C (Born August 2022), Re

Preliminary/Background

This is a judgment following a two day ‘Fact Find Hearing’ (‘FFH’) on 30 and 31 March 2026 at Bromley. The parties met in July 2021 and began a relationship. Their child (‘C’) was born in August 2022 and is now three years old. The relationship broke down and the parties split up in March 2024, after the applicant father (‘F’) was arrested for alleged domestic violence against the respondent mother (‘M’) on 1 March 2024. F made an application for a Child Arrangements Order on 25 February 2025. The proceedings have therefore been running for 57 weeks. This is invidious in the context of the child’s short life.

As a result of the allegation arising on 1 March 2024, the police interviewed F. F was placed on police bail. The police investigated a further alleged assault, dating to September 2023, which is also the subject of this FFH. In turn the CPS authorised charges in January 2025, and proceedings started in the criminal courts. F was charged with two offences of Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm, (‘ABH’) contrary to section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

Those are offences which are known as ‘triable either way’ which means that they can stay in the Magistrates Court or be sent for trial if the court thinks that they are serious enough (or on election by the defendant) to the Crown Court to be tried before a jury.

I take judicial note of the nature of the allegations and the context, and in my experience

F elected a Crown Court trial. It is axiomatic that -notwithstanding a rather shocking backlog of circa 380,000 cases in the Magistrates Court, and circa 80,000 before the Crown Court

The part of the case before me today dealing with allegations, which include those before the criminal court, and it is self-evident that the parallel nature of the two processes is rather confusing for parties. Sadly, that is a function of the differences between the Family and Criminal courts.

Put simply, I have been tasked to decide whether the allegations are true or not, so that CAFCASS and the parents have clarity to move forward and can offer opinions and plans on how they can eventually safely co-parent C. I always try to remind the parents, and myself, that these are the child’s proceedings, not theirs, but at this stage of the case we are dealing with the behaviour of parents. M is parent to a non-subject child, who is the older step-sibling of C and is ten years old. It is said that the other child has witnessed or been present during poor behaviour, and I may reference this later.

Proceedings

At a previous hearing this case was set down by Her Honour Judge Prevatt, (who was at that time a District Judge). The learned judge directed, broadly, that the purpose of the FFH would be to ascertain if domestic abuse had occurred during the relationship. This will inform decisions to be taken later in the process. I have advised the parents about this process and the need to be forward thinking after this stage. As is the usual custom I may refer to the applicant/father as F and respondent/mother as M, and of course no disrespect is intended by so doing.

This judgment relates to allegations advanced by M against F only. There were thirteen discrete allegations within a ‘Scott Schedule’

The allegations which remained, broadly, can be categorised as follows, into areas of domestic abuse of the type known as “coercive or controlling behaviour” and of four specific allegations of domestic violence:

F’s position, broadly, appears to be that 1) he does not have a drinking problem and will not seek help because of that 2) that he did not assault M on any of the occasions alleged, but that he accepts “nudging” her in Portugal, and accepts that she injured her arm in September 2023 (the door incident) but that this was accidental. F also accepts breaking M’s phone

At the FFH, F was a litigant in person, assisted by a Qualified Legal Representative (‘QLR’) Mr Haruna, and M by Mr Ogunbusola. I commend both advocates for their erudite and balanced approach in adducing the evidence and for their assistance.

I am mindful of the guidance outlined in the case of Re B (A child) (Adequacy of Reasons) [2022] EWCA Civ 407, where a helpful summary of the ingredients which might be present in a “good judgment” were outlined, including the reminder that “a judgement is not a summing up in which every possible relevant piece of evidence must be mentioned” [para 59].

Accordingly, I have attempted to adhere to a structure such that this judgment will first outline the background and allegations (above); then discuss the law; then assess the evidence against that framework; then conclude as to facts found or not found and the next steps.

The Law

The law has been set out in several cases and most helpfully in the case of Re B-B [2022] EWHC 108, a case where Cobb J heard a fact find on a cross-allegation basis in one of the cases remitted back for rehearing following the leading case of Re H-N [2021] EWCA Civ 448. B-B in short draws together the important principles enshrined in H-N specifically and from the guidance provided within Practice Direction 12J.

