{"id":569884,"date":"2026-04-15T16:39:42","date_gmt":"2026-04-15T14:39:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/x-v-y-2\/"},"modified":"2026-04-15T16:39:42","modified_gmt":"2026-04-15T14:39:42","slug":"x-v-y-2","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/x-v-y-2\/","title":{"rendered":"X v Y"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

1. The Court is concerned with the welfare of two boys, A who is 13 and B who is 7. The hearing before me is a fact-finding hearing in relation to allegations of domestic abuse made by the mother. Both parties are being represented by Counsel. I heard evidence and submissions over the course of 1\u00bd days, and then reserved my judgment, circulating a draft judgement on 20 October 2025. 2. When reserving judgement, I indicated to both parties that I intended to publish this judgment and would consider any submissions when handing down judgment. Having heard submissions, I have considered the necessary balancing exercise, and determined that publication is reasonable and proportionate. I also said that I would refer precisely to the abusive language that was used without asterisks or references to the \u201cC-word\u201d or \u201cF-word\u201d, and neither party objected to this. Background 3. The mother is 31 years old and the father is 36 years old. They were in a relationship from about 2011 and separated in 2019. The mother was 17 and the father was 23 when the relationship started. They lived together in a house owned by the father and his family, and when they separated the father moved out and the mother remained in the home for a period of time while he rented a bedsit. He asked the mother to leave when she had a new partner. Since separation there has been contact between the children and the father, including weekend staying contact, the pattern of which has been inconsistent and which the mother says has caused significant concerns, some of which are referred to in the schedule of allegations. 4. Social Services were first involved in February 2019 after the mother self-referred to adult mental health services. The father contacted Front Door in August 2019, with concerns regarding the children and the mother contacted Front Door in September 2020 to ask for support with A\u2019s behaviour. A referral was made to Early Help. Most recently, there was a referral on 28 September 2023 when the mother reported that on 10 September 2023 A had come home from the father\u2019s house, with bruises on either side of his face. The local authority completed a Children and Family Assessment on 30 November 2023, as a result of which the children were made subject to a Child in Need plan. That plan ended on 30 April 2024 because contact had been stopped and there were private law family proceedings. 5. At the end of January 2024, alternate weekend staying contact (and Sunday on the alternative weekend) started with the assistance of the social worker, after a period of no contact for 8 weeks. Contact had restarted at Christmas on a supervised basis. The mother stopped contact in March 2024 on the basis that on 10 March 2024 the father had been angry and punched the steering wheel of his car in the presence of both children and she felt that the agreed plan had not been followed in relation to the boys spending time with the father\u2019s partner. There has been no direct contact since then. The father has maintained weekly telephone contact with B. A has been able to contact the father by telephone but has not done so. Proceedings 6. On 29 December 2023 the mother applied for a Child Arrangements Order (to decide who the children live with and the time they spend with the other parent) and a Specific Issue Order (in relation to the risk of the father not returning the children to her care). 7. At the FHDRA on 2 May 2024 directions were given for schedules of allegations and supporting statements together with hair strand drug testing of the father, information from the local authority and police disclosure. The application was re-allocated to a District Judge on 8 July 2024, due to the nature of the allegations, and further directions given for disclosure and evidence at hearings on 3 September 2024 (when the Court determined that a fact-finding hearing was required) and 17 February 2025. The progress of these proceedings has been unacceptably slow, explained only to a limited extent by a fact-finding hearing listed in June 2025 being adjourned due to the mother\u2019s pre-booked holiday. 8. I have had the benefit of a bundle of papers prepared for this hearing, which in addition to the proceedings and the statements of the parties and their witnesses, includes disclosure from the local authority and from the police. I have considered that bundle fully and while there may be evidence to which I do not specifically refer, it has been taken into account. I have heard evidence from both parties and from each of their two witnesses. Evidence before the court 9. Before setting out the evidence in relation to the specific allegations, there is broader evidence about the relationship between the parties. 10. The mother describes a relationship in which she was controlled by the father. She worked for about six months in 2013 and later had some work for a cleaning company, but was otherwise at home. The father expected her to clean and cook. She said these were usual chores, but that what the father expected her to do was unreasonable. 11. The mother said that the father\u2019s infidelity came up a lot from 2018 and would come up in arguments. Asked whether this made her angry she said she was not angry, but upset. 12. The father agreed that he had expectations about the mother\u2019s role, and he accepted that if he came home from work and had to do things that the mother had not done, this would cause arguments. He did not accept that his role as breadwinner meant he felt that he was more important, or that he treated the mother poorly or disrespectfully. 13. The father accepted that he had used cocaine and alcohol as an escape during the relationship, but said that he has now been clean for a year. He did not accept that he was aggressive and physically abusive as a result of his drug use, and said that he would take it away from the house. Pressed on this, he accepted that there were occasions when he would take drugs or alcohol at the house and asked whether he drank every day he said not every day, but a lot of the time. 14. The evidence in relation to the specific allegations is as follows. Verbal abuse 15. The father accepted that he called the mother an unfit mother and a nasty piece of work (phrases used in messages that appear in the bundle), and that he called her a nasty cunt and wished she would snuff it (not evidenced in messages that have been produced). He accepts that the children heard this sort of language. 16. The father said that the use of abusive language was mutual and that the mother could \u201cgive as good as she got.\u201d. He accepted that he has not provided any messages to evidence this, but said that messages from his phone are long gone. 17. The mother says that the father was aggressive and the abuse constant. 18. The mother was asked whether she spoke in an unpleasant way to the father. She said that she would shout and swear at him, for example, calling him a fucking liar, and a cunt for what he had done. She did not recall whether she had called him a prick, but said it was more than likely. It was put to her that she called the father names in the same way that the father called her names and she said that there was a difference in degree and that she would retaliate. It was suggested to her that calling him a cunt was abuse and she said that she did not think calling someone a cunt was abusive. 19. The mother\u2019s witnesses (her partner and mother) supported what is said by the mother. Her partner says that he has witnessed verbal abuse towards the mother, but without details of this. The MGM says that the father would speak to the mother in a derogatory manner (for example, calling her a \u201cfat cunt\u201d) and that she witnessed this. She was also present when there was an argument between the parties by phone about the father\u2019s affair and when asked whether the mother was swearing at the father, she answered, probably yes. 20. Recordings of two police interviews of the father were provided. The father says the police refer to messages from the relevant time, which are not included in the messages provided by the mother but, in which she refers to him as a \u201cnasty prick\u201d. The mother does not recall this but says that there was a good chance that this was correct. Physical abuse towards the mother. 21. The mother says that there would be physical abuse, usually when the father was under the influence of drugs and alcohol. 