Anonymized Summary of Judgment — [2025] EWFC 284 (B)

Factual and Procedural Background

This is a perfected version of the judgment handed down by Judge Newport following a contested fact-finding hearing. The hearing took place over six days (23–27 June and 2 July 2025); written submissions were filed in July 2025; the judgment was handed down on 28 July 2025 and perfected on 11 August 2025.

The proceedings concern one child (referred to in the judgment as "the Child"), born in late summer 2021 and approaching four years of age at the time of the hearings. The Child lives with the Respondent (and maternal grandparents) in County A and has direct and video contact with the Applicant, who lives in County B.

The Applicant (the father) originally represented himself and, shortly before the fact‑finding hearing, had assistance from Attorney Nicolson on a direct‑access basis; the Applicant subsequently resumed self‑representation for parts of the proceedings. The Respondent (the mother) was represented by Attorney Chhina and was assisted by an intermediary for much of the hearing due to her recorded diagnoses (including PTSD and dyslexia).

Procedural history in summary (as described in the judgment):

• The Applicant issued an application for child arrangements on 31 January 2022. A final hearing before lay justices on 12 October 2023 resulted in a shared‑care order with specific contact and a recorded requirement that the parents consult each other; the lay justices did not order a fact‑finding hearing at that time.
• The Respondent applied for a non‑molestation order under the Family Law Act 1996 on 22 December 2023; the Applicant gave an undertaking on 9 January 2024 (no admissions or findings resulted from that process).
• Thereafter the case generated multiple related applications (including a C79 seeking enforcement) and transfer requests; interim disputes about contact were litigated and, following a District Judge hearing and subsequent case management steps, the court determined (on 6 March 2025) that expert evidence should be admitted and that a fact‑finding hearing was necessary and proportionate.
• The fact‑finding trial heard live evidence from the parties, multiple family and lay witnesses, and received an expert report from a forensic expert. The trial bundle was extensive (3,863 pages) and included earlier family and Family Law Act materials, local authority and police records, GP and school records, recordings and transcripts.

