Following the judgment, Dr Charlotte Proudman said: “The trajectory of this case shows the importance of family courts establishing the facts early on when there are serious cross allegations of rape and parental alienation – or the courts can get it badly wrong, leaving survivors and children at risk of harm.”
Dr Charlotte Proudman represented the respondent mother, KB, at an initial appeal hearing before Mrs Justice Morgan who found the trial judge was wrong in failing to ensure participation directions (i.e. special measures) such as a screen to prevent her from seeing her alleged rapist (see Part 3A and PD3AA FPR 2010). The trial judge also fell into error in failing to consider mother’s allegations of rape and wider patterns of abuse. The trial judge had concluded that there were no safeguarding concerns, as supported by the children’s guardian from Cafcass and the child’s father. The judgment was set aside.
Dr Charlotte Proudman represented the mother at a retrial before His Honour Judge Clive Baker. KB alleged abuse by the father, DG, towards herself and, to an extent, their child, EMP (5a). Allegations include patterns of coercive and controlling behaviour and one allegation of rape (5a). The father denied most of the allegations, including that of rape, and asserted KB engaged in parental alienation (5b). The Judge first addressed issues directly related to EMP (28), beginning by hearing evidence given by HK, a party who had supervised contact between EMP and DG (29), which did not contradict anything the parents’ had stated about EMP (34). Further, there was dispute on DG’s behaviour towards EMP (35-37), with DG being unusually insensitive to the consequences of his actions on others (46). It was determined and undisputed that EMP did not enjoy contact with his father, and thus, contact was suspended at the conclusion of the evidence (56). After this review, the Judge stated in regard to DB’s behaviour towards EMP, “It is difficult, for example, to characterise a parent pulling the hairs out of a child’s legs as anything other than objectively abusive behaviour, even if it is abuse at the lower end of the spectrum” (73).
There was an examination of financial responsibility issues, as they were included by KB as evidence for coercive behaviour (77,78), where the Judge found DG did not meet his reasonable and affordable duties (93); in this matter, the Judge concluded, “A major factor in doing so has been as a means of exerting pressure on the mother to agree to the nature and level of contact with EMP that he wished to have (266b). The Judge examined issues related to KB and DB’s relationship, noting, “KB makes a number of allegations about DG’s behaviour during their relationship which she asserts forms a pattern of behaviour that can lead to a conclusion that DG exercised coercive control of her” (102). He did not find DG’s request for her to have an abortion (109) nor DG’s request to be on the birth certificate to contribute to the indication that he was abusive (116). Concerning issues after their relationship ended, the Judge found it likely that DG used derogatory terms towards KB, not in jest (134), and the Judge emphasised “DG’s propensity to use social media as some sort of battle ground, irrespective of the effect of doing so on KB and EMP, is well demonstrated” (151) and later, in conclusion, determined this to have compounded the mother’s trauma (266f). Further, several actions were outlined, which were not factually disputed, but the Judge wished to examine if they fell under an abusive pattern of behaviour (173). In regard to the allegation of rape, the Judge, in weighing the probabilities, found it to be true (236, 264, 266e).
The court will, at a later point, determine two following issues: “a. What Child Arrangements Order should be made pursuant to the father’s application; and b. The mother’s application to change the child’s surname (a specific issue order application)” (268).
HHJ Baker’s judgment here.
Mrs Justice Morgan’s appeal judgment here.
Long read article here.
Guardian report here.
Related barristers: Dr Charlotte Proudman
Related practice areas: Family