22. She describes a specific incident on 10 December 2018 when she questioned him about seeing another woman and she says that the father started shouting and swearing, called her a \u201cmental freak\u201d and then grabbed her and slammed her into the wall and tried pushing her down the stairs. She says that he then punched her in the eye, and continued to hit her during the course of an incident that lasted maybe 30 minutes and then left. She did not call the police, because the father had often told her that the children would be taken off her, if she called them. 23. Her oral evidence was initially that she only shouted at the father after he had slammed her into the wall, but when pointed to her written statement agreed that she was shouting at him before this. She said that she was upset but not angry. She maintained her account during cross-examination. 24. The next day she sent the father photographs of the black eye and other bruises, which she produces. The messages are incomplete, but the father asks, \u201cwhy have you taken all pictures just to completely fuck my life up?\u201d and also \u201cI feel so bad for doing that to your eye. I really didn\u2019t mean to do that! I\u2019m so sorry\u201d. The mother responds: \u201cAll I want is my mum but I know she\u2019s going to kick off you really hurt me I don\u2019t wanna be here any more\u2026 All I\u2019ve done is try and be there for you and all I\u2019ve wanted is to be loved and wanted by you\u2026. I can\u2019t believe you beat me up yesterday I\u2019m so hurt.\u201d 25. The mother says that a few days later she was with the father and children at a Christmas party when the father became aggressive (after taking speed and drinking) and slammed money into her chest when she wanted to leave. Her best friend then told her that she and the father had been sleeping together for the last week and she was then verbally attacked by about six people who tried to snatch B from her. She called the police who arrested the father. 26. In her oral evidence the mother again said that when she was told by her best friend about sleeping with the father, she was not angry. She denied that she was very drunk and asked to leave, and said that she did not know why the other people and wanted to take B from her, she did not remember what they said. 27. The mother wanted to give the father another chance, and invited him to the home on Christmas Day when he left early and angry, having damaged his clothes on the pram. On 27 December 2018 she says the father was annoyed because she asked him about his relationship with her best friend, he started screaming and shouting in front of the children and then punched her and shoved her into the banister. He left later. The mother did not report this assault to the police, because no action had been taken in relation to the previous incident. The mother was asked where she was punched and replied, \u201cthe chest area I do believe.\u201d 28. The mother agreed that in December 2018 the parties were trying to reconcile, but not that she repeatedly raised with the father his other relationships. She said that this was probably discussed every couple of months between September 2018 and July 2019. It was put to her that she described three significant arguments in 17 days and the mother said that she would not say it was arguing and that she wasn\u2019t angry. 29. It was a feature of the mother\u2019s evidence that she did not describe herself as angry at any point when raising the issue of the father\u2019s infidelity and the arguments that followed. 30. The MGM says that during the relationship she witnessed the father pinch the mother; grab her arm, hands and neck; kick the mother; spit in her face; and push her and throw things at her. She did not witness the father punch the mother. She said that on a couple of occasions she intervened by getting in the middle, and that she wanted to report what was happening but trusted her daughter who did not want incidents reported. She says that she has seen a black eye, bruised legs and back, finger marks on the mother\u2019s neck and arms and a swollen thumb. 31. The father\u2019s written evidence was that on 10 December 2018 he tried to leave the house to end the argument and pushed past the mother when she tried to block him on the stairs, attempting to leave as swiftly as possible. 32. Asked why in the messages he would apologise if he had not assaulted the mother, the father said that there was a struggle as he went to leave the front door and either the door or his watch had caught the mother in the face. The father was asked if he agreed that the texts support the mother\u2019s case and his reply was that he \u201cdidn\u2019t beat her up\u201d. 33. The father said that he was repeatedly asked by the mother about his relationship with someone else, but did not accept that this caused him to fly into a rage. Instead, he said that it made him want to leave, which is what he was trying to do on 10 December 2018. 34. The father accepted that the mother\u2019s account had been consistent, but not that his had been inconsistent: \u2022 In his written statement, he said that the mother banged her head as a consequence of him trying to leave through the front door. \u2022 To the police he initially said that he pulled a door that the mother had been holding and it accidentally hit her in the face. \u2022 In interview, he said that when he opened the front door, he accidentally caught the mother with his watch. 35. The father maintained that he was not sure if it was the door or the watch which had caught the mother and when asked whether he had changed his account, he said that it was a long time ago and that he recalled having to go to the police. 36. At the party a week or so later, the father says that the mother was intoxicated and rowdy, and asked to leave. The mother called the police because he wanted A to stay with him and it was after this that the police were called by the MGM. 37. The father accepted that there was a heated argument on 27 December 2018, but not that he punched and shoved the mother. Again, he says that he took himself away from the situation. 38. The police disclosure records that at approximately 03:43 on 16\/12\/18 there was a report of a domestic incident and that the father was refusing to hand A over to the mother. A further call was made to police reporting that the mother and her family were outside trying to kick their way into the address. The log entries record the mother reporting that \u201che has assaulted her by hitting her four or five times in the past two weeks\u201d. She provided a statement about the incident on 10th December and copies of photos and screenshots of messages. The statement of one of the officers who attended records that he saw a bruise to the mother\u2019s right wrist and two small red marks to her right elbow area. Included within the disclosure are some messages which include what appears to be the father saying \u201cI am really sorry I done that for it\u201d and the mother calling the father a \u201cnasty shit\u201d. 39. In the video that I have seen of the father\u2019s police interview on 16 December 2018 he denied assaulting the mother and said that the mother tried to prevent him leaving, and that his watch caught the mother in the eye. He said he was distraught about this and that it was an accident, which the mother knew, but that she had found out something the previous night that had hurt her. He did not know at the time that he had caught her in the eye. Financial abuse. 40. The mother describes being constantly pressured to give the father money and says that she took out a loan at his request in her name, and gave him various sums during the relationship. The mother also describes as abusive the father taking money from A, which he did not return for 14 months. 41. She produces an exchange of messages where the father borrows money for a \u201cpick me up.\u201d There are also messages in 2022 regarding A\u2019s money. 42. In her oral evidence, the mother accepted that jointly claimed tax credits were paid into her account. However she says the father knew her PIN and she was left with a debt to the Benefits Agency because the amount was overpaid. She says that she was manipulated into taking out a loan, because the father said that she could use it to buy a car for the family, which was the only way of keeping the family together. She said he promised to pay back the loan and didn\u2019t, and this was therefore abusive. She also said that the father asking for money when she only had a small amount left over after paying the bills was abusive. Although she accepted she would sometimes say no, she said that the father would badger her. She also accepted that the messages did not evidence this badgering, but said that this was because she was limited in the number of allegations she could make. 43. The message the father sent when asked to pay some of A\u2019s money back was: \u201cCan you give A some of his money back when you get paid please as he keeps going on at me about it.