[2025] EWHC 1648 (Fam)

The recitals to the judge’s order did not properly reflect his findings as set out in the judgment.

The judge’s overall conclusions about the father in the judgment minimised the primary findings made against him.

The judge wrongly failed to consider whether, based upon his findings, the father’s behaviour amounted to a pattern of behaviour (he should have stood back and surveyed the totality of the evidence rather than focussing upon the schedule of allegations).

The judge also wrongly failed to consider whether the father lacked insight into his behaviour, and whether his lack of insight increases the risk he poses to the mother and C.

The judge was wrong not to make findings against the father in respect of the mother’s allegations numbers 10 and 12.

The judge should have concluded from the evidence that the father had told C that her mother should die, causing her ‘actual’ as opposed to ‘potential’ emotional harm, and treated C as a victim of domestic abuse pursuant to section 3 of the 2021 Act. The judge should additionally have considered the impact upon the mother of receiving a text message referring to her death, especially in the context of ‘the barrage’ of messages sent to her.

The judge erred by failing to refer at all to text messages sent by the father in 2019-2020 including one in which he said ‘fight to the death, ready for that you are’ as well as other messages containing threatening and/or abusive language, a number of which have been helpfully set out in a schedule prepared by Dr Proudman on the mother’s behalf.

The judge failed to consider the definitions of domestic abuse in PD12J and applied a threshold for findings of domestic abuse which was set too high.

Although the judge identified aspects of the evidence of Dr Bailie which were relevant, he failed to address how he had factored these into his decision-making process. There were, additionally, other aspects of Dr Bailie’s evidence which the judge failed to take into account.

The judge was wrong to comment, after the judgment, that ‘there have been no threats’. Dr Proudman highlights in particular, in this context, messages sent by the father to professionals in addition to messages sent to the mother in 2019 and 2020.

There were other messages sent by the father to the mother which on their face were verbally abusive and which were sent during the relationship and in the period after it had broken down.

Based upon the totality of the messages as well has his own findings, the judge should have reached the conclusion that the father had perpetrated coercive behaviour against the mother and professionals and controlling, verbally, emotionally and psychologically abusive behaviour towards the mother.