Cambridge Family Law Practice

An abusive and overbearing father has been stripped of the status of having parent responsibility by the Family Court.

The case concerned an unmarried couple with a son referred to in the judgment as EMP, who is now around 12 years old. The parents began a relationship in 2012 but had since separated and contact between the two was very strained. As a result, EMP spent little time with his father. The father applied for a child arrangements order that would permit him to spend more time with his son. Child arrangements orders set out the details of with whom a child is to live and spend time with following divorce or separation.

However in a fact-finding hearing, His Honour Judge C Baker highlighted many instances of inappropriate and difficult behaviour by the father. His style of parenting was ‘rough and tumble’, lacked empathy and did not respect the boy’s personal space. His approach verged on the abusive and frequently upset the mother, creating unnecessary conflict that put EMP at risk of physical and emotional harm.

Fact-finding hearings are held by the Family Court to establish contested facts but they do not necessarily have criminal implications unless any facts that are found to be true are then investigated by the Police.

The father had withheld child maintenance payments to try and pressure the mother into agreeing to him spending more time with the boy. In addition, noted Judge Baker:

“There were times during the parents’ relationship when the father acted in crass and thoughtless ways, ignorant of and unempathetic with regard to the effect of his behaviour on the mother. This included:

1. Inappropriately interfering with the mother’s social media account;

2. Engaging in activities that he considered to be pranks or ‘jokes’ without proper consideration of the effect on the mother; and

3. On occasions using insulting and derogatory terms and intending them to be hurtful and demeaning.”

He continued:

“The mother wanted a loving relationship in which the parents built a family together. She had ambivalent feelings towards the father ranging from loving him to being significantly affected by his unwillingness to engage with or take account of her emotional needs.”

The former couple continued to meet after the separation but the father’s behaviour became increasingly coercive. Finally, in 2017, he raped her, and had since failed to acknowledge the traumatic nature of this act. The possibility that he might do so again placed both the mother and EMP at risk of harm.

The mother applied in court for the removal of the father’s parental responsibility – the legal status of parenthood – as well as a change to EMP’s surname, in order to remove the father from the boy’s life altogether. Judge Baker agreed that both measures would be in their best interests after reviewing the father’s responses to his findings of fact.

“I make every allowance for the fact that there are as yet unresolved criminal proceedings. However, [the father] has made it clear that he accepts no responsibility for the current situation and places the ‘blame’ squarely on the mother’s shoulders. The overall picture, which now includes the father’s reflections upon the matters dealt with at the fact-finding hearing, is one that leads me to conclude that the father’s continued involvement in the child’s life would be, for the foreseeable future, continued court-sanctioned abuse of the mother.”

EMP favoured changing his surname, the Judge explained, and his potential discovery of the true nature of his father’s behaviour towards his mother would not be conducive to his wellbeing. Judge Baker issued a ‘lives with’ order declaring EMP should remain with her and have no further contact with his biological father. The father was also banned from making any further court applications until EMP’s 16th birthday.

Simon Bethel, one of the partners here at Cambridge Family Law Practice observes:

“The removal of a parent’s Parental Responsibility by the Court is uncommon to say the least. The father’s actions and behaviours were clearly so extreme that the Family Court wanted to put significant protection in place for the child and his mother. This case also shows the clear link between harm to the other parent and the knock-on effect that that can have on a child.”

Read the full ruling here.