The most important principles therefore in such a case are as follows:

In assessing the evidence of the witnesses, I note the following points in particular:

The court must consider that each of the parents have their own agenda. I remind myself of the caution advised by Baroness Hale in the case of Re B (Children) [2008] UKHL 35. –

I also remind myself that in Re K and K [2022] EWCA Civ 468 it was stated that:

Where I do not mention it specifically, I have actively and throughout hearing the evidence and considering this decision, considered both the ‘Welfare Checklist’ within s1(3) of the Children Act 1989 apropos of C’s needs and welfare, and PD12J when considering the allegations and their definitions.

On the latter, PD12J borrows from the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, itself a piece of law codifying and consolidating the myriad of types of domestic abuse which have become commonplace throughout family (and concurrently criminal) law.

At paragraph 3 of the Practice Direction, it helpfully reiterates the definition of different types of ‘abuse’ as outlined in the Act, for instance:

At para 2A of PD12J it outlines specific definitions for domestic abuse, namely:

Behaviour of a person (“A”) towards another person (“B”) is “domestic abuse” if—

For the purposes of this Act A’s behaviour may be behaviour “towards” B despite the fact that it consists of conduct directed at another person (for example, B’s child).

I am conscious also that the Practice Direction states that: the court must [para 5]

Finally, but by no means the least important legal authority to consider in this case, the ‘Welfare Checklist’ at s1(3) of the Children Act 1989 is operative. S.1 of the Act explains that the welfare of the child is the “paramount consideration” when the Court determines any “question with respect to [..] the upbringing of the child”.

The Checklist itself (s1(3)) contains a list of considerations to which the court must have particular regard i.e.:

the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned (considered in the light of his age and understanding);

his physical, emotional and educational needs;

the likely effect on him of any change in his circumstances;

his age, sex, background and any characteristics of his which the court considers relevant;

any harm which he has suffered or is at risk of suffering;

how capable each of his parents, and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting his needs;

the range of powers available to the court under this Act in the proceedings in question.

There is a bearing on C’s welfare flowing from the allegations if proven, and throughout my assessment of the evidence and consideration of this decision, I have had C’s welfare at the forefront of my mind in respect of the above factors.

I take into account that C is prima facie vulnerable due to their age, and is reliant on the adults for comfort, food, warmth, shelter and emotional nourishment. C does not have any specific background characteristics which were brought to my attention other than the vulnerability by reason of age. In this case it is self-evident that the capability of each parent to care for C per s1(3) f) is inexorably linked to the hurt that each parent feels toward the other.

It is quite clear that the relationship devolved into what both parents accepted was toxicity which may have a deleterious impact on C’s welfare, and I was mindful throughout that my findings today would in turn necessitate a consideration of C in terms of the next and future steps and powers of the court.

Impression of the witnesses

I have already set out the law which I apply. I considered all those matters when assessing the evidence of the parents. I remind myself of the length of time that has expired since the alleged incidents occurred.

In respect of each parent, they clearly hold strong feelings about the other, and these have been intensified by these proceedings. Whilst it is obvious that this part of the litigation is going to increase that animosity, it is imperative that both parties remember that this is C’s case, not theirs. They will need to move forward from this matter no matter what my findings are, and seek to find compromise and solutions with the assistance of CAFCASS to effectively co-parent.

M’s views are so strong that she is determined that there should be no contact between C and F. That may affect how she views the incidents. I found her evidence overall to be cogent and coherent, if at times very emotional and upset, which is natural if her account is to be believed. She was at times reflective and concessionary when called for. Despite lengthy cross examination, she stayed steadfast as to the key issues in dispute. She appeared to me to be largely frank and attempted to be helpful. She made concessions when she could not remember specifics, but overall, her evidence came across as open and detailed. In cross examination when she was pushed on the core elements of the key allegations, she maintained a coherent account. On occasion, her oral evidence was at variance to the written account or the account she had given to third parties. On many occasions, when pushed on this point, (i.e. what she had or had not told the police) M was keen to point out the fear and reluctance she had in going to the police, and it is noted that in the two incidents where the police were called, it was a neighbour, not M, who involved them.

