AC v JD

Recorder Edwards:

1. This is my judgment following a two-day fact-finding hearing on 6 and 7 August 2025, heard remotely by CVP. I am handing down this judgment on 19 September 2025. THE CHILDREN AND PARTIES

2. I am concerned with two children, J, who is now aged three, and C, who is 15 months old.

3. The children’s father and the applicant in these proceedings is AC, (“the Father”). He is 34, lives in Essex, and works for the council.

4. The children’s mother and the respondent in these proceedings is JD, (“the Mother”). She is 33 works in finance.

5. The parents both have parental responsibility for the children. THE PROCEEDINGS

6. This fact-finding hearing takes place in the context of the parties’ cross-applications for child arrangement orders under the Children Act 1989: the Father’s application dated the 13 January 2025 for a lives with/spends time with order and the Mother’s application dated 4 of March 2025 for a lives with order.

7. These proceedings have been consolidated with earlier Family Law Act proceedings. On 17 October 2024, the Mother applied for a non-molestation order and occupation order. A non-molestation order is currently in place, which expires on 16 October 2025.

8. The first hearing in the Family Law Act proceedings took place on 17 October 2024. The Court made a without-notice non-molestation order against the Father. At the return hearing on 7 January 2025, the Father contested the order and a final hearing was listed with a time estimate of one day. That hearing has not taken place because, as I have said, Children Act applications were made shortly thereafter by both parties and those proceedings have taken precedence.

9. The FHDRA took place at Colchester Magistrates Court on 11 of February 2025. At that hearing, the Court consolidated the two sets of proceedings and made various directions which provided for the parties to file evidence, for Cafcass to provide an updated safeguarding letter, and for police disclosure. At that stage, the Court listed a one-day fact-finding hearing to be heard on the 19th of March 2025. That listing was made on the basis of the clear recommendation in the Cafcass safeguarding letter, which stated that a fact-finding hearing would likely be necessary before a section 7 report could be completed. The hearing date was ultimately moved to the 27th of March 2025. The matter came before the Court on the 12th of March 2025 for a pre-trial review remotely via CVP.

10. The hearing on the 27th of March 2025 then had to be moved on account of a lack of judicial availability. The fact-finding hearing was moved to the 23rd of April 2025 before Deputy District Judge Griffin. At that hearing, the Court agreed that the matter could not be dealt with in a one-day time estimate. A recital to the order made at that hearing says that the Court was unable to proceed with a fact-finding hearing because of the large number of allegations (the Court totalling approximately 29 allegations and sub-headings), the serious nature of the allegations and the time estimate of one-day being insufficient to try the evidence, hear closing submissions, and deliver judgment.

11. The Court relisted the matter for two days and limited the number of allegations which the Mother sort to rely on in proceedings to 12, directed the filing of schedules, and made clear in a recital that, applying the guidance in Re-HN and others (children) (domestic abuse: finding a fact hearings) [2021] EWCA Civ 448, domestic abuse does not happen in a vacuum and that the general pattern of behaviour is likely to be just as important as the individual allegations that a party makes.

12. Thereafter, there was significant delay in obtaining all of the relevant police disclosure. The Father was and remains under investigation by the police for many of the same allegations which are relied on in these proceedings. The delay in obtaining the relevant documents meant that the fact-finding hearing could not go ahead as planned on the 23rd and 24th of June. The hearing was adjourned again by Deputy District Judge Griffin, this time on the papers, and the matter was relisted on the 6th and 7th of August and came before me for a remote hearing.

13. The final point in the procedural chronology was a pre-trial review hearing, which took place on the 2nd of July 2025, again before Deputy District Judge Griffin. The Court made a number of directions, including for special measures, for this hearing to take place remotely, and further police disclosure orders against Essex Police Force.

14. As it turned out, the two-day time estimate was also not sufficient to conclude this matter. I heard evidence from the Mother on the 6th of August and then from the Father on the 7th of August, and then took time to prepare my judgment, which I handed down on the 19th of September 2025.

15. I have been ably assisted at this hearing by Miss Lavelle, counsel on behalf of the Father, and by Miss Long, counsel on behalf of the Mother. I am grateful for the way in which they have dealt with this relatively complex case, involving highly personal evidence. They have set a professional and respectful tone throughout. FACTUAL OVERVIEW

16. I will start by giving a broad factual outline on the basis of the evidence which I have read and heard. I do not propose to deal with every factual matter raised by the parties, only those which I consider most relevant to my decision making. I will then turn to the individual allegations made by the Mother and the findings that I make in respect of each.

17. I have been provided with a bundle which is over 900 pages long, as well as a number of covert recordings made by the Mother of conversations she had with the Father. I also have videos made by the Father which are exhibited to his evidence and three police interviews, one interview of the Mother and two of the Father. I have considered all of this material carefully in reaching my judgment.

18. The parties met in October 2013. On the Mother’s account, she was head over heels in love. The Father could be romantic. He bought her flowers, and as she said in her evidence, this made her very happy. There were evidently good times in the relationship, particularly in the early days. The Mother described this as her first serious relationship and, alongside the good times, she recognises that there were unhealthy aspects of the relationship at an early stage. She felt that anything that was wrong in the relationship was her fault, because the Father made her feel that it was her fault.

19. The Mother alleges that she was raped by the Father during a trip to Paris in 2015. This is not one of the 12 allegations in her schedule and she does not seek a finding in respect of this incident. She was asked questions about it, however. She described the incident as ‘sexual abuse’ rather than rape, on the basis that she was not quite sure, she said, whether what had happened to her amounted to rape or not. What she describes is the Father making a romantic gesture of surprising her with tickets to travel to Paris for a weekend trip in February 2015. The focus of her allegation is that consensual sexual intercourse took place on the bed of the hotel room. This then turned into something which she describes as not being consensual, moving to a chair, and the Father carried on even when he knew that she wanted to stop. Immediately after the incident, the Mother said she went into the bathroom and cried and wanted her mum. She said that the whole weekend was ruined by the experience. She felt there were dark clouds over the whole trip because of what had happened.

20. In 2016, the Mother discovered text messages between the Father and another woman on his telephone. The Mother said that she had been sent a screenshot by the other woman of the text messages. She said that she had trusted him, that this was a breach of trust, and this caused the parties to separate. The Father accepts that he did send the messages. He says that he was young and immature.

21. The parties remained in touch. It appears that there were brief periods of reconciliation, then separation. The Mother describes the relationship as ‘off and on’. She says that the Father threatened to kill himself in 2017 – he climbed on top of her block of flats and threatened to jump off.

22. In 2018, the Mother says that the Father told her that he had changed, was ready to settle down, that he wanted to get married and have children with her. This is exactly what the Mother wanted to hear at that time and the parties did get back together. Seemingly over the course of 2019, they were back together in a relationship. By May 2020, the parties made a commitment to each other by buying a house together in Essex.

