Case No. EWFC-171

13For this hearing, the bundle has been limited to the documents relevant to the fact-finding. I have read the bundle and I have heard oral evidence from each parent, from both paternal grandparents, and from the maternal grandmother. I will not use their names, again to assist with anonymisation. Father provided additional questions on the first day. I explained to him when there were a few questions which would not be put in cross-examination, my reasons for that. The scope of this hearing has been limited to matters relevant to contact and some of his questions were an attempt to raise issues outside the scope of this hearing.14Each parent made allegations against the other, many of which are not relevant to the making of a Child Arrangements Order for the children to spend time with their father. The children had regular unsupervised staying contact with their father from August 2017 when the parents separated until early 2018, in the case of A, and until December 2019 in the case of the twins. The difficulties within the parents’ relationship prior to their separation would not assist the court in deciding what contact is in the children’s best interests now. The issues are whether father inappropriately chastised the children; whether he exercised coercive and controlling behaviour to the mother in and surrounding contact; whether he displayed emotionally dysregulated behaviour in the presence of or towards the children; whether he abused or intimidated the children; and/or whether mother has alienated the children from their father.15Each parent has to prove the allegations they make on a balance of probabilities. I have regard to all of the evidence in the context of all of the other evidence. I have to survey a wide canvas. I have evidence from a number of sources. Some of it is hearsay and I take that into account. The parents’ evidence is of the upmost importance. It is essential that the court forms a clear assessment of their credibility and reliability. Each parent considers that the other parent is not telling the truth about some of the events. I bear in mind that witnesses can lie for many reasons but also that their recollections of events may vary. I explained to father the Lucas direction which I was giving myself. Sometimes, people may not raise all of their concerns at the outset but that does not mean that they are being dishonest when they do.16In relation to parental alienation, I have been referred to the Cafcass website pages. I am aware that the definition has varied over time and that not all professionals in this field would use the term “alienation”. Cafcass helpfully reminds me that “alienating behaviours present themselves on a spectrum with varying impact on individual children which requires a nuanced and holistic assessment”. They use the term “alienating behaviours” to “describe circumstances where there is an ongoing pattern of negative attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours of one parent or carer that have the potential or expressed intent to undermine or restrict the child’s relationship with the other parent. It is one of a number of reasons why a child may reject or resist spending time with one parent post-separation.” Cafcass considers the child’s unique experiences and they look at the whole picture. In this case, I have looked at all of the evidence and considered the whole picture.17In his statement, father says that mother has broken several court orders by not making the children available at the contact centre after March 2021, by not providing him with photographs, school reports, updated medical information, and not encouraging the children to respond to the indirect contact. That postdates the events that led to the breakdown in contact. Having heard their evidence, I reject the father’s evidence about the indirect contact. Mother said, and I accept, that she messages him about illnesses, sports matches, and that he gets the school information. In their oral evidence, father and paternal grandmother confirmed that they receive WhatsApp messages from the children. 18Father says mother cancelled the 14 February 2021 contact and that she engineered his 18 February cancellation. She says he cancelled the 18th. He did. Neither of them can see the other parent’s point of view. Father sees it as alienation that mother did not allow contact for the first few weeks after they separated and that the paternal grandfather should attend the first contact visits rather than seeing that his unexpected decision to leave might have unsettled the family and a few weeks to sort out a plan might benefit the children.19In her written evidence, mother says that she attended the Freedom Programme and that, together with the passage of time, has made her stronger, more insightful, and more aware of the domineering relationship within which she and the children existed due to father’s behaviour. She says he bullied and belittled her, and over time her self-confidence and self-esteem were eroded. The examples before the parties separated which are relevant to the children are the allegation that he routinely demanded A to do things for him, such as get him a glass of water, and if he said “no”, he would become moody and keep asking her to until she said “yes”. He would get angry with mother because she had not trained A to do what he wanted. She said father would get angry suddenly, the children were wary of him, and that he manhandled B for perceived misdeeds, whereas C was compliant. She describes having to lock herself and A in the bathroom to protect them from father because they were the focus of his anger and relentless questioning.20Mother’s allegations of coercive and controlling behaviour in and around contact include that father dictated when he could see the children, that he got angry and aggressive, and threatened to call the police when she stopped overnight contact, that he did not tell her about the occasion where C had blood in her urine and that upset C. She also gives examples of father displaying emotionally dysregulated behaviour in the presence of or towards the children.21Father says that mother has alienated the children from him. His examples include her refusing telephone contact for around a month when they separated; telling the children he was not paying enough money to her; wanting the court to remove his parental responsibility; withholding her address and schools attended by the children; telling the children he was not allowed to enter the gated estate where she lived and that the police would be called if he did; taking A to the police station to reassure her she would not be made to visit her father; placing presents under the twins’ pillows to encourage and create enthusiasm for their return after contact; and creating false memories in A’s mind. In their statements, each parent sets out a detailed response to the other’s allegations and they each maintain their recollection of events in their oral evidence.