\u201d \u201cyeah course to be honest I completely forgot about it he hasn\u2019t mentioned it to me at all.\u201d The mother said that she tried to keep the conversation light, that there had been multiple previous promises to repay and that her smiling face emoji did not mean it was not a serious matter. She thought that the previous broken promises affected A. 44. The MGM says that the father refused to provide for the mother\u2019s basic needs and that she would buy essentials for the mother and A. In her statement, she says that the father would not allow the mother \u201cany control of any money in her own right\u201d and that he would use financial control to belittle and demean her. 45. In her oral evidence, the MGM agreed that she did not know the full financial position between the parties, but knew that the mother asked for money and said she would supply essential items. She said that the mother only got Child Benefit and that she said to her to apply for what she\/they were entitled to. When asked why she had corrected herself to refer to \u201cthey\u201d she said because the claim was based on earnings and he was working. She said she did not know who made the claim. She said that she discussed finances with the father on more than one occasion to say that the baby needed nappies or formula and he said that the mother should get a job. 46. The father accepted that he had a cocaine habit. He was asked whether this was at its worst in 2017-2018 and said no, until it was pointed out that this is what he said in his statement, and he then agreed to this. 47. The father does not accept that he pressured the mother to take on a loan, and said that the mother wanted a car so they could do more together as a family. He was asked about the messages in which he wanted a \u201cpick me up\u201d and whether the nose emoji referred to cocaine. His response was \u201cif you say so, maybe, it probably did mean that, yes.\u201d 48. The father accepted that the mother asked for money in respect of a benefit overpayment, but said that he did not know about the claim and that she guessed his salary, which was what caused the overpayment. It was not a joint claim. 49. In relation to A\u2019s money, the father did not think that he was entitled to take the money as the main breadwinner, did not think that A was afraid to ask him about it, and that his immediate response when the mother asked about it was that he would pay it back. Abusive behaviour towards the children. 50. The mother refers to five incidents of abusive behaviour almost all directed towards A causing emotional and psychological (and sometimes physical) harm, some of which are accepted by the father: (a) 30\/12\/21 — on 19\/01\/22 A informed her that the father had pulled his hair and punched him. The mother raised this with the father who admitted smacking A on the back of the leg as proportionate chastisement. (b) 13\/02\/23 — the father referred to A as a cunt, called him a spastic, said he was shit at football and smacked him over the ear. He also smacked B\u2019s leg. (c) 08\/06\/23 — the father sent a message to A saying to him \u201cshut up with your pathetic little moods\u201d and saying he was acting like a selfish cunt. (d) 10\/09\/23 — the father grabbed and shouted at A leaving marks and causing bruising to his upper arm, face and shoulder. (e) 12\/11\/23 — the father referred to A as a selfish boy. 51. In her oral evidence, the mother accepted that she had not witnessed the father punch A or pull his hair, but said that the father was very physical with A and would shout in his face and squeeze his arms. She accepted what A had said to her, and did not think that in saying things he was trying to please her. When A said (in relation to the incident on 10\/09\/23) that he had not been deliberately bruised by his father and \u201cmum made that comment\u201d, she thought this might be because he was scared of the father and had been told that he wouldn\u2019t see the father again if he spoke of any bad things. 52. The mother produced a message that she sent to the father on 13 February 2023 about what A was saying to her about the father\u2019s behaviour towards A. She said there was no response from the father to the message. She was asked why she continued to send A for contact, and said that she felt pressured, being told that it was the right thing to do as a mother. 53. The mother\u2019s partner (C) says that he witnessed verbal abuse directed towards the mother and A, including an incident on 27\/08\/23 when the father threatened to \u201cblacken A\u2019s eye\u201d. 54. The MGM says that in September 2019 she witnessed the father call A \u201can ungrateful little cunt\u201d. 55. The father\u2019s response to the allegations is as follows: (a) He has never pulled A\u2019s hair or punched him, but A went through a spiteful phase towards his brother, as a result of which he would chastise him by smacking his leg. (b) He did not behave in the way suggested, although there was an occasion on which he tapped A to the side of the head to tell him off, and he did make a sarcastic comment to A that \u201cyou\u2019re not shit at football\u201d which may have been misinterpreted. He accepted that he swore a lot, but did not recall saying the words to alleged. He did not know why A would have called his mum and accepted that the detailed message sent at the time by the mother supported what A had said. (c) The father accepts the message sent to A which he now describes as unacceptable and wrong. (d) The father said that he grabbed A, but this was to prevent A hurting himself. He accepted that he swore as this happened. A did not suffer any bruising as a result. The father said that the account in the safeguarding letter (that it was B that was at risk of danger) was incorrect. (e) He did not recall whether he called A selfish on this occasion, but accepted that he had often called him that. He accepted without hesitation that verbal abuse of A was emotionally harmful for him. 56. The allegation of physical abuse on 10\/09\/23 was investigated by Social Services. In the Child and Family Assessment (CFA) dated 30 November 2023, the risk of harm was described as follows: \u201cwe are worried that you have had a number of referrals to the local authority about the care you receive. We are worried that throughout your short lives you have witnessed a significant amount of domestic abuse and this continues to happen. Your dad and your mum are verbally abusive towards each other, and when you spend time with your dad he and his girlfriend have lots of verbal arguments. There have also been concerns that your dad hurts animals when he is annoyed or upset.\u201d 57. The assessment of parenting capacity included the following: \u201cYour mum and dad\u2026 were both raising concerns about the other\u2019s parenting. A, you raised concerns about your dad\u2019s care of you and that he has called you a cunt and often swears and hits you. There are lots of worries that your mum prompts you to say things about your dad, as she is frightened of him and doesn\u2019t want you to have any contact with him.\u201d 58. The letter to the Court from the local authority dated 22 June 2024, says that A said to the social worker that he felt caught in the middle of the situation and that the social worker was the only person he could speak to. 59. The police disclosure records the mother reporting on 28 September 2023 that on 10 September 2023 A had come home from the father\u2019s with bruises on either side of his face, which A said that dad had done when he grabbed him. The mother had not reported this immediately because she said that A had asked her not to, as he was scared of getting the father into trouble. The police carried out a joint visit with the social worker to speak with A on 06\/10\/23. He was described as open, articulate and direct. A said: \u201cHe stated there was an incident on his brother\u2019s birthday. He\u2026 refused to do what his dad was asking him and dad had to grab him to move him out of the cafeteria. He stated dad may have caused a mark on the arm by accident. He stated mum told people that dad cause marks to his cheeks, but he stated he does not remember anything like that being caused from dad. He states mum made that comment and he has never accused his dad of this. He wants to see his dad again and nothing like this has happened again.\u201d 60. The police took no further action in relation to the allegation. 61. There is no evidence provided by the school, but the CFA records that on 22\/09\/23 A arrived in the school office, accompanied by his mother, to share his worries about his dad: \u201cA was very anxious and needed reassurance that he would not be getting his father into trouble with the police by speaking out. A express he wants his dad to have help with his anger. During contact with his father recently, A said his father had slapped him around the head\/ear and told him he was a \u201cC**t Coercive and controlling behaviour. 