Case No. EWFC-48

asserted that the judge had compartmentalised the mother’s evidence rather than bringing into his assessment the challenges to the mother’s credibility made by the father. That ground struck me as difficult to sustain given the judge’s lengthy analysis of the mother’s credibility at the start of his judgment which addressed the key challenges to the mother’s evidence mounted by the father. However, Mr Latham submitted the judge had failed to factor into his assessment of the mother’s credibility that he had not made some of the findings pursued by the mother, such as being raped in her sleep or that she had been violently assaulted in March 2015. In his analysis of the mother’s credibility, the judge acknowledged that, for example, the mother’s claim of violent assault was not supported by the evidence, but explained that, in the context of the evidence as a whole, he regarded this issue as relatively minor and not undermining of the mother’s overall credibility. In my opinion, the judge was entitled to take that view.33.Further, the judge’s assessment of the mother’s credibility did not result in an uncritical acceptance of each and every allegation made by the mother. Thus, the judge failed to find that the father was aggressive around the mother and the children because there was insufficient evidence on which he could properly do so. Likewise, the judge made no finding on the issue of financial control as the mother’s allegation did not satisfy the test for abuse of that type and he also made no finding that the father had failed to make a contribution, whether financial or otherwise, when he moved into the mother’s home because there was insufficient evidence to do so. 34.Finally, the trial judge had the unique advantage of being able to assess both the mother and the father both during their respective evidence and during the entire hearing. It is clear from the judgment that, especially with regard to the allegations of sexual misconduct, the judge found the mother’s evidence more persuasive and that he was troubled by the admissions made by the father, one of which related to the father on one occasion grabbing the mother’s nose to force her mouth open so he could put his penis into it and on another occasion slapping his penis against the mother’s face during oral sex. The father had also admitted behaving sexually in ways which he knew the mother did not like. Those admissions formed part of the judge’s evaluation of the father’s evidence, especially with regard to sexual conduct, and undoubtedly influenced his overall assessment of the parties’ evidence. I can see nothing wrong in the judge’s approach.35.In coming to that view, I have had regard to the Court of Appeal’s judgment in