emphasised that it is not possible for him to have locked Ms Y in any of the rooms. I have read her statements carefully. She does not suggest that he did lock her in any room. She confirmed in her oral evidence that she is not suggesting that he did. She alleged that he would prevent her from accessing rooms in the house, including ChildA’s bedroom. Her oral evidence that she had to ask Mr X for permission to access ChildA’s bedroom to put him to bed was concerning. Whilst Mr X makes much of photographic evidence showing a lack of locks on doors in the house, I note that the social worker in the Child In Need assessment confirms that she has seen the lock on ChildA’s bedroom door and “key seen in the lock”. I accept that it is more likely than not that she did have to ask permission to access ChildA’s room. 101. The more significant issue relates to the bathroom and kitchen. Ms Y alleges at paragraph 69 of her statement that Mr X was following her and spying on her, and goes on to state, “He prohibited me from using some of the rooms at home, from using his books, from using the internet, from sitting in his chair, from using the family kitchen, the family bathroom and from eating his food.” Mr X’s written response was, “totally untrue, I've never followed her anywhere. I joined them in the park on one occasion, unannounced, and she was on her phone, and ran off in guilt when I appeared!”. He did not in fact deny her allegation about access to the kitchen and bathroom. In his response to the schedule of allegations he (again) did not deny the allegation. 102. To a reader unaware that the house in Cornwall has 2 kitchens and 2 bathrooms- one each of the family, and one each for the lodgers – that allegation appears to suggest that Ms Y was unable to cook or wash, and that her allegation is inherently implausible because plainly she was able to do both those things. One of Mr X’s written questions to Ms Y asks “If you were banned from the kitchen, how in practice did you prepare meals for yourself and ChildA?”. In the event that question was not asked of Ms Y, but Mr X confirmed to me that he had approved the written questions. The very basis of that question is that he allows the court to assume there is only one kitchen and one bathroom, but in fact there were two of each. Access to a bathroom and a kitchen is very different to access to both bathrooms and both kitchens. Mr X never actually denied in his written evidence that he did restrict her access. 103. In his oral evidence Mr X was asked to confirm that it was true that Ms Y was not allowed to use his kitchen and bathroom. Mr X then did say that her allegation was untrue, and that “If that was true she would have produced witnesses from people living in the house”, and then went on to say that it is not possible for her to have been locked into rooms in the house (an allegation she has not made). 104. I am persuaded that Ms Y was telling the truth when she told me that she was not allowed into the family kitchen unless she was cooking food for Mr X, and was not allowed to use the family bathroom. It was telling when she told me that she was allowed to use his kitchen in order to cook him an English breakfast. Mr X denied that in the house Ms Y was as second class citizen, but the evidence tells me that she was treated as such. Allegation 2 – verbal abuse 105. I deal with both elements of this allegation together. Again, it is a question of one party’s word against the other. 106. I note that Mr X states that he could not have called Ms Y a “skank” because he does not know the word, and he asserts that it is a northern term and she must have learned it in the Refuge. In fact, she told the social worker he had called her that name when they met on 31 July 2024. At that point she had not moved away from Cornwall. 107. The most telling elements of Ms Y’s evidence were that he called her a parasite and cockroach for eating his food. 108. Given my findings about Mr X’s approach towards Ms Y and the corroborated allegations, I find that it is more likely than not that he has called her and her mother names. 109. The allegation is proven. Allegation 3 a – emotional harm — Nazis 110. The only evidence that Mr X called Germans “Nazis” is the word of Ms Y against that of Mr X. Ms Y. In his written evidence Mr X simply states that it did not happen. He says that it is “totally untrue”. In his oral evidence he told me that they had watched a program with ChildA about the Second World War, and ChildA had asked whether the German they knew was a Nazi, and he explained to ChildA what a Nazi is; and that Ms Y has got confused about it. 111. There is a marked difference between Mr X’s written evidence, which is a complete denial, and his explanation in live evidence, ie that he had discussed Nazis with ChildA. I appreciate that on both versions he denies calling any German a Nazi. I do not understand why his evidence has changed from a total denial, to an explanation that Ms Y has “got confused”. 