In the case of MS v HW & Anor [2025] EWFC 267, Dr Charlotte Proudman represented the mother (“HW”) in proceedings regarding arrangements for her daughter, “A,” following her separation from the father (“MS”) in 2019. The matter was before Deputy High Court Judge Lane for a fact-finding hearing after earlier contact orders and prolonged litigation regarding enforcement and variations of contact [§1–7].
This was an extraordinary case. The original fact-finding hearing was compromised because both parents agreed to a list of findings, which compromised the need for a contested hearing. The ‘facts accepted’ were not of such significance that contact between the father and the child could not take place, pursuant to PD12J. The child was reluctant to attend contact, and the father accused the mother of ‘parental alienation.’ The mother sought for the facts reached by agreement to be set aside and for there to be a fresh fact-finding hearing, which was allowed by consent.
The mother’s case centred on allegations of domestic abuse, coercive and controlling behaviour, sexual intimidation, and financial control throughout the relationship and post-separation [p.20–87]. The father sought expanded contact and accused the mother of parental alienation [§192-105].
Having reviewed oral and documentary evidence, video and audio recordings, the court found substantial elements of the mother’s case proved. It accepted HW’s account of specific incidents of abuse – including verbal degradation, physical violence, psychological manipulation, ‘professional grooming,’ and threats – explicitly highlighting the weight of Dr Proudman’s submissions regarding DARVO tactics, gaslighting, and the weaponisation of mental health perpetrated by the father [§28, 76, 82, 84].
No findings of parental alienation were made against the mother: the child’s reluctance to engage in contact could not be attributed solely to HW’s behaviour [§109]. The father’s allegations of counter-abuse and coercive control were rejected [§103].
The mother sought a costs order against the father, which was partly allowed, see: MS v HW & Anor (Costs) [2025] EWFC 268.
At the final hearing, the judge ordered no direct contact between the child and the father, for the father’s parental responsibility to be restricted, a s91(14) order and further protective measures. This was a real turnaround from the starting point when Dr Proudman had initially accepted the case.
The case was first reported following an appeal brought by journalist, Ms Louise Tickle, which was successful. Read more here, Louise Tickle v Father & Ors [2023] EWHC 2446 (Fam).
Related barristers: Dr Charlotte Proudman
Related practice areas: Family