The contested issues presented at trial included allegations by the Respondent of controlling and coercive behaviour (and related abusive conduct) by the Applicant, counter‑allegations made by the Applicant including allegations of alienating behaviour by the Respondent, and disputed factual issues such as the origin of an injury/burn to the Child in January 2025. The judgment also records a pending unrelated application and consideration of whether an existing non‑molestation order should be extended pending the next hearing.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Respondent's allegations of controlling and coercive behaviour (and related abusive conduct) by the Applicant are proved on the balance of probabilities, such that findings of fact should be recorded.
2. Whether the Applicant's counter‑allegations (including allegations of controlling and coercive behaviour by the Respondent and allegations of alienating behaviour / "parental alienation") are proved on the balance of probabilities.
3. Who was the likely perpetrator of the Child's January 2025 burn: whether that injury can be attributed (on the balance of probabilities) to a person in the Applicant's household or to another source.
4. Whether the existing non‑molestation order should be extended until the next hearing.
5. Ancillary: questions about the conduct of the litigation (including the use of expert evidence, participation directions, admissibility of recordings and the parties' procedural conduct) insofar as these bear on fairness and the ability of each party to participate.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Applicant denied the allegations made against him and sought findings consistent with the particulars and schedule contained in his statements. He asked the court to find facts in line with his schedule and evidence.
• The Applicant advanced an account that the Respondent had engaged in controlling or alienating behaviour (often framed by him as "parental alienation" or similar) and relied on a schedule of allegations that included claims of dismissing safety concerns and alleged double standards by the Respondent.
• The Applicant challenged some aspects of the Respondent's medical and vulnerability evidence and opposed aspects of the participation directions (he filed a statement challenging the need for an intermediary and participation directions and disputed some diagnoses).
• The Applicant relied on a range of documentary exhibits, some of which he acknowledged were derived from internet research and generative AI (ChatGPT) and included legal authorities and guidance; he used those materials to frame legal propositions and factual inferences.
• Procedurally, the Applicant brought and maintained applications to enforce orders and otherwise pressed his case through multiple applications (including a C79). He also raised procedural objections and made continued allegations about the conduct of the Respondent and her representatives.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent alleged an extended pattern of controlling and coercive behaviour by the Applicant, beginning during the relationship and continuing post‑separation; her pleaded case ran in clustered allegations focused on coercion, control and the impact upon her and the Child.
• The Respondent sought protective relief (including the earlier non‑molestation application), relied on contemporaneous diaries and multiple exhibits (including covert recordings) and asked the court to admit expert evidence and to make participation directions and special measures because of diagnosed PTSD and dyslexia.
• The Respondent's representation secured permission for special measures, an intermediary (on the papers) and admission of her recordings; her legal team invited the court to view the Applicant's conduct both during the relationship and in the litigation as part of a pattern of abusive behaviour.
• The transcript records a preliminary submission (as recorded in the judgment) attributed to Attorney Chhina during a preliminary issue; that submission (as recorded) included the characterisation that the Respondent's application was frivolous and suggested that the Respondent had characteristics of narcissism. The court treated this recorded submission as part of the hearing record and addressed participation safeguards for the Respondent accordingly.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Re R (Children) [2018] EWCA Civ 198	The purpose of fact‑finding in family cases: the hearing normally results in a narrative account of what the court has determined on the balance of probabilities; the primary purpose is to determine past events so as to inform the ultimate welfare evaluation.	The court used this description to frame the fact‑finding task: each allegation had to be addressed on the balance of probabilities and the factual findings were to inform future welfare decisions.
Re H‑N & Others (Domestic Abuse: Findings of Fact Hearings) [2021] EWCA Civ 448	Guidance that fact‑finding should recognise patterns of behaviour (not only discrete violent incidents), that PD12J recognises controlling/coercive behaviour may cause serious harm, and that judges should consider psychological impact without importing criminal concepts.	The court applied this guidance by focusing on patterns of conduct, considering psychological impact on the Respondent and the Child, and avoiding inappropriate reliance on criminal law concepts when assessing family evidence.
