FD 24 P 00524 - [2025] EWHC 1030 (Fam)

Piecing together the background to this case from the statements is not an altogether easy task and I have no doubt that my synopsis will not be completely accurate. Any deficiencies in the foregoing narrative do not in my judgment prevent me in any way from deciding this case according to the law and in a manner fair to both parties, particularly bearing in mind the summary nature of the jurisdiction.

F is an Irish national and habitually resident in Ireland. He was born in Dublin and is 32 years old. He holds an Irish passport. He is a joiner by trade. He has four criminal convictions. In 2011, he was convicted of two offences of assault causing harm and was given a two-year and a three-year suspended sentence. In 2021, he was convicted of possession of drugs for the purpose of supply and was given a four-month suspended sentence. The same year he was convicted for speeding and fined. In July 2024, he was convicted of four drug related offences (including possession for the purposes of supply). All four offences occurred on 3 December 2021. He was given a nine month suspended sentence.

M is also an Irish national and passport holder. She is 45 years old. She worked in Ireland as a domestic cleaner. She has three criminal convictions. Two convictions related to driving offences and one, on 21 July 2022, related unlawful possession of drugs. That offence occurred on 3 December 2021. She was fined.

The parties met in 2016, some eight months after the birth of M’s third child, [RC], who is 9 years old. M’s older two children are A and B, who are now in their twenties. RC’s father has played no part in her life. F has always treated RC as his daughter and it is my understanding that RC believes that F is her father. F says that he took an equal and active role in both children’s upbringing. M maintains that she was their primary carer. She has certainly been primary carer since the parties’ separation.

The parties moved in together when DC was born in October 2017. They separated in July 2022, according to F, or May 2022, according to M. M alleges that F abused her throughout their relationship. The allegations are very serious including physical abuse, rape and coercive and controlling behaviour. She says the behaviour began in late 2016 and continued throughout the relationship. She describes being grabbed by her arm with force by F who was reminding her that he was powerful. She says he hid her car keys, checked her mileage and read her emails and texts. She alleges that he stole her money and would belittle her and make her feel worthless and that he would call her names everyday and ruin special occasions. She says some of this behaviour was in front of the children. She also recounts fights between the parties when she did not have sex with F. She says on a number of occasions she awoke being raped by F. These allegations are, as I have said, plainly very serious. They are denied by F. At all times when I consider these allegations and their impact on DC and RC, I remind myself of Practice Direction 12J and the serious consequences for children who live with domestic violence.

M says at the time of the parties’ separation the police raided her home, when F was at a stag party, and found cocaine worth over £2,000. M alleges that F is a cocaine dealer. M says that F told her to say it was hers because she did not have a criminal record. She says she refused. She says the police knew it belonged to F but nothing happened. She says that the police previously stopped F and found a large quantity of cocaine but again nothing happened. She insinuates that F has some kind of relationship with the police. She specifically says that she does not trust the police to protect her and the children. I am not here to make findings of fact but I am mandated to take a robust view of evidence and, in that context, I note that F has convictions relating to drug offences and that those convictions do not include these allegations (M would say, of course, that these would not be recorded anywhere). I further note that the police arrested F for burglary on M’s complaint. M further maintains that F’s control over her did not stop after separation and that he had people spy on her and report back to him what she was doing or where she was.

On separation, F moved to his sister’s home which was on or very near to the estate where M lived with DC and RC. He says that he had regular contact with the children seeing them both most days. He says that after a few months this stopped and M refused contact.

At some point in 2022, M began taking an active role in caring for her three year old grandson (A’s son) and it would appear that A and his partner lived with M for periods of time. At some juncture a guardianship order was made in M’s favour in respect of this grandson.

F told the police in April 2023 that, in February 2023, M attended his home and, intoxicated, deliberately rammed her car into his car. This is recorded in a transcript of police interview after F’s arrest on investigation of burglary and threats to kill [D462].

On 6 March 2023, F issued an application for ‘access’ to DC and RC in the local District Court. A hearing was listed for 9 June 2023. I understand that both parties instructed and were represented by solicitors at all times during the court proceedings relating to the children in Ireland.

On or about the 8 April 2023, F removed his gym equipment from M’s home. F says he had M’s permission to do so. M says he burgled her home. She reported the alleged burglary to the police.

On 10 April 2023, F was arrested for burgling M’s home on 8 April 2023 and making threats to kill. In his police interview he admitted that he had said “that I’d love to kill her” on his arrest but he denied threatening her directly saying he did not do so “cos my kids were right there in the garden”. He made a number of disparaging comments about M including saying, ‘…she's an absolute compulsive liar and that's why I would like to get her sectioned. She's a narcissist’ and “I said to her your nothing but a junkie cunt and I am going to try to take my kids full custody”. F was charged and was bailed with conditions. M alleges that F frequently broke his bail conditions and that she was told by the police that he would have to breach his bail conditions fifty times before they would take any action. F denies the breaches and explains that he was allowed to go to his sister’s property, implying that the alleged breaches related to his being at and using his sister’s property.

In May 2023, it would appear that F called the police because he was being denied access to the children.

