We acted for Mrs B. Mrs B had been married to Mr B for 9 years and there were two children of the marriage, 4 and 7 respectively at the time of instruction.
Mrs B had some significant welfare concerns regarding Mr B’s conduct, specifically concerns that she was in a coercive and controlling relationship where the children were being regularly exposed to Mr B’s allegations against her. We advised Mrs B that given the issues arising and dynamic between the parties, mediation would not be appropriate, and it would be necessary to issue a Court application.
Mrs B was advised to curtail contact as much as possible to at least supervised time, given the nature of her concerns about Mr B but her concern about causing further issues between the parties if she were to amend the contact arrangements. Mrs B was advised that if she did not take pre-emptive steps, the Court would be likely to enquire why contact remained as the status quo if she deemed that there was risk.
We wrote to Mr B and confirmed that we were instructed and confirmed the new position regarding contact, to include supervision at all times. We informed Mr B that there are welfare concerns ongoing in respect of the children, and to confirm his position. Mr B confirmed that he would seek nothing less than equal-time, shared-care, and informed us of his concerns about Mrs B’s affairs. The tone and nature of these emails were concerning and we therefore spoke to Mrs B further to develop a timeline of events.
We obtained from Mrs B concerning information about the conduct she has been exposed to. This included recording with home cameras that she did not know were present, recording in the children’s rooms, a tracker being placed on her car, a parenting app controlling her phone apps and persistent calls to her previous workplace that resulted in her dismissal. We advised Mrs B to inform the police immediately and to make an application to the Court.
The Court listed a Fact-Finding Hearing to deal with the allegations raised. Mr B, now represented, continued to deny all allegations and persisted that this was Mrs B’s way of deflecting an affair. Mrs B required significant reassurance not to put contact back as it was before, and not to withdraw her allegations, on the basis of her anxiety.
The Court made all findings against Mr B save for one, a total of nine findings made. The Court went further to say that Mr B’s lack of insight and blame towards Mrs B was ‘staggering’ and ‘borderline delusional’. The Court held contact at the status quo pending a welfare assessment. Once a Section 7 report had been prepared by CAFCASS, they maintained that Mr B was unwilling to accept his conduct and continued to blame Mrs B, as well as sharing his views regarding the Court’s ‘bias against women’. This lack of insight led to CAFCASS being unable to recommend a change in the status quo save for the undertaking of a Domestic Abuse Course (DAPP).
The proceedings concluded with the original contact we had imposed, being upheld, with supervision at all times and specifications as to where overnight contact took place given the concerns about Mr B’s ability to denigrate Mrs B in front of the children. It later transpired that as a result of Mrs B informing the police, a trial was held and Mr B was convicted of coercive and controlling behaviour.
Mr B has continued to fail to engage with the DAPP programme, which means that contact has remained as we had advised Mrs B to reduce this. Mrs B was very surprised that she had been heard and that contact had been amended accordingly. Mrs B was satisfied that the children were being safeguarded from Mr B’s emotions and outbursts with supervision at all times, potentially for the entirety of the children’s upbringing as long as Mr B does not engage with a course. Mrs B was delighted with the outcome and thanked us for promptly advising on the actions she needed to take with contact when she was frightened to take any steps without assistance.
