Re C (A Child) (Appeal: Fact-finding: Domestic Abuse) [2025] EWHC 1648 (Fam)
In this appeal judgment, the central issue was whether the trial judge had mischaracterised findings of fact regarding the father’s abusive behaviour toward the mother, particularly in the context of domestic abuse definitions under PD12J and the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 [72, 84]. The mother did not seek to reopen dismissed allegations of sexual abuse [3] but argued that the judge had failed to adequately reflect the gravity and pattern of the father’s conduct, both in his reasoning and in the recitals to his order.
“Standing back and looking at the findings, it is plain that the judge reached the conclusion that on repeated occasions the father had behaved towards the mother and others in a way that was highly inappropriate. Although some of the father’s behaviour fell short of attracting a finding of abuse, findings instead being made that he was ‘confrontational and oppositional’ or ‘stubborn and selfish’, the judge was clear that on other occasions he had indeed behaved abusively. He made specific findings against the father as ‘examples’ of his abusive behaviour. In my judgement, the fact that this abusive behaviour occurred against a background involving other inappropriate behaviour made it more serious. Although the judge did not use the expression ‘pattern of abuse’, based upon his findings it could not be said that this was a case involving one or two isolated incidents. The fact that some of his behaviour occurred in front of C was also, in my view, a serious matter, demonstrating as it did the father’s inability to restrain his behaviour in front of his daughter.” [84]
Recitals 3 and 4 were found to be internally inconsistent and inaccurate. Recital 3(c) wrongly stated that no findings had been made on the mother’s 26 allegations, despite findings of controlling and abusive behaviour [37-39, 80].
The appellate judge agreed that the recitals did not accurately represent the underlying findings and allowed the appeal solely on that ground, ordering their deletion without replacement [76, 81, 109]. However, the court declined to interfere with the trial judge’s broader evaluative conclusions, emphasising the deference owed to judges who hear oral evidence [82]. While accepting that the judge’s language, such as “limited controlling behaviour,” may have downplayed the seriousness of the conduct, the appellate court found that the judge had nonetheless identified repeated instances of abusive behaviour and properly contextualised them within the overall evidence [83-85].
Although the judge did not explicitly label the behaviour as coercive, the appellate court acknowledged that the findings showed more than isolated incidents and included conduct witnessed by the child, C [84]. In the end, the appeal was partially allowed to the extent that the inaccurate recitals were removed from the order [109].
Read the full judgment here.
Related barristers: Dr Charlotte Proudman
Related practice areas: Family