At the June court hearing, an access order was agreed providing for F to have access with DC and RC weekly on Thursdays from 6pm to 8 pm and fortnightly on Saturday and Sunday from 11 am to 6 pm. Unsurprisingly at that hearing, M raised the allegations against F that he had burgled her home and threatened to kill her. At some point, possibly at that hearing or earlier, M applied for and was granted a Protective Order preventing F from approaching or entering M’s address. That order apparently remained in place until April 2024. At this hearing the court also made a ‘safety order’ against M prohibiting her from molesting F .

At some point after July 2023, the police dropped the criminal investigation into the allegations of burglary and threats to kill. It would appear that contact or access arrangements went tolerably well and, when the matter returned to court on 31 October 2023, the previous orders were varied to allow access every Friday 5pm to 9pm and every Sunday 11am to 7pm. Provision was also made for access on Christmas Day and St Stephen’s Day. The order also recorded F’s obligation to pay child maintenance of €65 per child per week. It would appear that F has complied with this obligation.

Relations between the parties became problematic soon after the October hearing. On 28 November 2023, F made a statement to the police in which he complained about M’s behaviour including threatening messages she had sent to him, allegations she had made of rape in 2017 and her plan to ruin his life. The thrust of the complaint seems to be that M was messaging F in breach of a ‘safety order’ which limited their communications. He provided the police with recordings of messages from M to F in November 2023. I assume that these are the same recordings which were attached to one of F’s statements and which were played in court during the course of Ms McKenna’s cross examination of Dr Ratnam. The recordings did little to help me decide this case. They were all of M shouting angrily and berating F on a number of topics. F appears to have made a further complaint to the police on 22 January 2023 about emails he received from M on 20 January 2024.

Contact arrangements are said to have broken down in early December 2023. F says this was because M was upset that he planned to introduce the children to his partner, C. As a result, F applied on 27 January 2024 to enforce the previous order. A hearing was fixed for 14 February 2024. M failed to attend and the case was adjourned to 27 February 2024. At that hearing, a welfare officer, was appointed to conduct ‘a section 32 1a, 1b’ – an enquiry to consider the welfare and voice of the children. F was, under the order, to have contact every Wednesday and Thursday from 5.30pm to 8pm, every Sunday from 12pm to 7pm and every other Saturday 12pm to 7pm. In what might be described the usual way, the order allowed for other contact as might be agreed.

The parties availed themselves of the provision for additional contact. F has produced text messages from 29 March 2024, which show M initiating a request for F to have the children for a sleepover. He agreed. It is also clear that M had no concerns about F’s long term partner being present at the sleepover. F has also produced texts in which M acknowledged that his partner ‘is very good to [her] kids’. It was suggested to me by Ms McKenna that I should infer from this exchange that there was regular overnight contact. Mr Jarman said I should not draw such an inference. I am not finding facts at this hearing but reading those messages leaves me with the impression that, at that stage, the parties had a comparatively good relationship and that overnight contact did not appear to be in any way extraordinary.

A further hearing in court had been listed for 8 May 2024. This was adjourned as the section 32 report had not been completed. M says that in May 2024, F’s sister, D, met her in a supermarket and shouted abuse at her. She says that D set up a fake Facebook profile. The document she exhibits does not appear to be a fake profile. It is a post marked MS to PN and the contents do not appear to me to accord with the assertion that they show a fake profile. I cannot make any sense of the post. M also alleges that F’s sister, G, hacked her emails, deleting G’s and F’s threats to kill M and take the children away. This is somewhat odd as there is no allegation made elsewhere about threats to kill in emails.

At some point, possibly around this time, it would seem that both D and G made applications to the court for ‘guardianship orders’. F says that M failed to respond to the applications. It is not clear to me why those applications were made. F says they were made out of a concern for the children’s safety.

M says that being shouted at by D in the supermarket was the last straw. She says she went home and was suicidal. M says her Family Support Worker saved her life. She was advised to see her GP who told her to sign a voluntary section. She says she was admitted to Hospital and was on suicide watch for 2 nights and then moved to another Hospital for another 5 nights. While she was in hospital, RC stayed with her parents and DC was cared for by F’s family. M complains that F did not look after DC but F explains that he was on holiday in Spain. M says that after her discharge from hospital DC did not leave her side and slept in her bed for weeks.

The discharge seems to have been in late May or June. On 12 June 2024, M applied to vary or discharge the access order made on 27 February 2024. M says a week after the discharge she received a message on Facebook, threatening to blow up her house if A was at it. The message is dated 18 June 2024. It says ‘if your sons back in that gaff its getting blown up’. She implies that this threat was connected to the alleged burglary in April 2024 and the fact that A had witnessed it. She says she was in fear for her life, looked for a refuge in Ireland but none had space. She says that she decided to leave Ireland and flew to England on 18 June 2024 with RC and DC.

F says that in fact he last saw the children on 26 June 2024 and that the following day he received a text from M saying she was going to Donegal for a two week holiday. A few days later M told F that she had moved to England permanently and would not be returning. The date of the removal is in dispute but the parties agree that M wrongfully removed DC from Ireland on a date in June 2024.