![FA-2025-000045 - [2025] EWHC 2146 (Fam)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_0FrGysm.png){kind=logo}
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The parties commenced their relationship in 2002 and commenced co-habiting in 2005. The mother contends that the entirety of her relationship with the father was characterised by drug and alcohol misuse, coercive and controlling behaviour and verbal and physical domestic abuse. Within her evidence, the mother raises the following allegations (which I set out chronologically):
Between 2005 and 2023 the father suffered a number of psychotic episodes and was sectioned under the Mental Health Act 1983. When these reoccurred, the father’s mother told the mother not to seek medical attention as the father would again be sectioned.
From 2007 the mother became aware that the father was habitually using cocaine.
In 2013, the father tricked the mother into getting into his van believing he was giving her a lift to work. The father called the mother’s employer without the mother’s knowledge to say she was not well and drove her around in the van erratically, taking her to country roads and threatening that he would take out the hammer in the back of his van.
In 2013 and 2014 the father was consuming alcohol to excess, resulting in him becoming abusive to the mother.
In June / July 2014 the father was possessive of the mother, calling her several times a day to see what she was doing and accusing her of cheating.
In June / July 2014 the father accused the mother of having an affair with a work colleague and contacted the work colleague’s partner to accuse him and the mother of having an affair.
In 2015 / 2016, the father deflated the tyres on the mother’s car and, in a jealous rage, pinned a chair against the mother’s throat.
In 2015 / 2016, the father pinned the mother against a wall with great force and put a knife to her neck, causing bruising.
In 2016 the father was dealing in cocaine.
On 21 November 2016 the father was verbally abusive to the mother following an argument about cleaning the kitchen.
On 28 November 2016 the father threw two cups of water at the mother.
On 23 December 2016, the father forcefully slapped the mother, causing red swelling across her face and neck and threw three pints of water over the mother.
In 2017 the father relapsed whilst on a 12-step programme and began using cannabis, cocaine, crack cocaine and alcohol again.
On 2 June 2017 the father verbally abused the mother after she opened a second sachet of cat food and later verbally abused her after she had let the soup boil.
On 6 June 2017 the father verbally abused the mother by shouting at her “answer the question you cunt. I feel like spitting on you right now.” The father demanded that the mother go to the bedroom and not speak to him, which she did.
On 28 June 2017, the father physically assaulted the mother causing bruising and threatened her that she was “lucky to be alive” and that he was “going to put a knife in you”. The father picked up a work tool and threatened the mother that he “would smash it across your feet”. The father then placed his hands over the mother’s mouth, preventing her from breathing.
On 28 February 2022 the father refused to allow the mother to inform friends and family that she was pregnant and shouted and swore at the mother, leaving her feeling isolated.
On 28 February 2022, the father began arguing with the mother. He verbally abused her before pushing the door against her foot with force, causing injury.
On 15 March 2022 the father refused to accompany the mother to a scan after she suffered spotting and showed no sympathy or concern when she was told she would likely miscarry.
On 16 March 2022 the father informed the mother that “you’ve only got yourself to blame” when she started bleeding heavily and called the father for support, left her to drive herself to hospital whilst having a miscarriage and blocked her calls and messages.
Thereafter, on 18 March 2022, the father accused the mother of having an abortion.
On 3 April 2022, 7 April 2022 and 19 April 2022, the father again accused the mother of having an abortion and demanded to see her medical records.
In October 2022 the father verbally abused the mother, telling her that she was pissing him off, to fuck off, and that if he wanted to drink he would do whatever he fucking wants.
On 12 March 2023, the father threatened the mother with a demand for shared custody whilst the mother was heavily pregnant.
On 20 March 2023, the father demanded that the name of the unborn child would be T and informed the mother there would be no compromise, negotiation or discussion on the subject.
Following CT’s birth, between 22 March 2023 and 25 March 2023, the father accused the mother of being negligent and risking harm to CT, causing the mother to feel inadequate and embarrassed before nursing staff and midwives.
On 5 April 2023, the father smacked the mother’s leg whilst she was holding CT.
On 8 April 2023, the father left the mother to care for CT unsupported two weeks after her birth.