Overall, my impression of the evidence from F was that he came across as largely open when it suited him, and closed when it did not. For instance, he found it hard to agree that there is any share of blame on his own part, or to be truly reflective. He appeared to be uncomfortable or even dismissive when questioned about his alcohol and drugs misuse, and appeared to place most if not all the blame for the harm in the relationship at the feet of M, who he characterised as nagging, belittling and someone who would push him to poor behaviour. However, whilst he was at times frank, he also failed to realise the impact of that behaviour or realise that the reaction was not justified.

I bear in mind that M has the burden of proof in regards all the allegations she raises.

M’s evidence in the hearing

M said that when they met she was a nanny, prior to having C. M had some maternity pay until around May 2023. F created a job in his company and was paying her £1050 per month until her maternity pay ended, and then a further additional £600 per month until the relationship ended in March 2024.

M accepted this covered her bills, she said that F was paying the rent but not the household bills. F told M she did not need to go back to work, he would pay her. M wanted to go back to work for financial independence and agency, she asked F to set up a joint account and he refused. M highlighted an example of one Christmas where F gave the £600 ‘stipend’ to a friend instead of to her, and then later refunded her. She accepted this was one example.

M maintained that she asked F for her ‘P45’ many times and he refused, and that she did not feel confident to attend job interviews because F was telling her she didn’t need to work and would not make enough money. M said that the lack of a P45 made her feel that she was unable to move forward and have her own money and that, in her view, this made her unable to attend interviews. In cross examination, Mr Haruna asked more on this, and suggested to M that M was applying for jobs, but her lack of confidence in going to interviews was nothing to do with the lack of a P45 and not the fault of F. I accept that this seemed an illogical position for M to hold.

M accepted that F did not prevent her from applying for jobs, or from going to interviews, if she had wanted. M maintained that a job became available in March or April 2024, and she asked for her P45 from F’s accountant, and was given it. M accepted that F would sometimes give her extra money on top of the £1650 that he was giving her after May 2023. M maintained that F told her he had take home pay of around £8,000 per month, and that her lifestyle was not comfortable.

It was put to M, via reference to statements she had given to the police in the March 2024 allegation, that she had told police that F did not control her finances, i.e. “he doesn’t deny me money…” and that this contradicted her account now. M was very tearful on this part of her evidence, and explained that she did not feel safe until this point to tell the full truth to the police about this part of her perceived abuse. It was accepted by M that she must have lied to the police about this, or be lying to the court now. This was undermining of M’s account.

It was put to M that, contrary to her written evidence, F had never asked her to take his “speeding points” and she refuted this. She maintained that F had tried to coerce her. F said that M told her “I have too many points on my license already, come on, if you loved me you would do this”. It was put to M that she was embellishing the truth and that F had merely been talking about the speeding ticket, with no pressure to do something

M maintained that F would make her stay up with her to the small hours of the morning whilst he would sit drinking otherwise on his own. She maintained that F’s behaviour was aggressive, rude and uncouth when he was drinking, including lewd comments to her, and that he also became overly profound and philosophical and would talk at length about his problems and concerns. She felt unable to go to bed and that if she did then she was not being supportive. She became emotional during evidence when recounting that she felt that this was F’s way of manipulating her into feeling unsupportive whilst also increasing a drinking habit she had previously been unaware of.

M was so concerned that she reached out to Alcoholics Anonymous about F but they were unable to assist as F did not accept he needed help. M maintained that F would drink between four and 16 cans of beer during one of his evening sessions. M maintained that F drank a lot faster than her and also than her male peer group, including often going to buy himself another pint in the pub whilst others were drinking much slower. M maintained that she believes F has a drinking problem, F would drink every night of the week.