Re L (Relocation: Second Appeal) [2017] EWCA Civ 2121	Not all directive, assertive or selfish behaviour will amount to 'abuse'; much depends on intention and harmful impact.	The court used the principle as a cautionary test — distinguishing ordinary, assertive or controlling parental behaviour from behaviour that is abusive in intent and harmful effect.
F v M [2021] EWFC 4	Assessment of coercive control: the significance of individual acts may be properly understood within the context of wider behaviour; it is the behaviour as a whole that may reveal the perpetrator's objective.	The court applied this approach in assessing whether discrete incidents and communications, when viewed cumulatively, established a pattern of coercive and controlling conduct by the Applicant.
Re M [2021] EWHC 3225	Vulnerability must be carefully considered: a vulnerable person may not act like someone more independent when exploited or abused; this affects assessment of behaviour and recall.	The court considered the Respondent's diagnosed vulnerabilities (PTSD and dyslexia) when assessing her evidence and the possible effects of abuse on recall and presentation.
Re A (A Child: Finding of Fact) [2022] EWCA Civ 1652	Perpetration of domestic abuse may be an expression of a person's character within a relationship; serious abuse in one form increases the likelihood of abuse in others.	The court used the observation to inform its assessment of propensity and to weigh the totality of evidence about the Applicant's conduct.
Re B‑B (Domestic Abuse: Fact‑Finding) (Rev 1) [2022] EWHC 108	The court accepted use of the term 'gaslighting' to describe insidious abuse and addressed how a vulnerable mother's recall may be affected by abuse.	The court noted and accepted that concepts like gaslighting are a recognised description of certain behaviours and considered vulnerability when assessing the Respondent's evidence.
Re EF (Abduction: Hague Convention) (Slovakia) [2023] EWHC 505 (Fam)	Controlling behaviour may be manifested in the way an abuser conducts court proceedings against the abused party.	The court treated the Applicant's litigation conduct (and attempts to frame the Respondent in particular ways) as part of the contextual evidence of controlling behaviour.
GK v PR [2021] EWFC 106	Need for a holistic overview to determine nuanced and fluid patterns; vulnerabilities must inform assessment of evidence; intentional conduct is not a prerequisite for a finding of abusive behaviour.	The court applied a holistic approach, considered vulnerabilities in assessing evidence, and accepted that abusive behaviour can be found absent express intention.
Treharne v Limb [2022] EWFC 27	Reinforces that intentional conduct is not a prerequisite for a finding of abusive behaviour.	The court relied on this principle when concluding that the Applicant's conduct could amount to abuse without a requisite showing of specific criminal intent.
Re GB (Parental Alienation: Factual Findings) [2024] EWFC 75 (B)	The term DARVO (Deflect/deny, Attack, Reverse the role of Victim and Offender) has been used in family proceedings (noting it is not yet part of binding authority).	The court referred to DARVO as a descriptive concept and later found the Applicant's case and pleadings amounted to DARVO in the sense recorded in the judgment.
Re A (Care Proceedings: Non‑Accidental Injuries: Identifying the Perpetrator) [2025] EWFC 54	Public law guidance on the pool of perpetrators: a court should identify a perpetrator where possible; the standard is the balance of probabilities; findings cannot be based on mere possibility or suspicion.	The court applied this guidance when considering who caused the Child's January 2025 burn and when determining whether the injury could be attributed to an individual on the civil standard.
Re C (Parental Alienation: Instruction of Expert) [2023] EWHC 345	The decision whether a parent has alienated a child is a question of fact for the court (not a diagnostic label to be supplied by a psychologist); focus should be on identifying specific 'alienating behaviours'.	The court adopted the approach of focussing on alleged alienating behaviours and applied Family Justice Council guidance in testing the Applicant's alienation claims.
R (Ayinde) v London Borough of Hackney & Ors [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin)	Generative AI tools (e.g. ChatGPT) are not reliable for legal research and can produce confident but incorrect assertions, including fabricated citations.	The court relied on this administrative judgment to caution against and critique the Applicant's extensive use of AI‑generated material in his statements and submissions.
Reference to "Lucas" (as noted in the judgment)	The judgment refers to keeping "Lucas" in mind when assessing credibility (the judgment records the phrase but gives no full citation within the text).	The judge noted the need to keep the authority in mind when determining credibility and made adverse credibility findings about the Applicant.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court approached the fact‑finding exercise in accordance with the well‑established family‑law principles (including those set out in Re R) and applied them to the evidence presented. The analysis below summarises the court's steps and how the legal principles were applied to the evidence before it.