On 19 April 2023, the father drove erratically with the mother and CT in the car, risking significant harm to them both.
On 10 May 2023, the father was verbally abusive towards the mother, calling her “scummy”, questioning her parenting and calling her a “cunt”, a “snake”, a “fuck” and raising his voice.
On 27 May 2023 the father was again verbally abusive towards the mother, calling her a “cunt” and “disgusting and disrespectful”.
On 26 June 2023, the father was again verbally abusive to the mother at her father’s house, calling her “a bike”, “selfish” and a “controlling bitch”.
On 31 October 2023, the father took a picture of the mother without her consent whilst she was breastfeeding CT.
Two Cafcass safeguarding letters were prepared, the first dated 25 January 2024 (prior to the interview with the mother) and an updated latter dated 13 February 2024. This latter letter recommended that the court consider the terms of PD12J in order to determine the necessity of a fact-finding hearing, directions to midwifery to release any record of the mother reporting her allegations, a s.7 report and a number of directions in respect of the father’s alleged drug and alcohol misuse.
In the process of filing evidence, and ahead of the hearing before the judge on 14 February 2025, the father made a number of admissions in response to the mother’s allegations. These were recorded in the order of 15 August 2024 at a hearing before Magistrates. One of the difficulties in this appeal is identifying precisely which of the admissions made by the father in response to the mother’s allegations as set out above were taken into account by the judge in reaching his decision that a fact finding hearing was not necessary. The admissions are not recorded in the judgment or on the face of the order of 14 February 2025, nor does the order refer to a document in which those admissions are set out. With respect to the judgment delivered by the judge on 14 February 2025, having referred to the mother’s allegations set out in the foregoing paragraph as “the serious allegations she has raised against F in relation to physical abuse she says has happened during the course of their long relationship”, the admissions made by the father are referred to by the judge as follows:
“It’s fair to say F has made certain admissions in relation to those allegations and those admissions make clear that M has been a vulnerable person in relation to F and that is something that needs to be taken into consideration when the court considers the degree of risk on future conduct on his part.”
As I have noted, the admissions made by the father were set out in recitals to the order dated 15 August 2024 as follows (adopting the same chronological order as utilised when summarising the mother’s allegations above):
The father was diagnosed with a drug induced psychosis in 2001 when he was 19 years old. He was admitted to hospital but not sectioned.
The father smoked cannabis daily in his late teens.
Between 2006 and 2007 the father used cocaine, but did so only occasionally and recreationally, most often on weekends.
The father’s cocaine use increased in 2011 and he sometimes used it once per week.
The father’s cocaine use increased again in 2013 and there were occasions when he used it twice per week.
On one occasion “years ago and before CT’s birth”, the father went through the mother’s work emails on her phone and forwarded selected emails to his own email address.
In 2017 the father recognised he had a substance misuse problem in respect of both drugs and alcohol and started to take steps to manage these issues.
The father relapsed between 31 December 2017 and 6 January 2018.
By 2021, the father was drinking alcohol and smoking cannabis socially.
On one occasion before CT was born the father told the mother to get out of bed and go to her father’s house following an argument. The mother “chose” to sleep in the hallway.
In March 2022 the father accused the mother of having an abortion (later texting the mother to apologise and say it was not her fault), encouraged the mother to lodge a complaint with the hospital (the hospital later “admitting they made a mistake in the process”), asked the mother questions such as ‘How did you know that they didn’t take you to theatre and do an operation on you when you passed out’, sent the mother multiple messages with medical information and was very distressed and upset for both himself and the mother as a result of the miscarriage and took it out on the mother.
The father used substances occasionally in October 2022.
Following CT’s birth he and the mother argued on the ward and he overreacted when the mother fell asleep with CT in her arms.
In April 2023 the father took a picture of the mother holding CT as he was concerned the mother was holding her too tightly and she was struggling to breathe.
In June 2023 the father called the mother a “controlling bitch” in the context of an argument and feeling under pressure from the mother to sell his flat.
The matters set out in the order of 15 August 2024 reflect the position set out by the father in his witness statement. Neither in the order of 15 August 2024 nor in his statement does the father make any admissions in respect of the allegations that involved the use of physical violence, threats to kill, obstruction of the mother’s breathing, kidnapping or coercive and controlling behaviour. As I have noted, those matters were not dealt with substantively in the judge’s judgment on 14 February 2025.