In regards an allegation that F took control of M’s emails, she maintained that F said if she could not even keep on top of her emails she would not be very good at work. M said this was an example of F belittling her, he took control of her phone and logged into her emails on his computer and had access to them via this. M said she was concerned about F having control of her communications in this way. M denied that she invited F to “sort out” her emails, notwithstanding that the police disclosure included the line that “M admitted that she was going through F’s phone… and whilst she is aware that he has been sorting her emails…” she denied that this implied she had invited F to do this or consented to this. Elsewhere within the police disclosure, M told the police that F “deletes my emails” but the point was taken that M had not, herself, described this to the police at that point as coercive or controlling behaviour.

M gave evidence on an allegation by M that F would often leave the house during disputes, and would sometimes disappear for the whole weekend, and she would not know if he would come back. She said she felt controlled by this. She accepted that it was perfectly reasonable that F would want time to cool off after arguments. She did not think it was kind that F would leave for days on end.

M maintained that on holiday, she was assaulted by F whilst he was in drink. Her allegation is that F first shouted at her during a dispute about marriage and money, and then quickly shot off the chair, rushed to her, grabbed M by the shoulders, threw her on the sofa, pinned her down for a few seconds, then let go. He then left the apartment and did not come back for the rest of the night and said to M that she would have to stay with the kids for the rest of the holiday and he was going to get a flight home. She was confused and upset by this, and felt that she was being made out to be the aggressor by F. F denied that the argument was physical, albeit he accepted “nudging” M to the sofa in his witness statement, this was put to M and she refuted his account.

M accepted she did not report the incident to the Portuguese police. She said she did not know how to deal with it and was scared. The next day F told M he wanted to get on with a nice holiday.

M maintained that during a dispute, she followed F through the home, and through a bedroom door. She said that F “rammed” the door into her arm, pinning her forearm at the elbow between the door frame and the door. She screamed in pain and asked him to let her out several times. She said it felt like a long time that her arm was trapped in the door, but it might have been up to a minute. She was eventually released, her elbow was swollen and the skin was damaged and she was in intense pain. M’s (non-subject) child then came and asked her if she was ok, she lied and said she had had an accident.

It was put to M that she did not need to follow F, and that he was walking away from her to diffuse the dispute, into the bedroom. She maintained that it was their shared bedroom, and that she had every right to enter the bedroom. M said she did not know whether F was aware of her following, but that when he closed the door on her, it did not explain why he then continued to press the door against her arm, and he chose not to let go of the door, which left her injured.

A text message from F to M was put to her, in which he said to her after the incident, “sorry you hurt your arm, it was not intentional…” M said that she felt she had to back down. M accepted that she did not challenge F on this, and that she felt too scared to say anything to F. It was put to M that it was unusual that she had produced this text message to the court, but not anything she may have said in response. Mr Haruna took M to F’s own documentary evidence, in which he had produced those text messages, and put to M that she had not said in response that it was intentional. She accepted this. M said that her “brain was all over the place”. She accepted that F has said he hoped her arm felt better and then they went on to discuss innocuous subjects in turn. It was put to M that she knew the incident was unintentional, and she denied this. M said that F was manipulating her and she was unable to confront him, and he was trying to turn the incident back on her.

M gave detailed evidence about an incident on an evening in December 2023. She said that F had been drinking. She said that he was cooking and that they had an argument, resulting in F throwing a pan of food against the wall. M said that F then told her that he had seen her parents in the pub that say and that they had told him that she was “crazy” and “needed to be in a mental hospital” or words to that effect. She was upset by this. M said that she went outside to speak to her sister on the phone about this, and that F then came out, snatched the phone from her after demanding to know who she was talking to on the phone. M said that F grabbed the phone from her roughly, then threw the phone on the floor, smashing it. She said that shards from the screen of the phone broke and cut her face. It was put to M that this did not happen, and M refuted this.

M maintained that at a hotel over New Years Eve, the family were at the wedding of F’s friend and F had been drinking all day. M said that F was really intoxicated, and that they were in a taxi back to the hotel, and she was upset with him for “stealing” someone else’s cab, causing an argument. M said that back in the hotel, F shouted at her that “no one likes you” and was shouting at her in the presence of the kids, and she was very upset by this. M said that F said “oh well I will just run and jump off a cliff then” and she did not take this as hyperbole or in jest. M maintained that the non-subject older child heard this and she ended up sharing a bed with the child to comfort them. M said she was frightened by this.