23. The Mother says that she remained concerned about the Father’s gambling and drinking. She says that he gambled too much and that he drank nearly every night, drinking spirits, and he would often be out with his friends. She also alleges frequent verbal abuse, as well as sexual abuse, angry outbursts and controlling and coercive behaviour (I will return to these allegations in due course). The Father describes a very different relationship. He denies the allegations and says that he has never been abusive towards the Mother. He accepts that swear words were used, but this was not frequent and these were ‘mutually exchanged’.

24. The parties married in November 2021.

25. J was born on 10 May 2022. The Mother says that problems in the relationship continued, in particular that the Father was neglectful as a parent. The Mother became pregnant soon after J’s birth but sadly had a miscarriage (this relates to one of her allegations, which I will return to). C was born on the 13th of June 2024. The Mother says that the Father continued with his previous lifestyle, meeting friends regularly, going out drinking, working long hours – in short, he did not engage with the children or his parenting responsibilities. The Mother, as a self-employed financial adviser, had taken very brief periods of maternity leave with both of the children, and the Father had taken a longer period of paternity leave. However, the Mother says that she continued to do most of the childcare.

26. The parents did not see eye to eye on a number of things. It is clear to me that there were a number of stressors on this young family. The Mother was trying to run her own business, as well as breastfeed and care for the children. She felt unsupported by the Father. She says that the few chores that the Father did contribute to, such as the weekly shop, seemed in her view to take him away for most of the day, when she really needed him to be at home, helping her out around the house and with childcare.

27. The Father, for his part, felt that the Mother was cutting him and the children off from his family. When his grandfather became unwell, there was a disagreement between the parties about whether or not they could go to visit him and how often. The Father felt that he was restricted in the amount of time he was able to spend with his grandfather.

28. A striking feature of this case is how the parties communicated, or more accurately, failed to communicate about basic aspects of their relationship and family life. There are numerous examples in the bundle of the Mother sending the Father lengthy text messages, stretching over several pages of printouts, in which she directly challenges the Father on behaviour, including saying that she wanted a divorce. The Father, in his oral evidence, said that he simply did not read these messages. He said that he preferred to communicate face-to-face, although there is no real evidence, or even suggestion, that the parties were ever able to discuss their issues face-to-face in an effective way. The Mother identified particular examples of the Father’s abusive behaviour in these text messages. She was doing more than just saying he was not doing his bit – she alleged, a number of times, that the Father was abusive and controlling. The Father did not engage with the Mother’s concerns; he simply did not read her Mother’s messages. So the issues between them were never dealt with or confronted. I have no doubt that the Mother felt isolated and ignored by the Father when she was raising serious issues about his behaviour.

29. In September 2024, the Mother saw a domestic abuse charity called Next Chapter. She had decided by that stage that the relationship was over, although the parties remained living together for another month. She says that she was looking for an exit strategy. She says that she was advised by Next Chapter to start making covert recordings. I do not know whether that advice was actually given, but in any case, the Mother did make a number of covert recordings. They do not record screaming and shouting. However, they do in my judgment provide an insight into an unhealthy dynamic between the parties and underlying hostility and tension, played out in front of the children. I will come back to these issues in relation to my specific findings later in my judgment.

30. On the 12th of October 2024, the Mother made a police report about the Father‘s behaviour. She says that was an online report, followed up by a visit to the police station herself on the 13th of October. There was some confusion about whether she had spoken to the right officer and whether her case had been properly recorded by the domestic abuse team.

31. That police report was followed within days by the Mother’s without notice application for a non-molestation order on 17 October. The Mother says that she considered leaving the family home herself, but given that the boys were settled in the household, and that she ran her business from there, she sought an order which would effectively exclude the Father from the property, which is what in fact happened. The Father left the home in October 2024, and since that time, he has not had any contact with either of the children.

32. The Mother then made a number of further complaints to the police and her GP about the Father. He says that her allegations have changed with every report and that they have got worse, in order to exclude him from the children’s lives. EVIDENCE The Mother’s evidence

33. I have read the Mother’s three witness statements with care.

34. I bear in mind that the Mother is a litigant in person in these proceedings and that she has drafted her witness statements herself, albeit she has been represented by experienced direct access counsel for the majority of these proceedings.

35. It was put to the Mother numerous times that specific detail of her allegations was not provided consistently throughout her three witness statements. It is certainly the case that the allegations have changed and expanded as these proceedings have gone on. I take into account, however, that it is reasonable for a witness statement prepared urgently in order to obtain emergency protection to contain less detail than a full Children Act statement, prepared without the same time pressure.

36. I also had the benefit of hearing oral evidence from the Mother. She is intelligent and has a good memory. She is able to articulate clearly the details of what has happened to her, as well as the emotional impact on her of the events that she describes. In general, I find that I can rely on what she says. She has no obvious basis for lying. It was put to her a number of times that she has sought to exclude the Father from the children’s lives; however, it is clear from the evidence that I have heard and read that she wanted the Father to be more involved in the children’s lives and that she was critical of him for not playing more of a role in the children’s lives. In her view, he was not willing to compromise his lifestyle to play more of an active role in the children’s lives.

37. Overall, I was struck by the Mother’s confidence and resilience in the way that she gave her evidence.

38. I have also had the benefit of watching a video of the Mother’s ABE police interview as well as reading a transcript in which she gives a further account of some of the allegations. It has not been suggested that there are any issues with the way in which the interviews were carried out; I was not addressed on the weight that I should give to the interviews. I have considered them in detail and cross-checked the details the mother has given in these proceedings against those which she gave to the police. The Father’s evidence

39. As with the Mother’s evidence, I have read all of the Father's statements with care. He has filed three in total, responding to the Mother’s allegations. As I have said, his approach to the allegations which have been made against him has been to deny the majority outright.

40. There are a few limited examples of him accepting some of the matters which Mother has alleged, which I will come back to, including punching a door in the family home; however, his admissions overall are limited.

41. This is not a case where the Father has made counter-allegations against the Mother in his own schedule of allegations. The principal counter-allegation is often that the person alleging abuse is doing so because they want to limit or prevent the relationship between the other parent and children. Although the Father has not pleaded that allegation against the Mother formally, he said a number of times in his oral evidence that this is the Mother’s motivation. Certainly by September 2024, his view is that she was ‘setting this up’ or ‘setting this in motion’, by which he means she was putting in place her plan to remove him from the family home and establish herself as the children’s main carer.

