FD24P00284 - [2025] EWHC 729 (Fam)

I conducted a ground rules hearing at the beginning of the hearing before me. I had before me two litigants in person and allegations of domestic violence but no findings to that effect. The mother was attending the hearing remotely from country C.

I proposed to the parties that so long as each put civil questions to the other, I would let them question the other, but that I would intervene if I considered it necessary or the person being questioned asked me to intervene. They agreed to that approach, and in fact each asked very few questions of the other. Most of the questions came from me.

I had oral evidence from each party, and Ms Gwynne, and I had closing submissions from the parties.

Both mother and father impressed me as parents with much to offer their children. Both were however prepared to latch onto comments of the other to try and make the other look bad. That is in part a consequence of the adversarial nature of proceedings. It is here, I find, in part a consequence of continuing mistrust and anger between them.

I said, and no doubt it sounded like unrealistic preaching from the bench, that each would do well to accentuate the positives of the other as a parent. Each can give a lot to their children as long as they can avoid arguing with each other. I would however here make a further point, namely that if there were to be violence between them, or any form of aggressive behaviour that will undo all the good that might otherwise have been done, and will seriously harm the children. The balance between the parties is not on a level here. The father’s convictions mean that the court must necessarily be concerned about his behaviour.