This allegation relates to an alleged assault by F upon M, in which M said that F had been drinking heavily, and then lay down on their bed. M said she was not sure if he was asleep or not. M believed that F was lying to her about a dispute over a friends sisters’ funeral – the background was that M believed F had not been invited and that he was lying about this. She picked up his phone and saw that F had sent a voice recording of her to his dad. M started tapping F on the arm, intending to wake him to then question him about this.

M said that F then leaped up from bed, grabbed her, threw her onto the bed, put his hands around her shoulders, yanked her around, and shouted at her “you deserved to get sexually assaulted”. M said this was a reference to a disclosure she had made in couples therapy in January 2024, in which she disclosed to F and the therapist that she had been sexually assaulted by a prior partner at the age of 20. M was shocked by this. She said that F then shouted at her that she should “be turned over and fucked up the arse”. She said that F had his hands around her throat for a few moments before stopping and leaving her there. She then said a few moments later, that F returned that F threw her down on the bed a second time. She was shocked and distressed but did not notice any physical injuries at the time and did not consider that having F’s hands around her throat amounted to “strangulation”

M accepted in questioning that the two threads running through all her allegations are broadly that: a) F drinks too much and behaves badly whilst in drink; and b) that F is unable to control his temper and reacts badly in an argument. She accepted in hindsight that waking F up and challenging him about his phone whilst he was resting and had been drinking was a bad idea. M said that when she researched about alcohol abuse, one of the features is that alcoholics hide their behaviour, causing suspicion and mistrust in relationships, and that this was also a theme of their relationship.

M accepted she did not call the police, a neighbour did, and this was the first time she had interacted with them at length (in the March 2024 incident). It was put to M that in police disclosure M had been less forthcoming, including failing to mention that she had been “strangled” and largely minimising the events, somewhat contradicting her written account. It was put to her that she said that there was only one prior incident of violence between the parties to the police, and this was again contradictory. M explained that she had been too scared to tell the complete story to the police, and had wanted to try and make things work prior to this with F. She now had insight and support from the Victim Support Team and had become aware of the previous minimising of the behaviour she experienced and the need to be frank.

F’s Evidence

F then gave evidence in turn. In regards financial control, he accepted that he had suggested that M not go back to work for some time after the baby was born, and that the parties had discussed the future plans later. F sought advice from his accountant where he “put M on the books” for his business as a roofer. He accepted that some months he would take up to £8,000, but suggested this was a gross figure, and that in reality he tended to not draw more than about £4,000 per month from the business as “take home pay”.

He accepted that when he moved in, around spring 2022, he started paying the bills and also contributed about £1050 to M per month after this. He explained that M tended to operate in online banking and with card/credit, whereas he would operate in cash, and that they had a safe in the house with a notebook, and M had access to this and he encouraged her to spend the money as and when she needed it. He also said that he gave money to M to buy Christmas presents. He denied that not setting up a joint account was evidence of financial control, and also denied that he stopped M from going back to work. He maintained he would freely offer her money, and this went up to £1050 on the first of the month and £600 in the middle of the month, when M’s maternity leave stopped. F maintained that if there was ever a cessation of funding from him, it was only due to cashflow issues on his own part. He maintained that he always paid if he was with the family, and that he felt he was generous. I found his account on this point to be coherent.

In regards drinking, F said that he had “always drunk” and that after work he would have a couple of pints with his dad. He would then go to the shops, buy a couple more beers, then go home, cook and drink. He said that drinking was part of his “wind down” or “switch off” on an evening and that he typically drank four beers on an evening after work. He volunteered that he enjoys the routine of drinking, and sees is at as habit, but did not seem to think this was a problem. He accepted that alcoholics sometimes find it hard to see their own drinking in context, that there is a misnomer that someone is always worse than they are.