62. The mother says that all of her allegations of behaviour are forms of coercive and controlling behaviour, and that from when she moved in with the father he was demanding and controlling. This included his expectations regarding cleaning, cooking and caring for his ill father. In particular, she says: (a) The father would threaten to end the relationship when questioned about his infidelity. The mother accepted that she would raise this repeatedly because the father\u2019s infidelity was continuing. (b) The father referred to her as a \u201clazy cunt\u201d when he realised she was out and not home cleaning — the mother produces a series of messages which include the father saying \u201csorry babe crossed wires xxxxxxxx\u201d and the mother replying. \u201cThat\u2019s okay xxxxxxxxxxx\u201d. (c) The father made her feel horrible because she did not make him lunch — the mother produces a series of messages in which the father says that she has really hurt him by not making him lunch which conclude with the father saying \u201cat least A did bless him can\u2019t believe he done that!\u201d and the mother replying with a thumbs up emoji, as a way of ending the conversation. (d) The father referred to her as a cunt for not waking him up — the mother produces a message dated 30\/11\/2018 in which the father said, \u201cwhy u leave me in bed u cunt I\u2019m late for work\u201d. The mother replied \u201cI love you [smiling face emoji] xxxxxxxxxxxx\u201d. The father replies with a middle finger emoji to which the mother replies about going Christmas shopping and some money for this. The mother did not agree that these messages reflected how the parties engaged with each other, and said that she shut the father down, having learnt to cope with the father\u2019s verbal abuse (e) The father isolated her and asked her to cut her mother out of her life before he would return home — the mother produces an undated message in which F says during the course of an argument \u201cYou need to cut your mum out your life for me to come home\u201d. The mother said that she was not allowed a social life, and this was abusive. She agreed that she would see her mum usually a couple of times a week, but said there were times at which she stopped seeing her mother as a result of the father\u2019s pressure. (f) The father caused A to feel scared, bullied and silenced. The mother produces A\u2019s \u201cfeelings book\u201d in which he says, amongst other things \u201csometime scared of Dad\u201d. The mother said she believed this was produced in 2022 and had been shown to Social Services. (g) The father caused A to witness animal cruelty. There are no details in her written evidence, but the mother said that A had told her that the father grabbed and kicked his dog, after it tried to take a sandwich. 63. The father denied that his behaviour was coercive and controlling. In relation to the specific allegations: (a) The father accepts his infidelity and that there were arguments about this, but says that his new relationship reflected the difficulties in his relationship with the mother. (b) The father agrees that he expected the mother to help with the household, but not that this was unreasonable or coercive. He was not monitoring the mother when he sent a message asking why she was at the pub rather than cleaning the house, although he was concerned that she should give proper attention to A\u2019s needs. (c) The father agreed that there were arguments, but not that this was just about making lunch. In fact, he did not recall her ever making him lunch for work or that he would expect her to. (d) The father says that on this occasion he had specifically asked the mother to help him not to miss his alarm as he had an early start. He did not accept that the language used in the message was an attempt to control, or that the mother\u2019s responses were an attempt to defuse the situation. (e) The father agreed that he did not want the MGM round his house, but said that this was because of an incident at an Ann Summers party. He did not frequently say to the mother that she needed to cut her mother out of her life and was aware that the MGM often came to the house when he was at work. (f) The father could not explain the entries in A\u2019s \u201cfeelings book\u201d. He was aware it was said to have been shown to Social Services. He is concerned that A has had \u201chis head filled\u201d and does not think it was A speaking in the note of what was said to the school. (g) The father\u2019s evidence is that when the dog tried to take a sandwich, he grabbed the dog\u2019s collar and put it in the back garden. He subsequently received a phone call from the RSPCA who came round, and did not have any concerns. 64. The MGM says that the father would tell the mother that she could not go out with friends. She said that she is close to her daughter and during the relationship she would see the mother two or three times a week, sometimes more, and sometimes less. She had known the father all his life and that there was a good relationship to start with. She was asked whether her relationship with the father soured, and said that they would sometimes clash, if she witnessed an incident involving her daughter. She was asked whether she had \u201ccome on\u201d to the father at an Ann Summers party, and said the allegation was laughable, and it did not impact her relationship with the father and that she continue to spend significant time with the mother, usually when the father was out. 65. The MGM agreed that finding out about the father\u2019s affair when she was heavily pregnant had a massive impact on the mother. It was suggested that the mother must have been very angry and she said not angry, but upset and hormonal. She was insistent that the mother was not angry. 66. The father\u2019s sister (D) describes the mother as lazy, not taking responsibility for the house and the mess in which it was left, and agreed that this irritated her. D was living at the house at the time. D says that she witnessed rows between the mother and father, but describes them as bickering rather than fights. This included swear words being exchanged. She did not witness any physical altercations between the parents. 67. D was present when the mother says that A reported the father being cruel to his dog. She says that there was no such abuse, that the dog tried to take a sandwich from her daughter and that the father told the dog off and took him outside. He did not kick and punch the dog. 68. The father\u2019s former next door neighbour (E) says that the mother was \u201cindifferent to chores or even basic tidying-up after herself.\u201d She did not witness or hear incidents of violence, but heard raised voices on occasions. She heard the father shouting at A, but thought that this was reasonable in the circumstances. The law 69. I consider the allegations of \u201cdomestic abuse\u201d by reference to the definition in paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 12J of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (PD 12J). 1.- (1) This section defines \u201cdomestic abuse\u201d for the purposes of this Act. (2) Behaviour of a person (\u201cA\u201d) towards another person (\u201cB\u201d) is \u201cdomestic abuse\u201d if\u2014 (a) A and B are each aged 16 or over and are personally connected to each other, and (b) the behaviour is abusive. (3) Behaviour is \u201cabusive\u201d if it consists of any of the following\u2014 (a) physical or sexual abuse; (b) violent or threatening behaviour; (c) controlling or coercive behaviour; (d) economic abuse (see subsection (4)); (e) psychological, emotional or other abuse; and it does not matter whether the behaviour consists of a single incident or a course of conduct. (4) \u201cEconomic abuse\u201d means any behaviour that has a substantial adverse effect on B\u2019s ability to\u2014 (a) acquire, use or maintain money or other property, or (b) obtain goods or services. (5) For the purposes of this Act A\u2019s behaviour may be behaviour \u201ctowards\u201d B despite the fact that it consists of conduct directed at another person (for example, B\u2019s child). \u201ccoercive behaviour\u201d 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; \u201ccontrolling behaviour\u201d 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; 70. I remind myself (Re H-N and Others (children) (domestic abuse: finding of fact hearings) [2021] EWCA Civ 448)that not all directive, assertive, stubborn or selfish behaviour, will be \u2018abuse\u2019 in the context of proceedings concerning the welfare of a child; much will turn on the intention of the perpetrator of the alleged abuse and on the harmful impact of the behaviour. As set out by Peter Jackson LJ in Re L (Relocation: Second Appeal) [2017] EWCA Civ 2121 (paragraph 61): \u201cFew 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 \u2018domestic abuse\u2019, where \u2018coercive behaviour\u2019 is defined as behaviour that is \u2018used to harm, punish, or