Re A (A Child) [2023] EWFC 198, Dr Charlotte Proudman was instructed by Wilsons Solicitors LLP on behalf of the mother.
The parties, married in 2016, experienced a deteriorating relationship leading to the father seeking divorce in December 2021. After a non-molestation order was agreed upon in February 2022, both parents filed separate applications for child arrangement orders in April and June 2022, respectively, and the court scheduled a fact-finding hearing to address the parties’ allegations.
The court, acknowledging the need to address all allegations, directed a 5-day fact-finding hearing involving vulnerable parties. In May 2023, the mother applied for a fresh non-molestation order and occupation order, later consolidated with the Children Act application, which included permission for the mother to submit further statements on sexual abuse and use CCTV evidence. [1.1-1.8]
The mother’s allegations included:
Allegations of emotional and/or psychological abuse, financial abuse, physical abuse such as threatening violence and attempting assault, sexual abuse, incidents of intimidation, threatening harm to the mother, child, and maternal grandparents, financial control, trespassing and stalking at the former matrimonial home, theft, and instances of coercive sexual behaviour, including unwanted advances and discussing intimate details with others. [2.3- 2.4]
The father’s allegations against the mother were:
“Psychological abuse or control: Tracking F, calling him “lazy”, “phone addict”, “good for nothing”, and a “killer” and “rapist”, reporting him to police
Emotional abuse: Being unhappy with F’s domestic contributions; not engaging in sex after 2018 aside from when trying to conceive, not caring about F’s bout of Covid or after-effects
Financial abuse: Demanding that F share his bank statements and questioning transactions…” [2.5]
The judge, in response to M’s allegations of sexual abuse, found four of her allegations and noted F’s belief he was entitled to sex, stating, “…I reach the same conclusion in relation to (4) and (5). They are of a piece with (2) and consistent with F’s apparent attitude towards sex and the belief that he was entitled to sex as highlighted by his assertion that M’s abstention from sex was controlling behaviour.” [8.7]
The Judgment:
The court found that F engaged in non-consensual and coercive sexual acts with M, including penetration against her expressed wishes, biting during what was initially consensual sex but refusing to stop penetration after she said “no”, attempting non-consensual anal sex, and persisting with vaginal sex despite her objections.
The judge stated, “It is hard to conceive of any circumstances in which abstaining from sexual relations could amount to controlling behaviour. There was certainly none here.” [10.1, point 2]
The court rejected the notion that the mother sought to control the father’s behavior in an abusive manner, considering expressions of frustration and dissatisfaction as not indicative of control. While the father’s behaviour was not initially coercive, his detachment from domestic responsibilities became a source of frustration and stress for the mother as the relationship deteriorated. [10; 10.1: 1-24]
The court considered that facing an overbearing presence from M’s father (MGF) and grappling with resentment, F attempted to persuade M to move into rented accommodation due to strained relationships when they lived with M’s parents. F’s increasing distance, immaturity in marriage, and a strained sexual relationship led to a contemplation of ending the relationship, causing heated arguments where F expressed anger without intending harm. On September 13, 2021, F’s actions were aimed at convincing M to leave her parents’ home, expressing concern for the well-being of their child rather than posing a threat. [10; 10.1: 1-6]
On September 15, 2021, F, in an attempt to persuade M to move out, made a manipulative and threatening statement about harming her parents, causing understandable fear. On September 22, during an argument, F used explicit language in front of their child and threw a water bottle at M, leading to a confrontation with MGF. F also lost his temper in a public argument with R on November 13, 2021, resulting in slamming her car door in anger, causing fear and distress to their child. [10; 10.1: 7-12]
On December 4, 2021, F, in a bad temper, argued with M while driving but didn’t intend to harm them. On December 5, F threatened M, expressing potential harm, but she didn’t believe it was genuine. There was no financial control. F sought to exclude M from the house post-separation, not considered abusive, and there’s no evidence of theft. Some driving incidents were noted but without intent to harass or intimidate. [10; 10.1: 13-19]
The court did not find evidence of F engaging with prostitutes during the relationship, but it noted his sexual activity in a bed where their child had previously slept after the breakup. [10; 10.1: 20-24]
Read the full judgment at:
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2023/198
Related barristers: Dr Charlotte Proudman
Related practice areas: Family