42. The Father was emotional at times during his evidence, particularly when the children were mentioned. When it came to the allegations themselves, he either maintained a straightforward denial or provided a limited explanation for the incident which had occurred. His memory of the incidents alleged is, on his own account, very limited. He says there was nothing particularly memorable about many of the incidents which the Mother alleged. THE LAW

43. The law I have to apply is well-established. In respect of domestic abuse generally, I have in mind the important passages set out in Re H-N and Others (Children) (Domestic Abuse; Findings of Fact Hearings) [2021] EWCA Civ 448, in particular at paragraph 26: “PD12J paragraph 3 includes the following definitions each of which it should be noted, refer to a pattern of acts or incidents: “‘domestic abuse’ includes any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive or threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are or have been intimate partners or family members regardless of gender or sexuality. This can encompass, but is not limited to, psychological, physical, sexual, financial, or emotional abuse. Domestic abuse also includes culturally specific forms of abuse including, but not limited to, forced marriage, honour-based violence, dowry-related abuse, and transnational marriage abandonment. ‘Coercive behaviour’ means an act or a pattern of acts of assault, threats, humiliation and intimidation or other abuse that is used to harm, punish, or frighten the victim. ‘Controlling behaviour’ means an act or pattern of acts designed to make a person subordinate and/or dependent by isolating them from sources of support, exploiting their resources and capacities for personal gain, depriving them of the means needed for independence, resistance and escape and regulating their everyday behaviour.”

44. Further at paragraph 32: “It is equally important to be clear that not all directive, assertive, stubborn or selfish behaviour, will be ‘abuse’ 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. We would endorse the approach taken by Peter Jackson LJ in Re L (Relocation: Second Appeal) [2017] EWCA Civ 2121 (paragraph 61): “Few relationships lack instances of bad behaviour on the part of one or both parties at some time and it is a rare family case that does not contain complaints by one party against the other, and often complaints are made by both. Yet not all such behaviour will amount to ‘domestic abuse’, where ‘coercive behaviour’ is defined as behaviour that is ‘used to harm, punish, or frighten the victim…’ and ‘controlling behaviour’ as behaviour ‘designed to make a person subordinate…’ In cases where the alleged behaviour does not have this character it is likely to be unnecessary and disproportionate for detailed findings of fact to be made about the complaints; indeed, in such cases it will not be in the interests of the child or of justice for the court to allow itself to become another battleground for adult conflict.”

45. The principles governing fact finding hearings were distilled by Knowles J in Re G (Inherent Jurisdiction Return: Allegations of Female Genital Mutilation and Domestic Abuse: Fact Finding)[2022] EWHC 1722 (Fam) at paragraphs 39-41: “39. In paragraph 26 of Re B-B (Domestic Abuse: Fact-Finding) [2022] EWHC 108 (Fam), Cobb J admirably distilled the principles governing the court's determination in a fact-finding exercise. I have applied those principles in coming to my decision and set them out as follows: "i) The burden of proof lies, throughout, with the person making the allegation. In this case, both the mother and the father make allegations (in some respects overlapping) against each other on which they seek adjudications; ii) In private law cases, the court needs to be vigilant to the possibility that one or other parent may be seeking to gain an advantage in the battle against the other. This does not mean that allegations are false, but it does increase the risk of misinterpretation, exaggeration, or fabrication; iii) It is not for either parent to prove a negative; there is no 'pseudo-burden' on either to establish the probability of explanations for matters which raise suspicion; iv) The standard of proof is the civil standard – the balance of probabilities. The law operates a binary system, so if a fact is shown to be more likely than not to have happened, then it happened, and if it is shown not to cross that threshold, then it is treated as not having happened; this principle must be applied, it is reasonably said, with 'common sense'; v) Sometimes the burden of proof will come to the judge's rescue: the party with the burden of showing that something took place will not have satisfied him that it did. But, generally speaking, a judge ought to be able to make up his/her mind where the truth lies without needing to rely upon the burden of proof; vi) The court can have regard to the inherent probabilities of events or occurrences; the more serious or improbable the allegation the greater the need for evidential 'cogency'; vii) Findings of fact in these cases must be based on evidence, including inferences that can properly be drawn from the evidence and not on suspicion or speculation; it is for the party seeking to prove the allegation to "adduce proper evidence of what it seeks to prove"; viii) The court must consider and take into account all the evidence available. My role here is to survey the evidence on a wide canvas, considering each piece of evidence in the context of all the other evidence. I must have regard to the relevance of each piece of evidence to other evidence and to exercise an overview of the totality of the evidence in order to come to the conclusion whether the case put forward by the person making the allegation has been made out to the appropriate standard of proof; ix) The evidence of the parties themselves is of the utmost importance. It is essential that the court forms a clear assessment of their credibility and reliability; x) It is, of course, not uncommon for witnesses to tell lies in the course of a fact-finding investigation and a court hearing. The court must be careful to bear in mind that a witness may lie for many reasons, such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear, and distress. I am conscious that the fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything (see R v Lucas [1981] QB 720); I have borne firmly in mind what Lord Lane CJ said in Lucas, namely that: "To be capable of amounting to corroboration the lie told out of court must first of all be deliberate. Secondly it must relate to a material issue. Thirdly the motive for the lie must be a realisation of guilt and a fear of the truth. The jury should in appropriate cases be reminded that people sometimes lie, for example, in an attempt to bolster up a just cause, or out of shame or out of a wish to conceal disgraceful behaviour from their family. Fourthly the statement must be clearly shown to be a lie by evidence other than that of the accomplice who is to be corroborated, that is to say by admission or by evidence from an independent witness." xi) That my function in resolving disputes of fact in the family court is fundamentally different from the role of the judge and jury in the Crown Court. As the Court of Appeal made clear in Re R [2018] EWCA Civ 198: "The primary purpose of the family process is to determine, as best that may be done, what has gone on in the past, so that that knowledge may inform the ultimate welfare evaluation where the court will choose which option is best for a child with the court's eyes open to such risks as the factual determination may have established" ([62] Re R). A point which I myself considered in F v M [2019] EWHC 3177, in a judgment which was referenced with approval in Re H-N (see §69/70). xii) At all times, I must follow the principles and guidance at PD 12J of the Family Procedure Rules 2010."

40. When assessing the allegations of domestic abuse, I have endeavoured not to make stereotypical assumptions about how alleged victims of domestic abuse tell their story and present to others and, indeed, in a courtroom. My focus was on listening very carefully to the contents of the mother's evidence and cross-checking her evidence against that from other sources rather than allowing myself to be influenced by generalised assumptions about her behaviour. That approach is not novel and accords with the Court of Appeal decision in SS (Sri Lanka), R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 1391. In paragraph 41, the Court of Appeal stated as follows: "Rather than attempting to assess whether testimony is truthful from the manner in which it is given, the only objective and reliable approach is to focus on the content of the testimony and to consider whether it is consistent with other evidence (including evidence of what the witness has said on other occasions) and with known or probable facts."

41. I have also reminded myself of the comments of Peter Jackson LJ in paragraph 61 of Re L (Relocation: Second Appeal) [2019] EWCA Civ 2121, cited with approval in Re H-N [2021] EWCA Civ 448, to the general effect that: "… not all directive, assertive, stubborn, or selfish behaviour, will be 'abuse' 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."