frighten the victim\u2026\u2019 and \u2018controlling behaviour\u2019 as behaviour \u2018designed to make a person subordinate\u2026\u2019 71. In considering whether facts have been proven I have considered the following: (a) The burden of proof lies on the person making the allegation. (b) In private law cases, the court needs to be vigilant to the possibility that a parent may be seeking to gain an advantage. This does not mean that allegations are false, but it increases the risk of misinterpretation, exaggeration or fabrication. (c) No party is required to prove a negative. (d) The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities, that is, it is more likely than not that the event occurred. This is applied with common sense. It is for the party seeking to prove the allegation to adduce proper evidence of what it seeks to prove. (e) Findings of fact must be based on evidence, including inferences that can properly be drawn from the evidence and not on suspicion or speculation. Evidence means all of the evidence, including the written evidence of the parties and the oral evidence that I have heard. Evidence is considered in the context of all of the available evidence. (f) The evidence of the parents is of the utmost importance and the court must form a clear assessment of their credibility and reliability. If I find that lies have been told, I give myself a Lucas direction and remind myself that people lie for many reasons and that because they have lied on one issue does not mean that they have lied on all others. (g) The issue of vulnerability requires careful consideration, because a vulnerable person may not act in the same way as someone more independent or confident if they are exploited or abused in a relationship. Assessment of witnesses and evidence 72. My assessment of the witnesses and the reliability of their evidence is based only in small part on my impression from observing them giving evidence. It is an assessment made having regard to all of the available evidence. 73. The mother has been consistent in the account that she has given in particular of the incident on 10 December 2018, both in her evidence to the court and in her evidence at the time to the police. 74. In her evidence, the mother was consistent in saying that the relationship was abusive, but was sometimes less persuasive when she was asked for detail. For example, in relation to the incident on 10 December 2018, she was asked whether she was shouting at the father, and replied that she was, but only after the father had slammed her into the wall and tried to push her down the stairs. When she was referred to paragraph 8 of her statement, which referred to her continuing to shout, she said that that was what it said in her statement, and so she now accepted that she was shouting at an earlier stage. In relation to the incident a few days later (which led to the involvement of the police) in which she referred to 6 people verbally attacking her and trying to snatch B, the mother could offer no explanation of why that had happened and that she had no recollection of what was said. The father\u2019s case is that she was drunk and was being asked to leave. In her oral evidence, the mother described the father as physically aggressive on 25 December 2018 (in her written statement she described him as angry), and said she was pushed and \u201coff the top of my head anything else I couldn\u2019t tell you.\u201d The mother\u2019s answer when asked where she was punched on 27 December 2018 (her statement is silent on this) was curious. She replied \u201cin the chest area. I do believe\u201d. On both occasions her evidence was unpersuasive when it did not relate to the core elements on which she has been consistent. 75. There were occasions when she might reasonably have deviated from the written account or acknowledged points made to her, which she was unwilling to do. Her insistent evidence that she was upset by the father\u2019s continuing infidelity, but not angry did not ring true in the context of the arguments that occurred between them. 76. I take into account the period of time that has elapsed since many of the incidents that are being described (7 years in relation to a number of the incidents), and also the mother\u2019s vulnerability in terms of her age, economic dependency, and personal circumstances. The passage of time means that the way in which the mother now presents (and this is also true of the father) may be very different from their presentation at the relevant time. There is a 5\u00bd year age difference between the parties, which would have been of greater significance in the earlier years of the relationship; she was living with the father and his family and for most of the relationship reliant upon the father for financial support; and when a number of the significant events took place, she had almost complete responsibility for the care of a 6\u00bd year old and a three-month-old baby. 77. Considering all of these matters, and all of the mother\u2019s evidence, my overall assessment is that, in particular in relation to the more historical events, I treat the mother\u2019s evidence with some caution. The very difficult circumstances between the parties at the time of separation are now framed in a rigid way as abuse, and coercive and controlling behaviour aimed by the father at the mother that in my judgment does not reflect the context and nature of their relationship at this time. 78. The father was sometimes vaguer in his evidence than the mother, but also more willing to make concessions and to acknowledge behaviour that reflected poorly upon him. He listened carefully to the questions that were asked of him. It was submitted on behalf of the mother that the father\u2019s concessions were made only when there was clear evidence that he could not refute. That was not the case. He acknowledged verbally abusive language both to the mother and A in respect of which there was no specific supporting evidence. 79. Generally in giving his evidence, the father was more reflective and less rigid than the mother and there were moments of candour. For example: (a) In acknowledging his drug and alcohol use (b) In his response when asked whether a \u201cpick me up\u201d referred to cocaine. (c) When answering, without hesitation that the language that he had used towards A was emotionally harmful. 80. I take into account that the father\u2019s presentation now may be more mature than at the time of the incidents, particularly those towards the end of the relationship. There are elements of his evidence that I treat with some caution, in particularly in relation to the way in which he has behaved towards A, where he might find it particularly difficult to acknowledge the way in which he has behaved towards his son. There were elements of inconsistency in his evidence and like the mother there was at least one occasion in his oral evidence when he corrected himself when it referred to what he had said in his written evidence (in relation to the years in which his cocaine use was at its worst). Broadly, however, I accepted the account provided by the father to the Court, which (except in relation to A) was not undermined by the limited inconsistencies to which I have referred. 81. Each of the third-party witnesses was closely aligned with the party for whom they were giving evidence, being respectively the MGM and current partner of the mother, and the sister and a sympathetic neighbour of the father. For that reason I considered their evidence with caution. 82. There were further reasons to be cautious of the evidence of the MGM. Some of her evidence went beyond consistency with the mother\u2019s case and repeated precisely assertions made by the mother in her oral evidence, in particular that a joint claim for benefits was made and that the mother was never angry, but upset. Her evidence was also vague. In her written and oral evidence she spoke of physical abuse that she had witnessed much exceeding that described by the mother, but save for one undated incident (at paragraph 14 of her statement), which was not referred to by the mother, her evidence lacked any detail of the events that she said that she had witnessed. The MGM\u2019s response was evasive when she was asked whether the children love the father. She eventually agreed that she had observed the children having a loving relationship with the father, but was reluctant to say anything about their interactions with him. My assessment was that taking into account the MGM\u2019s obvious hostility to the father and the limitations of her evidence, I could not rely upon her evidence to the Court. 83. The evidence of C (the mother\u2019s partner) was robust and straightforward, and in giving an account of what happened on 29 July 2023 he was consistent, and he provided persuasive detail in relation to what happened on 27 August 2023. He was unable to provide any evidence in relation to the majority of the allegations, and acknowledged this, and what were sometimes the positive aspects of the father\u2019s parenting. I found his evidence clear and consistent. 