At the hearing on 14 February 2025, the judge had a hearing bundle which contained the statement of the parents, together with the father’s response to the schedule of findings sought by the mother. With respect to the father’s response to the mother’s allegations, a number of matters are important to note.
First, in respect of certain of the allegations the father does not simply deny those allegations but makes counter-allegations against the mother. Thus, for example, in response to the mother’s allegation that the father would be possessive of the mother and would call her several times a day to see what she was doing and accuse her of cheating, the father denies this conduct and asserts it was the mother who was very possessive of him, which often led to arguments between them where she accused him of seeing other women. Second, with respect to the majority of the allegations of verbal abuse between 2016 and 2023 (for example, shouting at her “answer the fucking question you cunt. I feel like spitting on you right now"), the father does not deny these but rather states that he cannot“recall” them. Third, with respect to the allegations of physical abuse, whilst the father denies most of the allegations of physical abuse, he makes a number of admissions with respect to the events surrounding the alleged physical abuse whilst denying the abuse itself. By way of further examples:
The father admits to some drug and alcohol misuse, but his admission does not extend to the impact on his behaviour and his consequent abuse towards the mother and the impact on her.
The father denies all but one episode of drug induced psychotic behaviour. The mother states that there was at least 6 such episodes.
While admitting that he accused the mother of having an affair with a work colleague, the father denies this amounted to controlling behaviour or that this was an ongoing issue in respect of males that the mother socialised.
The father denied controlling the mother in respect of sharing the news of her pregnancy.
The father denies his emotionally abusive behaviour surrounding the mother’s pregnancy and loss in 2022.
The father accepts calling the mother a controlling bitch following CT’s birth. He states that this was wrong, “however he felt controlled by” the mother.
The father denies taking a photograph of the mother breastfeeding CT covertly and without consent.
The father denies the allegations of serious physical abuse including the allegation of kidnapping, holding a knife to the mother’s throat, holding an upside down chair to her throat, slapping her causing swelling and placing his hands over her mouth preventing her from breathing, pushing the door against her foot causing pain, smacking the mother’s leg while she held CT, driving erratically and dangerously while the mother and CT were in the car.
The matter came before the judge on 14 February 2025. In an ex tempore judgment the reasons given by the judge for refusing to direct a finding of fact hearing centred on his assessment that the father had made sufficient admissions, that none of what the judge characterised as the serious allegations post-dated the birth of CT, that the father had sufficiently addressed his substance misuse and anger management issues with ‘Anger Planet’ and that directing a finding of fact hearing would cause undesirable delay in the proceedings.
With respect to the judge’s assessment that the father had made sufficient admissions, as I have noted the judge held as follows:
“[4] Those allegations raised by M earlier in proceedings and have been addressed by both parties in witness statements. It’s fair to say F has made certain admissions in relation to those allegations and those admissions make clear that M has been a vulnerable person in relation to F and that is something that needs to be taken into consideration when court considers the degree of risk on future conduct on his part.”
As to the judge’s view that it was significant that none of the serious allegations post-dated the birth of CT, the judge observed as follows:
“[5] None of the serious allegations post-date birth of CT on 22/03/23. Subsequent to her birth there was a period during which F had contact with his daughter and separation post-dated birth by 3 months. I have heard submissions on various proposals to contact and Beth Hibbert (counsel for F) indicated that there was a period between June and November when the parties were going swimming together and meeting in the community and there was no difficulty. Contact continued for a number of weeks with no conflict. There has been nothing raised post-separation which will not be dealt with by the behaviour F has already admitted.”
The judge’s assessment that the father had sufficiently addressed his substance misuse and anger management issues was articulated by the judge as follows:
“[6] Since these proceeding have begun Cafcass has filed a safeguarding letter and F has acted on the recommendations made by Cafcass in that he has addressed his misuse of illicit substances and also addressed his anger by attending a 3-day course. The court has in the bundle a report from the anger management specialist, Mr David Woolfson. In her position statement for this hearing, Ms. Hibbert on behalf of [the father] sets out a number of paragraphs from Mr Woolfson’s report which indicates that in his view F has taken a very adult attitude towards his past behaviour and whilst he has written reports of this nature for over 20 years, he was unusually deep in thought in relation to F’s performance and was considerably touched and impressed by him. Certainly he is of no two minds that F benefitted significantly from that course.”