In questioning from the bench on the subject, F was frank and open, and I thank him for his candour, but he did seem to lack the self-reflection to connect the dots: he freely admitted that he has been drinking habitually since the age of about 24, every day, and that the longest he has gone (in about 20 years since then) in terms of sobriety is around a few weeks. He said he did not like to sit in a pub with a soft drink, and found this to be pointless. He intimated that when he does not drink he “overthinks” things. This is indicative of undiagnosed mental health issues which may warrant further thought by F. He did accept, upon questioning, that if he needed to remain sober to have contact with C, he would do so, but did not seem to embrace the idea.

It is of note that an alcohol Hair Strand Test done by F in summer 2025 found a result of 315 ng/ml, which is described as “above the heavy use threshold, but below the levels documented in severe dependency”. F said that he does not feel drunk until at least seven or more beers, and tends to then fall asleep. He would only drink more than ten pints at a wedding or other event. He said he had blacked out through drink on a couple of occasions.

In terms of the speeding points, F suggested that he was the breadwinner and he had nine points on his license, which meant that if he was to receive another penalty of three points, he would be banned, which would be fatal to his business. He said that he had suggested this might be remedied by M “taking the points” but that in the end it was moot, as he did an online course. He denied forcing her to take the points.

In regards the emails, F denied that he forced M to give him control of her emails. He maintained that M upwards of 6,000 emails which were unread, and M found it difficult to find things, hence his involvement and intervention, which he maintained was by consent.

In regards the allegation that F would leave the home during an argument, he accepted that he would do this, he claimed it was to lessen the tension in the home during arguments, and not involve the children. He maintained he did not absent himself in order to cause M harm and was not in any way controlling.

In regards the allegation in Portugal in July 2023, F said that M was in his face, “right up in my private space” and was waving her finger at him and screaming in his face telling him he was “no sort of man”. F said that M was aggressive and he felt threatened, so he pushed her by the shoulder and she fell onto the sofa. He categorically denied pinning M down on the sofa, whatsoever. He accepted that on the date in question he had consumed about six pints, and said M had probably had three glasses of wine. He said after the incident, he went and slept in the car to de-escalate.

In regards the September 2023 incident, in which M said that her arm was deliberately closed in the door, F said that he did not really realise what had happened. He said that he was not feeling comfortable, and M wanted to cuddle. He said he left to go to the bedroom, and M followed him. He said that M had been “barging into the room” when he wanted to be left alone. F said he clearly shut the door on her arm, but could not see it. He described it as M having her arm “pinched” in the door only, and said that he denied repeatedly pushing the door against her arm as alleged by M.

F accepted that the incident “shouldn’t have happened” and accepted that the incident would have caused M significant pain. He said he didn’t realise what had happened, he did not want to go back out into the hallway and did not go and check on M. He accepted he could have consoled M but chose not to. He said that he could not see what injury had occurred to M with the door closed and could therefore only give a theoretical account as to the mechanism of the injury. He maintained that it was an accident.

F accepted that he knew that M was following him into the bedroom, he did not want her there, so he closed the door behind him, and with force. It was accepted that the room was a joint bedroom and that M had a right to enter to go to sleep if she wanted. F said that this was typical of an “unnecessary outburst by M” but did not accept any part in the incident. He said he was “chased” down the hall and that because of these incidents the love between them diminished over time.

F took accountability for “not handling the way that M was feeling sometimes” F had not intended to put M down on this occasion, but it was “the hottest day of the year” and he “could tell that M had the hump with him” and would follow up with a further disagreement. He did not maintain that he felt physically threatened by M, and maintained that he simply did not want to listen to her shout at him. It was put to F that his actions in closing the door on someone following him into their shared bedroom was at least reckless and he eventually appeared to concede this. F accepted that M then eventually sought medical advice when her arm did not heal properly, and accepted that it was likely due to trauma and trapped fluid in the elbow.