84. The evidence that D (the father\u2019s sister) gave to the court was straightforward and consistent, but of limited relevance. She readily accepted that her view of the relationship was limited and that she had a close bond with her brother. I accept, but give limited weight to her evidence. 85. Very little of the evidence of E (the former next-door neighbour) was relevant to the allegations being considered. She was obviously partisan, both in her statement (saying twice that she fully supports the father), and in giving her evidence. She was reluctant to accept the limited evidence she could give, critical of the mother (though she did not accept that she had a negative perception of her) and hostile to the questions that she was asked in cross-examination. I give little weight to her evidence. Findings Verbal abuse 86. There is extensive evidence of abusive language being used by both parties. The father accepted his use of abusive language in his response to the mother\u2019s Scott Schedule, including the use of language that was not evidenced in the messages disclosed by the mother. Similarly, the mother accepted the use of language (the likelihood of her calling the father a \u201cnasty prick\u201d), which is not now evidenced. The mother points to the lack of messages produced by the father with evidence of the language that she used. The father\u2019s explanation that these messages have long since been deleted seems to me entirely credible. 87. The question is therefore not whether abusive language was used, but whether it was predominantly used by the father towards the mother and in a way that was coercive or controlling. There were certainly occasions when both parties used abusive language in anger towards the other. There were also occasions when it was used in a context that appears to have caused little or no offence, for example in relation to the messages between the parties (the father calling the mother a cunt for not waking him up and the mother replying that she loves him). The mother\u2019s explanation for this was that she was trying to prevent the risk of greater argument, but this is not consistent with the tone of the messages or, for example, with the mother raising the need for money to go Christmas shopping when she could have just brought the conversation to an end. 88. My finding therefore is that at times both parties were verbally abusive towards the other, and that at others, abusive language was used routinely and without causing offence. I am not satisfied that there is evidence that such language was used in a way that was coercive or controlling in the circumstances. Physical abuse towards the mother. 89. There is clear photographic evidence that the mother suffered an injury to her eye during the incident on 10 December 2018 and evidence of some bruising both in photographs and in the police evidence. 90. The mother says that she has given a consistent and truthful account of being punched by the father which contrasts with the father\u2019s inconsistent account of her being accidentally injured either by the door or his watch. 91. I have considered all of the evidence very carefully, and there are a number of factors which cause me to doubt the mother\u2019s account: (a) The key messages are incomplete — they start \u201cThis is why I have all these bruises from yesterday.\u201d We do not know from the messages why the mother is saying that she has the bruises that she refers to. Similarly, we cannot see what, if any response was sent by the father to the suggestion by the mother that \u201cyou beat me up\u201d although there appears to have been a further message sent by her. (b) Her unwillingness to concede that at any stage she was angry about the father\u2019s infidelity, which I did not find credible. (c) Elements of inconsistency in her account. For example, on 16 December 2018 the mother told the police that the father had assaulted her by hitting her 4 or 5 times in the past two weeks. There was no reference to such assaults immediately before or after the incident on 10 December 2018 in the mother\u2019s written or oral evidence limitations of a Scott schedule. 92. The father\u2019s account of how the mother\u2019s eye was injured has been inconsistent, but having seen both his oral evidence and his evidence in police interview, his evidence is consistent with him having been unaware at the time that an injury had been caused to the mother\u2019s eye, uncertain of to how this had happened, and therefore looking for explanations as to how it could have happened. In his account of trying to leave when the mother brought up his infidelity, the father\u2019s account has been consistent. 93. In the circumstances, I cannot be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the father\u2019s behaviour towards the mother on 10 December 2018 was physically abusive, or that he assaulted her. There was clearly an altercation and physical contact between the parties, and an injury to the mother\u2019s eye and some bruising, but the evidence is not sufficient to establish that this was deliberately (or recklessly) inflicted by the father. 94. In relation to the incident on 27 December 2018 I am again not satisfied that the father assaulted the mother in the way that was alleged. The mother\u2019s evidence in relation to what happened on both 25th and 27th December 2018 is less clear; neither incident was reported to the police and so there is no contemporaneous account of what occurred; and again the mother says that the argument between them arose from her raising the father\u2019s infidelity, about which she was not angry. 95. In coming to these conclusions, I have taken into account the evidence of the MGM, but I am not able to rely on this for the reasons set out above. In particular, the MGM says that she witnessed physically abusive behaviour by the father towards the mother and injuries that were caused, but I note that in the two incidents referred to by the mother she says that she was punched by the father, which is something that was never witnessed by the MGM. Financial abuse 96. The evidence is that there was an imbalance in the parties\u2019 control over financial matters. Throughout the relationship the father was the main breadwinner and he had control of the bulk of the finances. 97. The MGM said that she was asked for financial support by the mother, but even if I was satisfied by the MGM\u2019s evidence, this does not seem to me to evidence controlling behaviour by the father. The MGM specifically says that she encouraged the mother to apply for benefits to which she was entitled and the mother acknowledges that she received Tax Credits paid into her sole account. 98. The mother says that the father abused his financial position in a way that was controlling, but the evidence of this lacked detail and was unpersuasive. 99. Her first example was the loan that she took out. None of the loan documents or details of the amount or date of the loan were available to the Court. It is not in dispute that the mother took on a loan to buy a car, but I am not persuaded that the father saying that the car could be used by all of the family was evidence of the mother being manipulated. 100. Similarly, the evidence that the father asked the mother for money does not seem to me controlling. In fact, it is very clear from the exchange of text messages that the father felt that he had to ask and cajole. The mother described this as constant badgering, but accepted that the messages that she has produced do not evidence this. 101. In relation to the money that the father took from A, the mother characterises this as something that caused A upset. The message that the mother sent on 18 July 2022 records that A \u201ckeeps going on at me about it.\u201d It therefore appears to have been something that A was aware of, and the father\u2019s immediate response was that it would be repaid (which it was). 102. Looking more broadly at the financial position: (a) The mother accepted that she was the sole recipient of Tax Credits, and so the father\u2019s refusal to pay half of an overpayment for what he says was a sole claim by the mother may not have been unreasonable. No details of the Tax Credit claim or the demand for overpayment have been provided. (b) The father\u2019s approach at the end of the relationship was not to manipulate or control. The message that he sent on 18 December 2018 referred to the mother staying in the house that he owned with the children while he sorted himself out a bedsit, and she remained living there for a lengthy period until she started a new relationship. 103. Considering both the broader financial position and the specific allegations made by the mother, I am not satisfied there is evidence of financial abuse of the mother by the father, or of controlling or coercive behaviour based upon this. Abusive behaviour towards the children. 