Finally, with respect to the impact of delay, the judge held as follows with respect to the impact of delay on the question of whether a fact finding hearing was necessary:
“[8] The alternative would be for the court to direct today that there should be FFH to address those matters of concern raised by Ms. Diegan on behalf of M. Ms. Diegan emphasises that during the relationship, a long relationship, F made threats to kill M and that the impact of F’s behaviour in relation to M over years represents a significant risk not only to M but also to child, and that justifies the court directing that those matters highlighted by M should be the subject of a FFH.
[9] Unfortunately such hearings in this court if requiring 3 days are likely to require a listing 9-12 months hence and Ms. Hibbert says that given the age of the child and the length of time since F last had contact, the last time being on 30/11/23, that this is a delay the court should not sanction given that, even if a FFH were held, the findings will then require a report from Cafcass to be prepared and will thereby engender further delay in this matter, and that would be an additional 18 months hence from today.”
In the foregoing circumstances, the judge concluded that a finding of fact hearing was not necessary. The sealed order records the rationale for the judge’s decision as being “the court has sufficient information to assess any risk posed by Father to the child or mother on the basis that mother feels vulnerable in father’s” (sic). The judge’s ex tempore judgment makes no mention of PD12J nor of the authorities dealing with the principles applicable when determining whether it is necessary to direct a finding of fact hearing in the context of the disputed issues of fact between the parties. However, a recital to the sealed version of the order states that “Domestic abuse has been raised as an issue which is likely to be relevant to any decision of the court relating to the welfare of the child having regard to PD 12J.”
The sealed version of the judge’s order directed a report from Cafcass pursuant to s.7 of the Children Act 1989 by 4 July 2025 dealing with how contact between the father and CT should progress. Notwithstanding the decision of the judge that a finding of fact hearing was “... not necessary as the court has sufficient information to assess any risk posed by Father to the child or mother on the basis that mother feels vulnerable in father’s” (sic), and in the context of the recital in the order stating “Domestic abuse has been raised as an issue which is likely to be relevant to any decision of the court relating to the welfare of the child having regard to PD 12J”, the directions to Cafcass for a s.7 report was in the following terms (emphasis added):
“8. By 4pm on 4 July 2025, CAFCASS shall send to the court and the parties a report under Section 7 of the Children Act 1989, dealing with:
a. whether there should be contact between the child and the father.
b. recommendations for how contact between the child and the father should progress.
c. the mother’s concerns about the father’s domestic abuse, alcohol and drug misuse and mental health having regard to the father’s admissions in response to mothers’ allegations the court having determined that an assessment of the risk posed by father can be made without a discrete fact-finding hearing on the basis of the admissions made and the time spent by the child with father since the parents separated.
d. recommendations for a final order, including a stepped arrangement where recommended.”
In addition, the directions made on 14 February 2025 included a direction for the mother to file and serve a statement dealing with “Information about her diagnosis of PTSD.” The judge’s judgment addressed this issue as follows:
“On the basis of the submissions I have heard it seems to me that the first essential step now is for M to file evidence in relation to her own PTSD, where there has been assistance from GP and others, and also evidence around the child’s anxiety and separation issues which is available from health visitor on making a disclosure order”.
The recitals to the sealed order of 14 February 2025 further explain the rationale for the resulting direction as follows:
“The court directed that it be provided with further information about the mother’s diagnosis of PTSD and about the child’s separation anxiety before it is able to determine how any direct contact between the father and the child may progressed.”
Finally, during the course of proceedings the father raised the issue of CT’s paternity. The rationale for the father’s position appears to be that mother received fertility treatment in the months prior to conception (including receiving Cyclogest pessaries and undergoing an HCG blood test), although it would not appear that the mother received any IVF treatment cycle at this time. On 15 May 2025, DNA testing confirmed that the father is the father of CT. The father denies that his late raising of the issue of paternity was itself an act of coercive and controlling behaviour.