46. The Court should be alert and alive to considering the entire narrative of the evidence (the full canvas) rather than focusing on specific allegations. Mr Justice Hayden in F v M [2021] EWFC 4 (cited with approval by the President in Re H-N) said this: “the significance of individual acts may only be understood within the context of wider behaviour”: see para 109 of F v M. THE ALLEGATIONS

47. Miss Lavelle says, and I agree, that the Mother’s allegations broadly fall into three categories: i) Allegations 1-3: sexual abuse, including strangulation during sex, rape and what is described as reproductive coercion. ii) Allegations 4-8: the Father’s anger and the way in which that manifested itself, including punching walls, throwing bottles and locking the Mother and J inside a car. iii) Allegations 9-12: the Father physically hurting the children, particularly J.

48. The Mother also makes an overarching allegation of coercive control, which as I have said is identified in the recital to the order of Deputy District Judge Griffin. CATEGORY 1: SEXUAL ABUSE Allegation 1: strangulation during sex

49. The Mother alleges that the Father performed non-fatal strangulation on her during sexual intercourse, more than once. The Mother particularly relies on two incidents that happened during her pregnancies with each child. The first incident she describes was in either late 2021 or early January 2022, when she says the Father pushed one hand onto her throat. The second incident, which she describes as the final incident and the most serious, was on the 11th of April 2024, when the Father put two hands around her throat during sex. She says that she clearly could not breathe during this incident.

50. I will focus my analysis on the second incident as this was the focus of her evidence and cross-examination.

51. The Mother’s evidence on the second incident is that the Father put both his hands around her neck to strangle her during sex. She says that she could not breathe, and she described this as the worst night of her life.

52. It was put to her that she did not say anything about this incident to anyone until she went to the GP on 29 October 2024, some six months later. She responded that she was too frightened to say anything. She recognises now that she should have said something earlier, but she only felt safe to do so once the non-molestation order was in place. She says that she spoke to the Father the next day about how unwell she was as a result of him strangling her. His response was to say that she should “man up”. When asked why she thought he might have done this, she gave a couple of reasons. First, because she had called-out his behaviour generally the day before, so maybe he was angry and this was the way of taking out his anger on her. Secondly, he had told her that their sex was boring, and this was his way of adding some excitement to their sex life.

53. I was referred to a GP note from the 12th of November 2024, which says the that the Mother was getting flashbacks of trauma, including physical abuse, but also non-fatal strangulation during sexual activity.

54. The Mother also referred to this incident in her police statement dated 1 February 2025, in which she said that the Father: “……used to make comments like you are boring if I didn’t want to have sex or to try or do something sexual that he wanted. [He] used to try and strangle me during sexual activity, even though I expressed that I did not want this, and I did not feel comfortable. On a few occasions, it was too painful, and I felt like I couldn’t breathe, and I had to physically move [his] arms, to which he actually laughed and said, was that too much for you?”

55. She gave further explanation in her ABE interview to the police on the 18th of March 2025, in which she said this: “…….so he started having sex and I was laid down on the bed and he was on top of me and then he put… And this was something he done before, and we…(sighs) I said I didn’t like it. I said I didn’t want to do it. It scared, it scared me. It’s not something that I wanted to do. It was scary, and he, he put both his hands on my throat and, like, compressed, and I couldn’t breathe. I remember struggling to breathe, and I had to, like, take… Well, I had to use my arms too, to sort of like, to get them off me and to break him off me. And there was a bit of a struggle. It wasn’t like… It wasn’t an instant, like it wasn’t an instant as soon as my hands touched him he moved it was a… He continued come out was a bit of a, like, a struggle, and had to use my force too, like, break, to break, like, the lock of him on me. And I remember, like, coughing and feeling, like, really just not well, and they just laughed and just found it all funny.”

56. The Father in his oral evidence denied ever saying to the Mother that they had a boring sex life. He said that he would never do anything sexually with the Mother that she was not comfortable with. He said his sexual pleasure was not “enforcing someone to do something I don’t want to do; it’s the opposite……….otherwise it’s just not nice for anyone.” He did accept in his oral evidence that he had placed his hand on the Mother’s neck; he said, somewhat indirectly, that “people’s hands do move”, but he was clear that he did not pressure the Mother’s neck with his hands, and he certainly did not strangle her or stop her breathing in any way. As I have said, he accepted that he did place his hand on her neck, but he had thought that she enjoyed it. It was not something that they had discussed beforehand, during or after having sex. He did not recall her ever removing his hand from her neck.

57. In respect of the April 2024 incident specifically, the Father said it did not happen as the Mother described. He said that he would never have put her life or their unborn child’s life at risk by strangling her (the Mother was pregnant with C at the time). He also suggested that there might have been markings on her neck if she had been telling the truth, but there were none. He doesn’t remember the Mother being unwell after having sex on this occasion.

58. It was put to him by Miss Long that the neck is a particularly vulnerable part of the human body, so he should have been certain that the Mother was agreeing to this aspect of their sexual activity. The Father did not agree with that suggestion and said that other parts of the bodies could also be vulnerable, for example, arms, if you were to pin them down, and you would not necessarily see the difference between different parts of the body (again, I found his evidence here to be indirect, almost as if he was referring to other people, rather than himself and the Mother).

59. In the Father’s police interview on the 3rd of April 2025, the police put the allegation about the April 2024 incident to the Father in this way: “so she’s saying that while you are having sex you put both your hands around her neck and have put pressure and compress to the point where she can’t breathe?” The Father’s response was initially to say “no”, and then, in brackets, the transcript says: “unclear words”. The police officer then asked if that is something that you would do during sex and the Father replied: “sometimes, obviously depending on the moment, but not” … and then it continues…….. “not in a harsh or hard way to restrict breathing or anything like that”. The Father was asked some further questions and he confirmed that he did not use two hands, just one hand generally as part of touching each other during sex. He then again confirmed he would not put pressure on the Mother’s neck and he would not restrict her breathing.

60. Finding on allegation 1: I find in respect of the April 2024 incident, the Father did place two hands on the Mother’s neck during sex and that he did so for a period of time to restrict her breathing and put pressure on her neck, such that she felt unwell after this incident. I am satisfied that the mother is telling the truth about this incident.

61. I have not heard sufficient evidence to make a finding, one way or the other, on the other alleged incidents of strangulation during sex.

62. Returning to the April 2024 incident, I do not know whether the Mother specifically said to the Father “Do not do this” or words to that effect, or whether she made clear to him otherwise that he should stop. However, that does not matter in my view. It should have been obvious to the Father that he should have had the Mother's clear agreement before putting two hands around her throat during sex. In my judgment, the Father did not have her clear agreement, and as such, this was an abusive act. He went ahead and did it anyway, without confirmation from the Mother that she agreed.