104. The allegations made are as follows: (a) 30\/12\/21 — on 19\/01\/22 A informed her that the father had pulled his hair and punched him. The father admits smacking A on the back of the leg as a proportionate chastisement. (b) 13\/02\/23 — the father referred to A as a cunt, called him a spastic, said he was shit at football and smacked him over the ear. He also smacked B\u2019s leg. (c) 08\/06\/23 — the father sent a message to A saying to him \u201cshut up with your pathetic little moods\u201d and saying he was acting like a selfish cunt. Accepted by the father. (d) 10\/09\/23 — the father grabbed and shouted at A leaving marks and causing bruising to his upper arm, face and shoulder. The father accepts grabbing A, to prevent him hurting himself, but not that bruising was caused. (e) 12\/11\/23 — the father referred to A as a selfish boy. The father does not recall, but accepts the possibility. 105. I find that the father has been verbally abusive towards A. He accepts that this has been the case, both verbally and in messages, and the detailed message that the mother sent on 13 February 2023, referring to what the father had said is consistent with this. Although, again, it is not clear from the message selection what response was received, if any, I am satisfied that the detail in that message is consistent with the father\u2019s admissions. It is also consistent with the evidence of C on which I place some weight. 106. The message that the mother sent on 13 February 2023 also referred to the father smacking A around the ear and the mother says that there was also physical abuse of A on 10 September 2023. She accepts that she has not been the father punch A or pull his hair, but said that she had seen the father be very physical with A. 107. The father denies any behaviour beyond appropriate physical chastisement. In my judgment, the father\u2019s behaviour has exceeded this on occasion, though not to the extent of punching A or pulling his hair. The direct evidence of this is A\u2019s account to the police and Social Services of being grabbed by his dad to move him out of the cafeteria on 10 September 2023, which may have caused a mark on his arm. I am satisfied that I can rely on this account, the professionals assessing that A was open and articulate. There is no medical or photographic evidence of bruising being caused by the father to A but when I survey all of the available evidence I am satisfied that this leads to the conclusion that I have reached the following reasons: (a) The father behaving roughly is consistent with the highly inappropriate and unregulated language that the father has used towards A. (b) Taking into account that all of the messages are not available and that the mother has not witnessed the father\u2019s behaviour towards A, the message that she sent on 13 February 2023 was a contemporaneous record of the father smacking A round the ear and was very clear about the father\u2019s behaviour and the effect on A. In his evidence, the father could offer no explanation as to why A had been telephoning his mother and accepted that this detailed message supported what A had said. (c) It is consistent with the mother\u2019s approach to contact. Although there were times at which contact was stopped, the mother continued to allow A to spend time with the father. She referred to feeling pressured to allow this, but it also seems to me consistent with the father sometimes being inappropriately rough with A, physically as well as verbally, and the mother being concerned about the risk of this. (d) It is also consistent with the mother\u2019s delay in reporting the incident on 10 September 2023. She has provided an explanation, but in my judgement if she thought that the father had assaulted A in the way that she describes, rather than handled him roughly, there would not have been such a delay. (e) The father\u2019s account of what happened on 10 September 2023, has been inconsistent. The father describes an entirely different incident to that described by A, and I give greater weight to A\u2019s account for the reasons noted above. In his written statement, the father describes grabbing A and swearing at him could have meant he hurt himself. In his oral evidence he confirmed that he grabbed A because he almost harmed himself. However, in the Cafcass letter, he said that he grabbed and swore at A because A did something that put B at significant risk of danger. He was asked about this, and said that Cafcass had put things the wrong way round. However, this was not a case of names being reversed, but of a significantly different account (A being at risk of harming himself rather than his brother), and although I accept that the father has not had the opportunity to challenge the author of the Cafcass letter and there is the possibility of a mistake, there is also no evidence that any correction was sought to the letter. (f) A has been sufficiently concerned about his father\u2019s behaviour to raise it with his mother, even though he feels caught between his parents. (g) The weight that I can give to A\u2019s \u201cfeelings book\u201d is limited given that it was apparently written before the incidents in question and there was little evidence about the circumstances in which it was produced. However A does describe himself as sometimes scared of his father. 108. I have considered what A is recorded as having said to the school on 22 September 2023, when accompanied by his mother, which included the father slapping him around the head\/ear. However, I give greater weight to what A said during the joint visit, when his mother was not present. He clearly felt more able to speak on that occasion, to the extent that he said that his mum had made the comment about marks on his cheeks, and was very clear with the social worker that he felt caught between his parents. 109. I therefore find that the father has caused physical and emotional harm to A by inappropriate physical chastisement, and verbal abuse. 110. There is one allegation that the father was abusive towards B by smacking him on the leg. I heard little evidence about this, and it does not feature in the evidence of Social Services or the police. In the message that the mother sent at the time, she said \u201cYou\u2019ve smacked B because he was being an aeroplane near the road\u201d, but in that message she does not suggest that what the father did was excessive or entirely inappropriate. The father denies inappropriate chastisement and I am not satisfied on the evidence that any finding should be made in respect of B. Coercive and controlling behaviour 111. The mother provides specific examples of what she says was a pattern of controlling and coercive behaviour by the father: (a) The father would threaten to end the relationship when questioned about his infidelity. The mother accepted that she would raise this repeatedly because the father\u2019s infidelity was continuing. 112. I am satisfied by the father\u2019s evidence that the possibility of the relationship ending as a result of his infidelity reflected the difficulties in the relationship rather than a threat that he made. This is consistent with the mother\u2019s acknowledgement that she raised this issue repeatedly, the context in which this was happening (their prior separation and then the recent birth of a son to them) and the messages that were sent (for example, those of the mother sent following the incident on 10 December 2018 in which much of her focus was on whether or not the relationship would continue). (b) The father referred to her as a \u201clazy cunt\u201d when he realised she was out and not home cleaning — the mother produces a series of messages which include the father saying \u201csorry babe crossed wires xxxxxxxx\u201d and the mother replying. \u201cThat\u2019s okay xxxxxxxxxxx\u201d. (c) The father made her feel horrible because she did not make him lunch — the mother produces a series of messages in which F says that she has really hurt him by not making him lunch which conclude with the father saying \u201cat least A did bless him can\u2019t believe he done that!