In regards the incident in December 2023 where M alleged that F smashed her phone after throwing a pan at the wall, F maintained that they had an argument about Christmas plans. He said M was then outside on the phone for about an hour and a half, speaking loudly and about personal matters with her sister, and he wanted to encourage her to come in. F said he was sick of M talking about their personal problems on the phone. He said that he felt that he was frustrated with M, and that he felt that M had been “too long” on the phone and that she needed to come and talk to him. One notes the complete contradiction in terms between F’s approach here that M must come and speak to him and comply with his directions during a dispute, whereas in the September incident, F did not want to speak to M and did not see any problem with closing the door in her face so as to not have to speak to her, it is plain hypocrisy which was put to F and he did not accept this. He said that he saw the two incidents as completely separate. He did not accept culpability for the disputes, but agreed that snatching and smashing the phone was “a bad move”. F accepted that during this incident, he grabbed the phone from M, and in doing so it slipped and smashed. I note that the police were called by a neighbour and that F accepted a non-court outcome which indicates he accepted his unlawful conduct.

In regards the incident on New Years Day 2024 where the parties had been at a wedding and had come back to the hotel and had an argument, F accepted they were in drink, but said that he was also parenting and was therefore not “too drunk”. He said that he had been drinking for about ten hours and maintained that he had consumed about eight drinks. I find this hard to reconcile, in light of F’s prior evidence about his drinking habits and especially at weddings. He accepted that he had said words to the effect of “why don’t I just jump off a cliff then” but maintained that his was not a serious threat of suicide. I find that it was at least an unfunny and stupid thing to say, especially in the presence of a child, and indicative of poor thinking skills.

In regards the final incident, being the alleged assault on 1 March 2024, F accepted that he had been sleeping or resting when M began to question him. F said he had consumed about eight cans of beer that evening from around 3:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. and fallen asleep about 10 p.m. F said that M had been poking him in his shoulders and going through his phone. It was “more aggressive than a tap” he said. He said that he woke up quite upset and that he pulled her away with one hand, she fell onto the bed, he pushed her down by her shoulders, he said to her “what’s your problem, is this why everyone leaves you?” he said he had both hands on her shoulders and held her down on the bed. He accepted he did this when upset. He denied M’s account beyond this.

When asked about the rationale for this, if there is one, he accepted that he did not feel under imminent threat from M, he could have stopped short when he pulled her onto the bed, and did not need to hold her down by her shoulders and shout at her. He admitted being frustrated. He once again did not seem to see the apparent tension in the contradiction between not wanting M to go through his phone and control him in arguments, and with physically manhandling her in the March incident or smashing her phone in December.

F accepted that the couple had undergone couples therapy earlier in 2024, but that this was not when he became aware of the allegation by M about her prior experience of sexual assault. He did admit that he had been told this prior by M, but did not accept that the example given “was really sexual assault” – he accepted that he has no recollection of telling M that she “deserved to be fucked up the arse” and that it was possible he was too drunk to remember this. It was put to F that the neighbours were so concerned with the furore as to call the police, as they had in the December incident. F then grabbed some belongings and left before the police came. He did not accept that he did this because he thought he would be arrested. It does not seem satisfactory as to why he left in those circumstances if he did not anticipate this.

It was put to F that he was never in any physical danger from M and that the incidents represented a gradual escalation in poor behaviour on his part. He accepted that things became worse toward the end of the relationship. He maintained that he had always been frank and open with M, and not hidden things.

Other sources of evidence

Unusually, this is a case where CAFCASS have already attempted a Section 7 Report, to try and assist the court. That report makes it plain that conclusions are pending, with the caveat that the court will need to decide facts first. It does detail each parties interview with CAFCASS and their view of each other, and it does remind the court that the pending proceedings in the Crown Court will need to be resolved before this case can be finalised, but that in C’s interests, it ought to be finalised soon.

I had the benefit of police disclosure and details of F’s limited previous convictions. I note that he has convictions for driving with excess alcohol in 2008 and 2016, and that he has accepted a breach of bail in the substantive criminal case, which occurred via contact after the matter was before the police. Of note, F also accepted a ‘Community Resolution’ for criminal damage after the phone smashing incident in December 2023. I am not satisfied that Police and CPS domestic violence policies align with that outcome, but in any event, it is a fait accompli. I take judicial note that for someone to agree to a community resolution, they must accept their part in the matter. There has been a Non-Molestation Order in this case by agreement which has now expired, and no findings were made.

I have considered further written statements from grandparents on behalf of M and F, but they were apparently quite self-serving, indirect and full of hearsay, and I took the view I would not be assisted by them, and without objection by the parties, I decided to not hear from the grandparents.