63. I have considered the delay in the Mother reporting this incident to the GP on 29 October 2024. Stepping back, the same could be said for much of the abuse which the Mother says she was suffering during the relationship. She generally did not report the abuse to third parties, apart from on a handful of occasions. As I have said above, the Mother wanted the relationship to work, tried hard to make it work over many years (see her numerous, lengthy text messages to the Father, pleading with him to change his behaviour) and she also wanted the Father to be involved in the children’s lives. This is important, in my view, to explaining why she was hesitant to report abuse. In respect of her visit to the GP on 29 October 2024, I do not place much weight on her failure to report this incident during that visit – I remind myself that the non-molestation order had only been recently made (on 17 October) and the Father had just left the home. She was just emerging from a long-term relationship and marriage. In these circumstances, I do not consider it particularly significant that she failed to report this specific element of the Father’s abusive behaviour. In any case, she did report it to the GP on 12 November 2024.

64. It was also put to the Mother that she did not raise this directly with the Father by text message, which is significant given the level of detail she generally included in her messages. Again, I do not give that factor much weight. The day before the incident in April 2024, she had sent the Father a long text message in which she had, in her words, called-out his behaviour. She said that the Father’s, “actions are causing upset and I’m even more sick of your attitude to me when I’m doing all I can for this family while you sit around on the sofa”, and “you need to start supporting me more. I feel like I have no support from you, especially emotionally; you aren’t there for me at all, you actually talk over me when I’m speaking or just laugh when I cry with a smile on your face. It’s mental abuse.”

65. The Father, in his evidence, said that he would not read messages like this, particularly if he was at work; he said that he did not have the time to read them, and in any case, in his words, it was “negative, not positive”, and he preferred to discuss these kinds of issues in person. He was dismissive of the Mother’s concerns and, in my judgment, remains so. As I’ve said, there is no evidence or suggestion that the parties ever discussed their issues in person. So the Mother's pleas to the Father to change his behaviour went completely unacknowledged. In this context, I am not surprised that she did not feel able to raise the issue of strangulation during sex to the Father directly.

66. I do consider what the Father said to the police to be important. He accepted that he did put his hand on the Mother’s neck during sex. He accepts the act – the issue is one of consent. As I have said, he should have had the Mother’s consent and he did not. In doing so, he was exerting control over the Mother during sex through the use of force which, in my judgment, left the Mother feeling vulnerable, violated and physically unwell. Allegation 2: rape

67. The Mother alleges that on the 5th of May 2019, the Father raped her by pressuring her into sex using restraints to her ankles and wrists and two blindfolds, and then continued after she made clear that he should stop.

68. This is a particularly serious allegation, but I do not approach it any differently from the other allegations for that reason. I have applied the straightforward balance of probability standard to this allegation, like all of the others.

69. The Mother gave a detailed account in her oral evidence of this incident. She had been away with friends in Dublin. When she arrived home the Father held her hand and took her upstairs. When they entered the bedroom, the four restraints were already tied to the corners of the bed, hooked around the mattress. She had never seen them before and assumed that he had purchased them while she was away.

70. The Father said they was a present for her. She had wanted just to sit down and talk about her holiday, perhaps – in her words – to kiss and cuddle, but he wanted to have sex using the restraints. He said to her, “You won’t know if you like it unless you try.”

71. She said that he told her to take her clothes off, which she did. He put the cuffs on her ankles first and then on her wrists. She was becoming increasingly nervous and said that she was not sure if she could continue. Nonetheless, he tightened the restraints “really tight”. She told him that they were too tight, and he replied, “They’re fucking meant to be tight.” She said, “Can we just have sex normally?” He replied, “Don’t be boring”. He was raising his voice at that point. She was naked, and the Father was not. He then put a blindfold on her and kept saying things like “Don’t you trust me?” She wanted him to take the cuffs off, but he did not. He then put a second blindfold on to make sure that she could not see.

72. So, on her account, she was lying on her back on the bed with her ankles and wrists tied by the cuffs to each corner, naked in a star position, and blindfolded.

73. The Mother recalled that the cuffs were leather with a trim. They were stuck together by Velcro, which she was unable to undo because she could not free her other hand to undo them. She says that the Father then started touching her up and down her leg. He said, “Trust me, you’re going to enjoy this.” She did not want to be blindfolded. She said that she already felt vulnerable enough – being tied to the bed, and being blindfolded was too much. She says that she remembers just freezing and lying there, wishing it was over. She thought that if she lay still and stayed quiet, it would be over. The Father made the cuffs tight and made sure that she could not move. He used his tongue to perform oral sex on her, and then they had “normal sex”. She remembers him putting his weight on her. She was praying for it to be over. When it was over, the Mother recalls the Father saying “I’m done with you now”. At some stage he untied her, and she went to the bathroom.

74. The Mother says that she was in shock. She did not know what had happened. She thought she should never go away with friends again. She felt guilty. After she got dressed, she did not want to speak to him. It was just too much, and from then on, it was very weird between them. He would ask what was wrong, but she did not engage. She didn’t want to argue with him.

75. She remembers that that night they went out for an Indian takeaway. She went into the takeaway to pick up the food. She was upset in the restaurant because she said the man was being nice to her. The Father waited outside in the car and was concerned that she had been gone for so long.

76. The Father’s account is very different. He accepts that he did buy the restraints and one blindfold. This was something that he and the Mother had discussed beforehand; he couldn’t recall exactly when, but he thinks that when he bought the restraints and the blindfold from a sex website the Mother was sitting next to him or in any event, she knew what he had bought, and she was excited by it, as was he. He does remember the Mother going to Ireland, but he can’t recall whether or not this incident was immediately after that trip or not. Whenever it occurred, he was able to recall some detail about the incident, but mostly to simply deny the Mother’s account. He could not remember if he had told her to remove her clothes. He did not make her feel guilty or boring. He did not make her feel uncomfortable. He didn’t say the words that were alleged. He did put the restraints on her. He doesn’t think that he put two blindfolds on, but accepts that he did put one on her. She could move a little bit even when restrained, and he stressed that he always checked in with her while they were having sex. If he thought the other person was not having fun, he would “get nothing from it”. She did not freeze on this occasion, and she did not say stop.

77. He was asked why he wanted to use the restraints and blindfold. He said that he felt that this was the way to heighten the sensations. On his account, he touched her body, he moved to different areas. She did not say much, but she was groaning to show that she enjoyed it, and in his view, she did enjoy it. He then untied her. He can’t recall exactly what he said afterwards, but he imagines he would have asked whether she enjoyed it. He does not remember what she said.

78. He said that they used the restraints a couple of times afterwards, but after they moved houses, they went into a box and were never used again. The blindfold was also put away. In his words, their lives were busy.

79. I have read the detailed accounts which each party gave to police in their respective police interviews. I do not propose to set out the detail of what they said in this judgment. In summary, the Mother gave an account which is broadly consistent with that which she has given in these proceedings: that she had returned from a trip to Ireland, he had purchased restraints while she was away, she told him that she was not comfortable with it, he insisted and asked her if she loved him and trusted him; she was tied tightly to the four corners of the bed, in the moment she “just froze”, and afterwards “it was just weird between us”. The Father denied the allegation to the police, although his account is again limited in detail – he could not recall how many times he had spoken to the Mother about the use of restraints, who had first suggested it, the circumstances in which they had been bought or, in fact, very much about the occasion when they were used (he was guarded in most of his responses to the matters put to him by the police saying, for example, “I imagine so”, “I think so”, “I couldn’t say” and words to similar effect, in response to many of the questions).