\u201d and the mother replying with a thumbs up emoji, as a way of ending the conversation. (d) The father referred to her as a cunt for not waking him up — the mother produces a message dated 30\/11\/2018 in which the father said, \u201cwhy u leave me in bed u cunt I\u2019m late for work\u201d. The mother replied \u201cI love you [smiling face emoji] xxxxxxxxxxxx\u201d. The father replies with a middle finger emoji to which the mother replies about going Christmas shopping and some money for this. 113. I am not satisfied, giving my findings in relation to the language used between the parties, that the language in these messages and the subject of these messages evidenced behaviour by the father that was controlling or coercive. I have considered the mother\u2019s evidence that she would respond as she did to shut the father down as a way of coping with his verbal abuse, but as referred to above this is not consistent with the tone of the messages or her raising subsequent matters, for example, Christmas shopping. (e) The father isolated her and asked her to cut her mother out of her life before he would return home — the mother produces an undated message in which F says during the course of an argument \u201cYou need to cut your mum out your life for me to come home\u201d. 114. It is not in dispute that for most of the relationship the mother would see the MGM at her house (when the father was at work) two or three times a week. This is consistent with the evidence of the MGM. The father acknowledges that there were issues between him and the MGM, but not that he sought to isolate the mother. There is limited evidence in relation to this allegation (for example, no evidence from friends of the mother) and I am not satisfied that there is evidence of the father attempting to control the mother by isolating her. (f) The father caused A to feel scared, bullied and silenced. The mother produces A\u2019s \u201cfeelings book\u201d in which he says, amongst other things \u201csometime scared of Dad\u201d. The mother said she believed this was produced in 2022 and had been shown to Social Services. 115. I have already found that the father was inappropriately rough towards A which would have caused him to feel scared. The father acknowledges the harmful effect of his verbal abuse. I am therefore satisfied that the father caused A to feel scared. I am not satisfied that A felt bullied and silenced, and in fact, when asked by independent third parties about his views, he has been clear about these, including, for example, to the social worker when saying that he felt caught in the middle between his parents and could not speak to either about the other, and that he enjoys spending time with his dad. (g) The father caused A to witness animal cruelty. There are no details in her written evidence, but the mother said that A had told her that the father grabbed and kicked his dog, after it tried to take a sandwich. 116. The mother relies on what was said by A, since she did not witness what happened. The father\u2019s account is supported by his sister, who was present, and I accept their evidence. I note that the RSPCA did not raise any concerns when they attended. 117. I have considered all of the available evidence, not just in relation to these specific examples, when considering whether this is a relationship in which there was behaviour that was controlling or coercive by the father. I am satisfied that there were arguments, unhappiness, and verbal abuse, but not that the father\u2019s behaviour reflected a pattern of controlling and\/or coercive behaviour. Summary and conclusion 118. In summary, my findings are as follows: (a) Verbal abuse towards the mother — there was verbal abuse by each party towards the other. (b) Physical abuse towards the mother — not found. (c) Financial abuse — not found. (d) Abusive behaviour towards the children — inappropriate physical chastisement and verbal abuse by the father to A. (e) Coercive and controlling behaviour — not found. 119. I am concerned that in circumstances where there were real concerns about the father\u2019s time with the children based on his continuing drug and alcohol use and behaviour towards the children (for example, his care of the children on 29 July 2023, in respect of which no finding was sought), so much of the focus of these proceedings and the hearing before me has been on the parties\u2019 behaviour towards each other in the period of their relationship from 2011 to 2019. With all due to respect to my colleagues, and the orders previously made, I find it difficult to see that the extent of those enquiries has been necessary or proportionate to enable the Court to make decisions about the children\u2019s welfare. 120. I will now hear from both parties regarding the directions proposed to enable the Court to determine the time that the father spends with the children in the future.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Sources officielles :<\/strong> consulter la page source<\/a><\/p>\n

Open Justice Licence (The National Archives).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

1. The Court is concerned with the welfare of two boys, A who is 13 and B who is 7. The hearing before me is a fact-finding hearing in relation to allegations of domestic abuse made by the mother. Both parties are being represented by Counsel. I heard evidence and submissions over the course of 1\u00bd days, and then reserved…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[8063],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[8463],"kji_subject":[7638],"kji_keyword":[10649,11051,7622,8048,8047],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-569884","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-family-court-b-district-and-circuit-judges","kji_year-8463","kji_subject-famille","kji_keyword-abuse","kji_keyword-behaviour","kji_keyword-evidence","kji_keyword-father","kji_keyword-mother","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nX v Y - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/x-v-y-2\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"ru_RU\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"X v Y\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"1. The Court is concerned with the welfare of two boys, A who is 13 and B who is 7. The hearing before me is a fact-finding hearing in relation to allegations of domestic abuse made by the mother. Both parties are being represented by Counsel. I heard evidence and submissions over the course of 1\u00bd days, and then reserved...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/x-v-y-2\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u044f \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0447\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"59 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/x-v-y-2\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/x-v-y-2\\\/\",\"name\":\"X v Y - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-15T14:39:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/x-v-y-2\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/x-v-y-2\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/x-v-y-2\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/avocats-en-droit-penal-a-paris-conseil-et-defense-strategique\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"X v Y\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"description\":\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"width\":2114,\"height\":1253,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"X v Y - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/x-v-y-2\/","og_locale":"ru_RU","og_type":"article","og_title":"X v Y","og_description":"1. The Court is concerned with the welfare of two boys, A who is 13 and B who is 7. The hearing before me is a fact-finding hearing in relation to allegations of domestic abuse made by the mother. Both parties are being represented by Counsel. I heard evidence and submissions over the course of 1\u00bd days, and then reserved...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/x-v-y-2\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u044f \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0447\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f":"59 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/x-v-y-2\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/x-v-y-2\/","name":"X v Y - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-15T14:39:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/x-v-y-2\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"ru-RU","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/x-v-y-2\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/x-v-y-2\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/avocats-en-droit-penal-a-paris-conseil-et-defense-strategique\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"X v Y"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/","name":"Kohen Avocats","description":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"ru-RU"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"ru-RU","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","width":2114,"height":1253,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/569884","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=569884"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=569884"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=569884"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=569884"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=569884"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=569884"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=569884"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=569884"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}