112. On balance it is more likely than not that he did refer to a German as a Nazi. However, I do not consider that this is an example of abusive behaviour towards Ms Y or ChildA. If anything, it reflects a view of the World that is today outdated. Allegation 3 b – emotional harm – possession of guns 113. As regards guns, there is no dispute that Mr X did own guns: he accepts that the Police removed them. The bundle contains the Police log, which records a number of firearms being removed from the property, and that they were not in a locked cabinet. 114. Mr X in his response to the schedule of allegations says that this allegation is “completely untrue”. As with some other allegations, he then states that Ms Y was in the wrong herself (“see photo of her posing with gun”). In his written statement he states that she “sold guns in South America” including offering him an AK47 assault rifle. That counter allegation is totally unevidenced. The difficulty with his response is that it is plainly not “totally untrue” because the Police seized weapons from him and record that whilst one of the weapons was a replica and legal to own, 3 apparently unlicenced shotguns were removed. 115. Ms Y does not allege that he threatened her directly with guns, but that she was intimidated when Mr X loaded a gun in front of ChildA. It appears to be well documented that following the parties’ separation ChildA has had an unhealthy interest in guns. She also says that “he has used the knowledge of those guns to intimidate me in the past”. She does not say how, and in the absence of a specific allegation I cannot find that he did so. 116. The allegation that Mr X had unlicensed guns is proven, but of itself it is not an example of abusive behaviour towards Ms Y or ChildA. It probably goes more to a welfare issue, which is the extent to which it was in ChildA’s emotional welfare interests to have gun culture normalised in the house. Allegation 3 c – emotional harm – code words 117. The allegation is that Mr X taught ChildA code words. Mr X accepts that he taught him just one, which was to say that the “generator is working” if ChildA felt at risk. Mr X explained that he was concerned that Ms Y may remove ChildA to South America. Use of a code word is an odd thing to do: it suggests that Mr X so distrusted Ms Y that he had devised a way of ChildA communicating with him unknown to her. The implication is that Mr X would then know to find ChildA and get him back – there is no other adequate explanation. In reality therefore it is a way of his taking matters into his own hands. In a similar vein, so was his attempt secretly to pass his telephone number to ChildA in a bag of toys given to the social worker. 118. The question is whether Mr X also taught ChildA other words. ChildA clearly told the social worker that he had, but that does not make ChildA correct. 119. Again, in his written evidence Mr X seeks to turn the allegation back on Ms Y, suggesting that she had a code with her former husband. 120. Ms Y does not explain why she believes Mr X has taught ChildA other words. She does not suggest that she has been present when he has done so. In the absence of any first hand evidence I cannot find that the allegation is proven. Even if it were, it is not of itself an example of abusive behaviour. It again goes more to a welfare issue, which is the extent to which Mr X might try to undermine Ms Y’s relationship with ChildA. Allegation 4a – physical abuse of ChildA 121. Ms Y states that on one occasion in 2022 she saw Mr X hit ChildA on the head; and that she has see him on numerous occasions poke ChildA very hard on the body. Mr X’s response in his written evidence is simply “untrue”. In his oral evidence he said “I love my son and I would not harm him in any way”. 122. I note that ChildA told the social worker that when Mr X has been drinking he is “bad news” and nasty to Ms Y. However, he did not suggest that Mr X is nasty to him or has harmed him. 123. Doing the best I can, I suspect that Mr X has when drunk been more physically demonstrative towards ChildA than he would otherwise be, and that Ms Y is particularly sensitive towards such behaviour given her own experiences. However, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that he has been abusive towards ChildA. Again, I suspect that it is a parenting issue rather than an issue of abuse and reflective of a parenting style that is no longer current. Summary of findings 124. Having worked through the evidence my findings are as follows: i) Coercion and control Allegation: Mr X was emotionally and psychologically abusive to R and ChildA throughout the marriage, including by: a. Mr X placed her under undue pressure to marry him despite her already being married; and he threatened to report her to the UK authorities for already being married The allegation is proven: Mr X held Ms Y’s marital status over her. He was already dominant in their relationship because he had control of money, he was a UK citizen whereas Ms Y was dependent on him for her immigration status, and by holding her marital status over her Mr X exerted that dominance. b. Mr X forced her and placed her under pressure to move to South America with ChildA in 2017 and to Europe in 2018 and from country to country against her wishes The allegation is proven: Mr X was very much in control of where they went, and Ms Y was expected to do as he wanted. c. Mr X took possession of her passport against her wishes, including locking the passport and her visa in a safe in the family home in