I have also had sight of a large amount of documentary evidence, including text messages, GP letters, hospital admission documents and photos of injuries to M. I accept that the photographs, including of injuries to M’s arm following the September 2023 incident, were compelling and persuasive. There was also a HST and blood test demonstrating, as above, high levels of alcohol intake, and occasional cocaine use by F, which he has admitted. M did not make any great play of this fact, and I am satisfied that whilst there is an abundance of evidence as to alcohol interacting with the allegations in this case, there is no evidence of cocaine as a risk factor per se.

I heard submissions from both sides on 31 March, first from Mr Ogunbusola and then from F in person. For M, it was submitted that M’s oral evidence was “consistent and credible” and that at times when she had been accused of lying or minimising things to the police, this may be a factor of her victimhood. It was submitted that, apart from the “coercive control” type allegations, F had largely admitted at least some culpability in terms of causation in the “violence” type allegations. I bear this in mind. It was submitted that there is strong evidence that alcohol is a risk factor for F in his actions and short temper. I accept this.

In turn, F addressed me shortly, saying that he would listen to this judgment and accept it and that he just wanted the proceedings to end as soon as possible and safely co-parent C in the future.

Facts Found

I have assessed the evidence of both parties and the documentary and other evidence in turn. I found that F broadly tried to minimise, dissemble and mitigate his role in conflict, and failed to show insight into the harm caused by his poor decision making whilst in drink. I found that M’s evidence was sometimes overwrought and at variance from the documentary evidence, and was sometimes exaggerated as to the wider context. I am satisfied that the balance of evidence I have heard on each of the allegations provides a basis to find the following facts in respect of the allegations raised:

I therefore conclude, that whilst the overarching allegation of coercive control is not made out in this FFH, that:

On the basis of my findings, and moreover on the basis of the impending trial at Croydon Crown Court (which I note, above, is where F elected) I am not prepared to make any order for direct interim contact at this time, bearing in mind PD12J inter alia and the issues dealt with in this order. I find that until harm can be minimised, both to M and C, vicariously, there is no order for direct contact that can be made at this time which would be safe.

I have anxiously considered whether to make an order for indirect interim contact between F and C. I think that, on the face of it, such contact could be manageable in respect of the test for risk per PD12J. However, I have also heard that F is on bail until October, and that contact would be a breach of bail. I have heard that F admitted breach of bail by way of sending M a single £1 via online banking with a reference including “this is not fair” or words to that effect. That amounted to a prima facie breach of bail and F was dealt with for it. I do not want to set him up to fail, and risks of harm must be manageable for me to make an order for indirect contact.

On balance, and after hearing submissions from M on this, M was content for there to be indirect contact from F to C via the Maternal Grandparents, in the form of cards, letters or small gifts, with a maximum frequency of once per three months of each type, with indirect contact from C to F in return with M sending F a short updating note and at least one picture of C, at least once per month until further order. I find that this will maintain a bridge for contact, and that in my view this is not a case where no order for contact will be made in the future.

I make a direction for CAFCASS to provide a further section 7 report, to be written and furnished on the parents, by no later than 19 October 2026 based upon these findings and examining:

I will direct the parents to respond to that report with a short witness statement of no more than 4 pages, each, by 30 October 2026, and for the court to list a further DRA in this case, for one hour, on the first open date after 2 November 2026.

As a coda, whilst CAFCASS will no doubt wish to opine on the findings and methods for F to improve the deficits I have highlighted, I would strongly urge him to take the initiative in the interim and speak to his GP as a first step about the alcohol issues and thinking skills identified herein. If he can be honest with his GP about his intake and what he has told the court about his relationship with drinking, then I am almost certain that his GP will be as concerned as I am and will be able to signpost F toward methods to reduce his drinking so that he has a healthier approach. The ball is in F’s court now.

I sincerely wish both parents the best of luck and would urge them both to be forward thinking and energetic in their efforts to conclude these proceedings as soon as possible with a framework for safe contact by which they can both in time safely co-parent C.