FA-2025-000045 - [2025] EWHC 2146 (Fam)

Fecha: 27-Ago-2025

Section 1

This judgment was delivered in public. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the child and the parties must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media and legal bloggers, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so may be a contempt of court.

Mr Justice MacDonald:

INTRODUCTION

I have before me an appeal from the decision of HHJ Godwin (hereafter ‘the judge’) sitting at the East London Family Court on 14 February 2025. The appeal arises in the context of an application by NT (hereafter ‘the father’) under Part II of the Children Act 1989 for a child arrangements order providing for him to spend time with his daughter, CT, born on 22 March 2023. On 14 February 2025, the Judge dismissed an application for a finding of fact hearing into allegations of domestic abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour made by the appellant, ER (hereafter ‘the mother’), against the father. The mother is represented by Ms Katy Chokowry of counsel. The father is represented by Ms Lucy Bennett of counsel.

At the outset of this hearing I dealt with two preliminary applications by the mother. First, an application to amend her grounds of appeal and lodge an amended Skeleton Argument. Whilst opposed by the father, I granted that application on the grounds that the agreed note of the judge’s judgment was not available at the time the original grounds of appeal and Skeleton Argument were lodged. The mother now relies on the following grounds of appeal against the order of 14 February 2025 dismissing her application for a fact finding hearing and ordering interim contact:

The judge failed to give adequate reasons for dismissing the mother’s application for a finding of fact hearing.

ii)

The judge was wrong in failing to specifically address PD12J in light of the disputed allegations of domestic abuse.

iii)

The judge failed to conduct an analysis of the evidence and/or gave undue weight to some of the evidence.

iv)

The judge was wrong to place reliance on the course completed by the father with ‘Anger Planet’.

The judge failed to consider PD12J before making an order for indirect contact.

By the second preliminary application the mother applied to rely on fresh evidence on appeal. Ms Chokowry did not pursue the application with respect of certain text messages, but sought the admission of a letter from the mother’s GP that was directed at the hearing before the judge addressing her PTSD. I allowed that application in circumstances where I was satisfied that the evidence could not have been discovered and presented at the hearing on 14 February 2025, the court only directed the evidence on that date, the evidence would be likely to have a substantial influence on the case and the evidence is credible and likely to be believed by the court (see Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489).

Within this context, in determining this appeal I have had the benefit of reading the appeal bundle and supplemental appeal bundle, the agreed bundle of authorities and materials and the very helpful Skeleton Arguments prepared by Ms Chokowry and Ms Bennett. I reserved judgment and now set out my decision and the reasons for it.