Cornwall. He cancelled her visa application on 13 October 2022 against her wishes. The allegation that Mr X locked her passport in a safe is proven. The allegation that he cancelled her visa application is not proven. d. He told her that she must do as he says because she is his wife The allegation is proven. e. In July 2024 he removed the door to her bedroom in the shared accommodation house he owned. He prevented her from using the kitchen and bathroom. The allegation that by July 2024 Ms Y had no door on her bedroom is proven. The issue is the extent to which she was deprived of privacy. The allegation that she was not allowed to use the family bathroom and kitchen is proven. f. He controlled her money and controlled how it was spent The allegation is proven. ii) Verbal abuse Allegation: Mr X was verbally abusive to her and ChildA throughout the marriage including by: a. Calling her names ‘rat, ‘skank’, ‘parasite’, ‘fucking idiot’ and a useless woman” and a “stupid woman from a third world country” often in front of and in earshot of ChildA. The allegation is proven. b. Calling South Americans “natural idiots”, a “waste of time and space” and calling the her home in South America “a shithole” in front of and in earshot of ChildA The allegation is proven iii) Emotional / Psychological Harm Throughout the marriage Mr X was emotionally and psychologically abusive to her and ChildA including by: a. Calling a German family Nazis in front of ChildA in Europe. ChildA started to repeat this The allegation is proven to the extent that Mr X referred to a German as a Nazi, but this is not an example of domestic abuse. b. Owning unlicensed guns, causing control and fear in her The allegation is proven to the extent that Mr X possessed unlicensed guns, but this is not of itself an example of domestic abuse. c. Teaching ChildA code words to identify where he is when not with Mr X, placing ChildA and Ms Y at risk The allegation is proven, but not of itself an example of domestic abuse. iv) Physical Abuse Allegation: Mr X was abusive to her and ChildA throughout the marriage including by: a. Hitting ChildA on the head. He poked ChildA in the body and on the ribs hard on numerous occasions The allegation is not proven to the extent that it is suggested that such behaviour was an example of domestic abuse. b. On 3 March 2023 hit Ms Y’s head in the deck surface of a boat, strangled her and damaged her finger and damaged her breast The allegation is proven c. On 23 June 2024 kicked a door into Ms Y’s face causing damage to her teeth inside her mouth The allegation is proven The bigger picture 125. When I reflect on the proven allegations, what picture emerges? It is (to borrow the phrase used by Ms Y’s counsel) that in the parties’ relationship she was a second class citizen: Mr X was firmly in control, and she must do what she was told. She was controlled physically, emotionally and financially. To some extent Mr X would have been in the dominant partner in any event because English is not her first language and she was reliant on him financially. However, Mr X capitalised on that in order to retain control. 126. Both parties drank to excess. They argued. When drunk Mr X would not be able to restrain his temper. On two occasions he became physically abusive and hurt Ms Y. On others he would be verbally cruel to her. He was (as ChildA said) “bad news” when drunk. 127. Whilst the social worker told me that, so long as ChildA could be protected from being exposed to further incidents, she did not consider that the allegations of domestic abuse would make a significant difference, I respectfully disagree. I was concerned that she was not familiar with Practice Direction 12J. Paragraph 4 of that Practice Direction reminds us that “Children may suffer direct physical, psychological and/or emotional harm from living with and being victims of domestic abuse, and may also suffer harm indirectly where the domestic abuse impairs the parenting capacity of either or both of their parents.”. 128. The definition of controlling behaviour set out in paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 12 J is “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;”. The proven allegations demonstrate a pattern of behaviour by Mr X that is entirely consistent with that definition. 129. With the benefit of hindsight, this case did require a separate fact-finding hearing before preparation of a section 7 report. In effect, both parties treated the hearing as such. 130. I am unable properly to consider the welfare issues for ChildA. I am concerned that the recommendation is effectively that there be no contact (direct or indirect) because it might prejudice ChildA’s accommodation. The section 7 report provides no mechanism for ChildA to have any form of relationship with his father even if no allegations of abuse had been proven. Further, the impact of an order for direct or indirect contact on Ms Y must now be considered in light of the proven allegations before a child arrangements order can safely be made and the risk that Mr X presents must be properly considered as part of those considerations. Further work will be required. I will invite the parties to make representations as to what that might entail. District Judge Stone 5 September 2025