80. Finding on Allegation 2: I find the Mother’s account proven on the balance of probabilities in relation to this allegation. I am particularly persuaded by the following.

81. First, the Mother’s ability to recall significant detail, not only about what happened, but also how she felt in the aftermath of the incident, adds credibility to her account in my view. She clearly recalls many of the physical elements (the cuffs, the two blindfolds, oral sex, followed by intercourse). She also gave a clear account of the emotional effect on her – how she felt under pressure to have sex almost from the moment she walked through the door, how she wanted to “kiss and cuddle” but the Father insisted on using the restraints, how frightened she felt, how she felt in the aftermath. I remind myself that she could have made up or exaggerated some or all of these elements. I do not think that she has done that. Instead, I find that she has given a coherent account overall, supported by details which increase the credibility of what she has said.

82. Secondly, on any view the Mother was highly vulnerable in the position which I have set out above (tied to the corners of the bed, two blindfolded etc). Was this kind of activity a feature of the parties’ sex life? I have no evidence for that. Neither party suggests that they engaged in this kind of sex regularly or at all. The Mother told the police that the Father would try to push boundaries (“there was things like anal, or like him wanting to like put his hand and finger in my bum”), but she was not comfortable with this kind of behaviour. I find that the use of restraints and blindfolds was new, initiated by the Father, not by the parties jointly. In those circumstances, the Father should have been sure that he had the Mother’s consent before having sex with her in this way. The Father did not give evidence that he was sure that the Mother was consenting. On his own account, he seems to have assumed this, based on the fact that they had ordered the restraints and blindfold together. That was not good enough given the vulnerable position he put the Mother in. I repeat, he should have been sure.

83. Thirdly, the Father provides little or no detail about the context or background to this incident, other than to say that the Mother was present when he bought the restraints and blindfold online and that, overall, she agreed to have sex in this way. The burden of proof is not on the Father and he does not have to prove anything. However, he provided very little detail about such an important incident. For example, I have no detail from him as to the kind of conversations that he and the Mother had about the use of restraints and a blindfold, when this happened, what they agreed, whether they set a date, how this linked to her trip to Ireland. I get no sense from his evidence about these conversations, if they ever occurred, or about how they both felt about using restraints and a blindfold. Nor do I get that from the police interview – he was asked specifically about these conversations with the mother, whether it was a one-off, or more than once, but he was not sure. As I have said, on either party's account the Mother was in a very vulnerable position – why would she agree to that? I get no sense of that at all from the Father’s account, apart from his view (expressed generally rather than in relation to the Mother) that restraining her and blindfolding her would ‘increase the sensations’. That may have been his view, but I have no evidence that the Mother agreed for that reason to have sex in this way.

84. Fourthly, I stand back and ask myself whether there is anything in the Father’s counter-allegation that the Mother has lied to limit his relationship with the children. As I say, this is not a specific allegation on the schedule, but it is plain from the Father’s evidence that that is what he thinks is motivating the Mother. I do not consider that the Mother would go to such lengths as to concoct a specific, detailed, lengthy and serious allegation, carry that through into a police interview which she is bound to know could lead to serious consequences for the Father, and then to continue that lie in the Family Court as a means of limiting the relationship with the children. That, in my judgment, would take a level of malevolence which I do not consider, on the evidence I have read and heard, that the Mother is capable of.

85. I again remind myself that the burden of proof is not on the Father; the burden is on the Mother. Again, stepping back and considering her account as a whole, written and oral, she has in my judgment discharged the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities. I find that I can rely on her account.

86. To summarise: my findings are that the Father instigated and pressured the Mother into having sex using ankle and wrist restraints and two blindfolds, when she returned home from Ireland. The Mother reluctantly went along with it in the beginning; she suggested to the Father that they talk or have sex normally, but the Father was insistent that they use the restraints and blindfolds. She then undressed at the Father’s instigation. The Father did not undress at that stage (he did so later). The Mother made clear to the Father that she was not comfortable continuing. She froze during the act of sex itself, oral and penetrative, and was frightened. She told the Father to stop. I do not know the precise words that she used, but I find on the balance of probabilities that she may clear to the Father that he should stop, but he did not. Allegation 3: reproductive coercion

87. The Mother alleges that the Father subjected her to reproductive coercion by refusing to use a condom during sex following J’s birth.

88. The Mother says that the parties had agreed to use the withdrawal method following J’s birth. However, on the 31st of July 2023 she says that the Father did not withdraw and instead ejaculated inside of her. He then said “I’m done” and then “oops……it’s ok I want another baby”. She alleges that he also said “it’s about the right time a week after your period”. This led the Mother to think that he was tracking her period. The Mother became pregnant and ultimately had a miscarriage.

89. The Mother gave some context to this allegation in oral evidence. She said that she was from a big family and so had always wanted more children. However, she said that she had decided that she did not want more children with the Father as their relationship was not healthy. J was very young and she was struggling to manage her business.

90. The Father denied that the parties ever agreed to use the withdrawal method as a form of contraception. They both wanted more children. The Mother’s sister was getting married the following year and she did not want to be pregnant at her sister’s wedding. So they began trying for a second child straight away after J was born. He relies on a video which I have seen, sent to him via WhatsApp, which shows her asking baby J whether he would like another baby and J appears to say yes. The Mother is seen laughing on the video.

91. Finding on allegation 3: I do not make the finding that the Father ejaculated inside of the Mother against her will in order to have another baby. That does not mean that I think the Mother is lying. The Mother’s allegation relies on there being an agreement, namely to use the withdrawal method, which the Father then breached. I do not find that the parties made such an agreement. As I have said, communication between the parties was generally poor and contraception was in my judgment another matter which they did not properly discuss, let alone agree. The Mother accepts that she did want to have more children, she says because she came from a large family. Further, after having a miscarriage she and the Father did try for a second child and did conceive C. Her assertion now that she did not want to have any further children with the Father as their relationship was unhealthy does not fit with that chronology. I make clear that this is not a criticism of the Mother – it is another example of her wanting to keep the relationship together and build a family with the Father. But it does mean, in my judgment, that I am not able to make the finding the Mother seeks on this allegation. CATEGORY 2: THE FATHER’S ANGER Allegation 4: punching walls and doors

92. This is a general allegation that the Father punching walls and doors. The Mother gives an example that on the 26th of November 2023, when she was pregnant with C and holding J, the Father was verbally abusive to her, rushed towards her and then punched a closed door, resulting in damage to the door. She says that his fist hit the door close to where her head and shoulder were. She has exhibited a photo of what she says is the damage to the door.