Overview of evidence received

• The trial bundle exceeded 3,800 pages and included prior family and Family Law Act proceedings, local authority and police records, medical records, audio/video recordings and transcripts, an expert report from a forensic expert and contemporaneous documentary material (diaries, messages and emails).
• Oral evidence was heard from the parties, a health professional (nurse), the maternal grandmother and sister and multiple witnesses called by the Applicant (several friends and relatives). Two of the Applicant's witness statements were withdrawn and disregarded; the court ordered these to be removed from the bundle.
• An expert forensic report (on the January 2025 burn) was admitted and tested in cross‑examination and written questions. The court accepted the expert's methodology and gave weight to the expert’s forensic conclusions where consistent with other evidence.

Participation, special measures and fair trial considerations

The Respondent's diagnosed conditions (PTSD and dyslexia) led the court to direct participation measures (an intermediary and other practical assistance). The court took active steps to enable the Respondent to participate (video evidence for one party, headphones, time allowances, permitting counsel to remain in contact with the Applicant and other reasonable adjustments). The court found that, with those measures, both parties were able to participate fully and in a manner consistent with Article 6 rights.

Credibility and reliability of witnesses

The court made detailed credibility findings:

• The Respondent was assessed as a measured, clear and compelling witness. The court found no sense of exaggeration or an attempt to 'win' in her evidence and accepted the need for special measures.
• The maternal grandmother (Witness 2) and the Respondent's sister (Witness 3) were regarded as honest and credible, providing consistent contemporaneous material that supported the Respondent's account.
• The nurse (Witness 1) gave clear, independent evidence about the Child's attendance for vaccinations and the absence of a notable injury at that consultation; the court accepted the nurse’s account and contemporaneous record.
• By contrast, most of the Applicant's lay witnesses were found to be unreliable or unhelpful (the court identified Witnesses 5, 6 and 8 as examples). Many of those witnesses appeared to have been given templates or points to include; their evidence often lacked first‑hand knowledge and repeated the Applicant's procedural complaints rather than providing independent factual support.
• One of the Applicant's witnesses (Witness 7) was identified as balanced and generally helpful, but overall the court was critical of the one‑sided and skewed nature of much of the Applicant's lay evidence.
• The Applicant himself was found to be a guarded, deflective and generally unreliable witness in several respects: he frequently answered "I do not recall" to significant questions, sought to deflect difficult questions, and presented evidence largely from his own perspective while attempting to justify that perspective as being centered on the Child's welfare.

Documentary and forensic evidence

• The Respondent's contemporaneous diary entries, messages with third parties (including communications with the Applicant's former partner), and other contemporaneous material were treated as corroborating parts of her narrative and were given weight by the court.
• The Applicant's reliance on internet research and generative AI (ChatGPT) in producing exhibits and in drafting significant parts of his statements was criticised. The court referred to R (Ayinde) v London Borough of Hackney and Ors to underline the unreliability of generative AI for legal research and its tendency to produce plausible but incorrect or inapplicable material; the judge found that AI materials had become integral to the Applicant's case in a manner that caused difficulty in assessing which parts of the material were the Applicant's own evidential assertions.
• The Applicant underwent hair‑strand testing that covered a recent period; the laboratory reported that the EtG result was consistent with chronic excessive alcohol consumption for the period covered by the sample. The court took that result into account among other evidence about alcohol use.
• Dr Rouse (the forensic expert) concluded that the January 2025 injury was a second‑degree burn consistent with contact with a hot linear object (edge) of high temperature and that the likely timeframe for that injury, from the photograph, was at most a few hours and less than 12 hours prior to the photograph. The expert observed that it would be difficult to envisage a vaccination being administered to that forearm in the presence of such an injury without the practitioner being aware of it. The court accepted the expert's conclusion and integrated it with other contemporaneous evidence (medical notes and the nurse's account).

Application of legal principles to the contested allegations

The court applied the balance‑of‑probabilities standard and the warning not to speculate where evidence was absent. The judge examined the totality of the evidence rather than compartmentalising items of evidence and adhered to the established approach that a finding is either proved or not proved on the civil standard.

Key applied inferences and findings included:

• On the cluster of allegations advanced by the Applicant (asserting that the Respondent was controlling, dismissive of safety concerns, engaged in double standards or had alienating behaviour): the court found none of those allegations proved on the evidence presented. The judge concluded that the exhibits cited by the Applicant did not support abusive intent or an alienating conduct pattern as defined by guidance and case law. The court applied the Re C and Family Justice Council approach to test 'alienating behaviours' and found that the required elements were not established.
• On the Respondent's cluster of allegations (coercive and controlling behaviour by the Applicant during the relationship and post‑separation): the court concluded that, when viewed cumulatively, the evidence established a pattern of coercive and controlling conduct by the Applicant. The judge relied on contemporaneous messages, diary entries, witness testimony and the Applicant's own conduct (including litigation conduct) to conclude that the Respondent had been subjected to controlling and coercive behaviour over an extended period. The court explicitly found that the Applicant had misused parental responsibility and procedural tools to exert control and that he had, in the proceedings, weaponised the Respondent's diagnosed mental health condition.
• The court accepted that certain discrete incidents (including a threat recorded in the Respondent's account of 18 December 2021) together with the pattern of communications and the Applicant's conduct supported findings of abusive behaviour in both the relationship period and post‑separation.
• Concerning the Child's injuries: the court accepted that a July 2024 burn occurred while the Child was in the Applicant's care and was due to a lack of supervision (the Applicant did not dispute the burn but offered an account of contact with a hot grill). For the January 2025 burn, the expert evidence and contemporaneous accounts led the court to conclude that the January 2025 injury was most likely to have occurred in the Applicant's care. The court rejected alternative accounts based on a likely error in the medical notes that suggested the injury was sustained at nursery and found it unlikely that the injury was sustained during the Respondent's care given the expert's timeframe and the nurse's contemporaneous account.
• The court treated the Applicant's report to the local authority (in May 2024) as malicious on the evidence and considered the Applicant's litigation conduct (including repeated and detailed communications, attempts to control private matters and the use of procedural vehicles) as part of a pattern of controlling behaviour. The judge explicitly described the Applicant's case and pleadings as amounting to DARVO (Deflect/deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender) and recorded that the Applicant sought to recast himself as a victim while the evidence pointed the other way.

Holding and Implications

Core holding: The court made a number of specific factual findings. In summary and in the court's words:

PRIMARY RULING: The court found that the Applicant had subjected the Respondent to coercive and controlling behaviour over an extended period (findings set out in the judgment's schedule of findings). The Respondent's core allegations of coercive and controlling behaviour were, in the aggregate and on the balance of probabilities, proved in the respects described in the judgment. Conversely, the court did not find the Applicant's allegations (as particularised in his schedule) proved on the balance of probabilities.

The court also found that the Child's January 2025 burn was most likely sustained while the Child was in the Applicant's care and that the Applicant had failed to seek medical treatment for that injury in an appropriate manner. The July 2024 burn was accepted as having occurred in the Applicant's care and as a product of inadequate supervision.

Direct consequences for the parties

• The non‑molestation order in place was extended by the judge until the next hearing (the judgment records that extension as a direct consequence of the findings).
• The court recorded multiple ancillary findings adverse to the Applicant's credibility and conduct (including findings about the Applicant's litigation conduct, his use of AI in drafting evidence, the unreliable nature of several witnesses called for him, and the withdrawal and removal of two witness statements from the bundle).
• The court directed practical case‑management steps (including a direction that the Applicant must not email the judge directly and that any such emails will not be read), and made further directions in relation to participation measures at trial which are noted in the judgment.
• The factual findings will be brought forward to any subsequent welfare hearing and will inform the court's future welfare evaluation regarding residence, contact and safeguarding arrangements for the Child.

Broader legal implications

The judgment emphasises established principles for family fact‑finding (balance of probabilities, assessment of patterns of behaviour, the need to consider vulnerability and the dangers of speculation). The judge expressly stated that "nothing in this judgment is to be taken as any form of precedent." The decision therefore records detailed factual findings specific to the family before the court and applies existing appellate guidance rather than purporting to create new legal precedent.

Summary of orders and directions recorded in the judgment

• The judgment records a finding in favour of the Respondent on core allegations of controlling and coercive behaviour and records multiple specified factual findings (set out in the judgment's schedule of findings).
• The court extended the non‑molestation order until the next hearing and made a direction that the Applicant is not to email the judge directly (any direct email will not be read).
• Two witness statements that the Applicant withdrew were disregarded and ordered removed from the bundle.

This anonymized summary is confined to the matters recorded in the judgment and does not add or infer material not contained in the published text. The full judgment contains a detailed schedule of findings and paragraph references for the factual and evaluative conclusions summarized here.