Cambridge Family Law Practice

A judge took an overly cavalier approach to a mother’s allegations of abuse and coercive control, a higher court has ruled.

After marrying in 2014, the couple in question went on to have two children, aged eight and five at the time of the hearing. But, in January 2022, they separated after an unspecified incident at the family home. The father was arrested and later charged with assault. His bail conditions specified that he could not contact the mother or approach the family home.

The father’s work involved travel and so he only saw the children three times over the next six months. In June the mother applied for a child arrangements order, under section 8 of the Children Act 1989, specifying that the children should live with her permanently, and that time with their father should be supervised. She alleged that the father had been verbally and physically abusive to both her and the children, and that he had also engaged in coercive behaviour towards her, even after they separated. He had, she claimed, tried to limit her movements, and interfere with her finances.

The mother also claimed to have been “bombarded” with threatening messages from both the father and his family since the separation, attempting to intimidate her into withdrawing from the legal proceedings.

The mother was granted a non-molestation order, forbidding the father from contacting her. A third party helped with handovers of the children.

In the family court at Oxford, Her Honour Judge Vincent explained:

“It is alleged that this course of conduct caused the mother pain and injury, and in addition that the fear and intimidation that she felt as a result of the father’s conduct impacted her mood and self-esteem, causing her anxiety and stress, impairing her decision-making abilities, in particular the decisions she made agreeing to unsupervised contact despite her concerns…It is alleged that the father’s conduct had caused … physical injury, and both children to be afraid, upset, withdrawn, worried and fearful…”

The case reached its initial stage – known as the First Hearing and Dispute Resolution Appointment (FHDRA) – in September the same year. There, Cafcass supported the father’s case that unsupervised contact should continue, and the judge at that hearing agreed.

Not long afterwards the father’s criminal trial for assault resulted in an acquittal. According to Judge Vincent:

“The mother has exhibited a letter she received from the Crown Prosecution Service [CPS] apologising for errors, which in the letter are said to be a failure to provide evidence to the defence, a failure of the police witness to attend Court, and a failure to secure the judge’s agreement to an adjournment, resulting in the CPS offering no evidence at trial. On behalf of the father it is said this is not a true representation of what happened; there was an effective trial before a District Judge, both parties gave oral evidence and he was acquitted.”

As the parents remained at loggerheads, the courts next ordered a fact-finding hearing. These are held by family courts to establish whether, on the balance of probabilities, contested events did occur. They are distinct from criminal trials.

A Section 7 report was also requested. Compiled by local social workers, these are enquiries into the circumstances of children in families when the courts have been asked to intervene.

Meanwhile, the two children should see their father twice a week without supervision, the Judge at the same hearing ruled.

Later, the father’s counsel persuaded the judge to suspend the fact-finding hearing because of this unsupervised contact, which had continued without incident for some time. The Judge also discharged (cancelled) the non-molestation order.

The mother’s appeal against these rulings came before Her Honour Judge Vincent, and she accepted the mother’s case, concluding that:

“…I find [that the Judge’s] decision to abandon the fact-finding hearing was procedurally irregular and not fair to the mother.”

The earlier Judge had not properly considered the abuse alleged by the mother, declared Judge Vincent, or its potential impact on the welfare of the children, or any possible future risks. A fact-finding hearing should be held after all, and the non-molestation should be reinstated.

Adam Moghadas, one of the partners here at Cambridge Family Law Practice, comments that “it is reassuring that potentially serious allegations that could have an impact on the children – whether directly or indirectly – in the future, cannot just be swept away by an apparent good run of contact between the alleged perpetrator and the children. Whilst not always necessary or proportionate, fact-finding hearings have an important place in the family justice system.”

The full judgement is available here.