93. This is one of the few allegations that the Father partially accepts. He accepts that he did punch the door in the family home leading on to the living room, using his left hand at waist height. However, he did not think that this was abusive. It was, in his view, a thin, hollow door, and he did not punch it hard. He tried not to do it in the moment as he was doing it. His grandad was terminally ill at the time and he was stressed. The Mother and J were not nearby – they were in the kitchen – and he does not think that J would have heard. He may have been shouting but not swearing.

94. Finding on Allegation 4: I make the finding the Mother seeks. In my judgment, the Father punched the door in anger, close to where the Mother was standing. This would have been frightening and intimidating for the Mother, who was holding J at the time.

95. I prefer the Mother’s account. She gave clear evidence of the Father’s actions, how she had almost been hit and that she was frightened. The Father’s account, in contrast, does not make sense. I do not understand how or why he would have punched the door at waist height – that is not a natural reflex and he gives no explanation for why he would throw a punch at waist height. The remainder of his account is, I find, an example of him minimising his behaviour – he accepts punching the door, but does not accept that this could have been abusive. Why not? It was obviously frightening for those who witnessed his outburst, but he is not able to see that. Allegation 5: throwing a metal water bottle at the Mother and J

96. The Mother alleges that on the 1st of July 2022, the Father threw a metal water bottle at her while she was breastfeeding J. The bottle narrowly missed her and J and hit a headboard, making a loud bang.

97. The Mother texted the Father that day as follows: “What you have just done is disgusting throwing that bottle of water could have hurt me and/or J and I will not stand for that.” The Father replied: “Nowhere near you, don’t be dramatic. Don’t piss me off, you was heading upstairs carrying nothing so could have taken J instead of acting all pathetic and wanting me to carry him up and then come back down for your stuff. Ridiculous…….YOU help out a bit more rather than expecting me to do it all whilst you walk upstairs empty handed”. I pause there to note that J was 7 weeks old at the time. The Father accepted in oral evidence that it is not nice to read these messages now, but I didn’t pick up any such regret in his written evidence.

98. The Father denies throwing the bottle in the way alleged (he accepts tossing a water bottle onto their bed, but he says this was not abusive).

99. Finding on Allegation 5: I accept the Mother’s account and make the finding. The text messages I have referred to above are in themselves abusive. They provide an insight into the Father’s treatment of the Mother in the early days following J’s birth. I don’t find any reason for the Mother to have lied or exaggerated when she called-out the Father’s conduct by text – he had been abusive by throwing a bottle at her and then, rather than accepting responsibility, continued that abuse in the text message set out above.

100. I do not know how hard he threw the bottle, but that does not matter very much. J was very young, so throwing a metal water bottle towards him or close to him at any speed was a dangerous thing to do and could have caused harm to J. Allegations 6: trapping the Mother’s arm in their car’s central console, then locking her and J inside the car

101. The Mother says that on the 19th of August 2023, the parties had an argument while driving. The Mother alleges that the Father trapped her arm in the central console more than once. This caused bruising to her arm. She says that he punched the car stereo and smashed his sunglasses, which shattered. He then stopped the car in a dangerous position, got out of the car and intentionally locked the Mother and J inside the car.

102. The Mother texted the Father on 22 August 2023 to say, amongst other things, that her elbow was still hurting from the incident and she had a bruise on her arm. She then went on, again, to raise general issues in their relationship: “We can talk about our marriage like I’ve been trying to do for months but I’m telling you now we ain’t focusing on you.” It is striking that the Father did not respond at all to this message. Further messages followed on 27 August and this time the Father did show some acknowledgment of the impact of his behavior: “Do you not think I am how I am because of all this, I asked to go last week, it was too much, I have asked to go this weekend apparently too much.”

103. In respect of the incident on 19 August, the Father accepts that the parties did have an argument in the car. He says that this was because the Mother would not let him take J to visit his grandad, who was not well. He denies that he behaved abusively in any way. He pulled the care over safely and left for 3-5 minutes and then returned.

104. Findingon Allegation 6: I find this allegation proven. I prefer the Mother’s account. It is supported by contemporary text messages which refer to the Father’s abusive behaviour. This includes reference to a bruise on her arm, which supports the Mother’s account. There is no contemporary evidence which supports the Father’s account. He may well have been upset by the Mother’s attitude to visiting his grandad, but J was still very young (just over 1) and it is understandable that she felt that she needed to prioritise his needs. In any case, that does not excuse the Father having an angry outburst in the car, hurting the Mother’s arm, stopping the car dangerously and getting out and leaving the Mother and J. The only aspect of the Mother’s account I do not find proven is her allegation that the Father actually locked her and J in the car. I accept the Father’s evidence that the locking mechanism for their car would not allow him to lock them in. However, the Mother would have felt trapped by being left on a busy road, in the passenger seat, with a small child in the car on the backseat. Allegation 7: pointing a knife in the Mother’s direction / throwing the knife at a chopping board

105. The Mother alleges that in September 2024, the Father pointed a kitchen knife towards her following an argument and then threw the knife across the worksurface, where it hit a chopping board and came to rest.

106. The Father remembers there being an argument while he was cooking but denies throwing the knife. He said he would not do that.

107. Finding on Allegation 7: I accept the Mother’s account. The Father has shown on numerous occasions that he is unable to control his anger and this, in my judgment, is another example of that. It is important to note that he did not throw the knife at the Mother or the children. It was an angry outburst which should not have happened, but it did not place the Mother or children at risk of harm. Allegation 8: verbal abuse

108. This is a general allegation of verbal abuse. The Mother says that the Father regularly (she says at least weekly) used vulgar and abusive language towards her, including calling her a dick, a cunt, bitch an arsehole and pathetic, often in the presence of the children. The Father accepts calling her pathetic in a text message which is in the bundle, but otherwise he denies verbally abusing the Mother.

109. Finding on Allegation 8: I accept the Mother’s account. There are numerous examples in the bundle of the Mother challenging the Father’s behaviour by text message, including in respect of verbal abuse. As I have said, he generally did not reply. By way of example, on 26 September 2024 she sent him the following text: “You are very angry all the time…..Like one minute being aggressive shouting swearing etc…….I do not want [the children] seeing and acting the way you do and shouting swearing throwing things etc.” The Father did not reply. He says now that this was sent as part of the Mother’s plan to get him out of the house. While it is true that this was sent only about three weeks before she applied for a non-molestation order, it is just one in a long line of similar messages which the Mother had sent to the Father over many years of their relationship, asking him to change his behaviour. CATEGORY 3: PHYSICAL ABUSE OF THE CHILDREN Allegation 9: inappropriately restraining J

110. This is the first of the allegations relating to the children specifically. The Mother alleges that on the 28th of March 2023 she heard J crying loudly while in the Father’s care in the living room. She went into the room and found the Father holding J tightly. Later that night she noticed marks on J’s legs which she thinks were likely caused by the Father.

111. Before dealing with this and the other allegations in this category individually, it is important to set some context.

112. First, I do not doubt that the Father loves both of his children.

113. Secondly, as I said a number of times during the hearing, the Father has gone from being a daily presence in the children’s lives, living in the same household as them up until October 2024, to not being in their lives at all; they have not had any contact since October 2024. The Father simply disappearing from their lives is likely to have been disorientating and distressing for them. I am not sure what explanation has been given to the children.

114. Thirdly, it seems to be common ground that the Mother was the children’s primary carer throughout their lives, and that the Father’s time with the children was more limited. The Mother says that this was because the Father showed a lack of interest and failed to prioritise time with the children. The Father says that the Mother did not allow him to be alone with the children. Whoever is right, and it is not necessary at this stage for me to resolve that issue, the Father was spending limited time alone with the children. This would have had affected his ability to care for them alone.

115. Fourthly, I do not consider that the Father would deliberately cause harm to either of his children, and I do not make that finding (as I set out below in respect of the individual allegations). However, I have made findings that the Father, on a number of occasions, has shown frightening anger in the presence of the children directed at their Mother, which has left her feeling frightened and intimidated. The children have been caught in the middle of that and will no doubt have been affected by being exposed to that kind of environment at such a young age.

116. Returning to Allegation 9, the Mother has exhibited two photographs of what she says are bruises to J’s leg. The photographs show two red marks to a child’s left leg, one around the left side of the knee and the other further down towards the child’s ankle and calf. I am not able to give very much weight to these photographs. Even if I accept that these are J (and I have particular reason to doubt that) I have no evidence on causation of these marks. This is unsurprising in a private law case such as this, but it does affect the weight I can give to this evidence.

117. Finding on Allegation 9: I do not make the finding sought. The Mother entered the room and says that she saw the Father holding J inappropriately. That, in my assessment, would have happened quickly – her evidence was that J was wriggling, so he would not have been in the same place for long. The Father was an inexperienced and may not have been holding J ‘correctly’ or in the way that the Mother would have held him as the more experienced parent. But this was not in my view abusive and I do not find that he caused bruising to J. Allegation 10: zoo incident, throwing J onto the floor

118. The Mother alleges that on the 8th of October 2024, while the parties were at the zoo and in a large family changing area, the Father became frustrated while putting on J’s nappy or attempting to put it on, leading him to throw J onto the floor in frustration. The floor was cold and muddy and J was half-naked.

119. The Father denies the allegation. He has submitted a video of the day in question at the zoo, which shows J laughing and happy in his Father’s care.

120. Finding on Allegation 10: I prefer the Mother’s account; it is, in my judgment, a further example of the Father becoming frustrated quickly and not being in control of his emotions. I find that he did become frustrated while changing J and was too rough with him. J ended up on the floor, half-naked and upset, and had to be calmed down by his Mother. I do not find that the Father threw J to the floor – that would have taken a level of malice towards J which I do not find he has shown towards his children. Allegation 11: holding J’s throat to give him vitamin drops

121. This is an allegation that the Father became aggressive when trying to administer vitamin drops to J on the 11th of October 2024. J was crying and upset and did not want to take the medication. The Mother says that the Father put his hand around J’s throat and forced his mouth open, and then pushed the syringe into J’s mouth so that he would take the vitamin drops. She also says that the Father verbally abused her when she tried to intervene.

122. The Father denies this outright. He says it never happened. He says that he would give J his vitamin drops 90 percent of the time, and there were occasions when he did not want to take them. However, he says that he would talk to J, rather than forcing him or restraining him.

123. Finding on Allegation 11: I do not find this allegation proven. It is agreed that the Father would give J the drops in the evening. Both parents agree that it is not an easy thing to do, particularly for an inexperienced parent. I am persuaded that this would have been challenging for the Father. I find that he did restrain J, but this was to ensure that he took the drops. It was not an abusive act and he did not intend to cause harm to J. Allegation 12: holding J up by his arms and squeezing his arms tightly

124. The Mother says that on the 17th of September 2024, the Father held J up by the top of his arms, squeezing his arms tightly and restraining him. The Mother in fact says that this was one of two incidents that day – the other was in the hallway as the Father was taking J to football training, the Mother says that his boot hit J’s head. Only the first incident has been pleaded in the Schedule of Allegations and, in fairness to the Father, that is the only one I deal with in this judgment. The Mother has provided text messages which she sent to her friend Jenny that day in which she says, amongst other things: “I HATE HIM BEING HOME”. She refers to him shouting at her in front of J and says this: ‘He wasn’t even in the room but comes in just to have a go at J as he heard me tell J not to do X Y and S”.

125. The Father denies the allegation that he held up J by his arms. He did not offer an alternative account in his oral evidence, but said that he was happy with the way he treats his children.

126. Finding on allegation 12: I find that the Father shouted and swore in front of the children and that this would have been frightening, to J in particular. I do not find that he held J and squeezed his arms tightly, as the Mother alleges. I have read the text messages referred to above carefully. They were sent that day and are the best contemporary evidence about this incident. The Mother does not hold back in telling her friend what the Father has done – it is a lengthy exchange and the Mother provides detail about the Father’s actions. But she does not mention the Father holding J’s arms and restraining him. She could have mentioned this, along with all of the other things she said about the Father. For that reason, I am not able to find that this happened on the balance of probabilities. CATEGORY 4: COERCIVE CONTROL

127. The Mother also makes a general allegation that the Father subjected her to coercive control. The Father denies this.

128. Finding on coercive control: I find the allegation proven. Given the wide-ranging nature of the Schedule in this case, the findings I have made in themselves point towards a pattern of coercive control. However, I find that this went beyond the findings I have made on the individual incidents. The Mother’s lengthy text messages to the Father – which I have referred to a number of times in this judgment – provide the clearest evidence in my view of the coercive control in that she was subject to. She pleads with the Father over many years to change his behaviour, to stop abusing her, physically, verbally and emotionally. The Father barely responds. His silence would, I find, have compounded the Mother’s feelings of isolation and helplessness. As I have said, there were undoubtedly good times in the relationship and the Mother wanted it to work and to build a family. However, I find that the Father controlled the Mother with acts of abuse (those that I have found and others) and through his refusal to engage with any attempts whatsoever to change his behaviour. CONCLUSION

129. I have made a number of serious findings against the Father. In my judgment he has subjected the Mother to various forms of abuse, over many years. The Mother presents as resilient, but this was a long relationship and she has a lot to come to terms with. She is at an early stage. Although I have not found all of her allegations proven, I find overall and on the balance of probabilities that she has told the truth about the nature of her relationship with the Father.

130. Where does this leave the Father? He has not shown any insight so far into the consequences of his behaviour on the Mother or the children. He will need to do that urgently and to reflect on how he can change in the future. His interests are not my primary concern. I am focused on the children. As I have said, I have no doubt that he loves them. I am also clear that the children will benefit from having the Father in their lives in some way, provided that he is able to understand the impact of his behaviour and to make significant changes. Whether he does so is up to him.

131. That is my judgment.