F v M, 2021 WL 00136821 (2021)

For educational use only

FvM

Positive/Neutral Judicial Consideration

Court
Family Court

Judgment Date
15 January 2021

Where Reported
[2021] EWFC 4
[2021] 1 WLUK 112
Judgment

Subject
Family law

Other related subjects

Civil evidence

Keywords
Admissibility; Children; Controlling or coercive behaviour; Domestic violence and abuse; Findings of fact;
Parental contact; Similar fact evidence

Judge
Hayden J

Counsel
For the applicant: Adrian Barnett-Thoung-Holland.
For the respondent: Maggie Jones.

Solicitor
© 2022 Thomson Reuters. 1
F v M, 2021 WL 00136821 (2021)

For the applicant: Dawson Cornwell.

For the respondent: Duncan Lewis Solicitors.

Case Digest
Summary
The court reiterated what was required in understanding and identifying coercive and controlling
behaviour and recognising in particular its insidious scope and manner. Although often difficult
for professionals to identify, there would frequently be clues, hints, indicators and triggers in
what people reported that might stimulate wider forensic curiosity rather than only superficial
investigation.

Abstract
The court was required to make findings of fact following the application of a father (F) for
contact with his two children, after their mother (M) alleged that he had subjected her to
domestic abuse.

F and M had met at university in late 2013, aged 19 and 18 respectively. F was Muslim and in
the UK on a student visa; M was British and from a Hindu family. According to M, within a
couple of weeks, F began discussing marriage and isolating her from her friends and family.
When she became pregnant in February 2014, her parents took her to a pregnancy advice clinic,
prompting F to accuse them of being honour-based killers who were trying to force her to have a
termination. M stated that F then coerced her into quitting university, after which they moved
house many times to prevent her parents from locating them. After the child was born, M alleged
that F frequently locked them indoors, neglected the child, controlled their food, sold M’s things
and took her savings. She further claimed that he demanded they have a second child and raped
her multiple times. While pregnant with their second child, she managed to get in touch with her
parents and left F in September 2017. A month later, F began a relationship with a woman in her
forties (J) and moved in with her and her two young sons. Within a few weeks, she resigned
from her teaching career and sold her car. In 2018 she moved with F and her sons to Wales
without letting anyone know. The boys’ new school contacted their father (T), who succeeded in
having the boys transferred to his care in December 2018. T’s evidence was that the boys had
been physically neglected and emotionally traumatised by F.

Held
Findings of fact made.
© 2022 Thomson Reuters. 2
F v M, 2021 WL 00136821 (2021)

F’s relationship with M - M’s evidence established a compelling and authentic paradigm of
abuse by F through coercive and controlling behaviour. Her evidence was supported and
strengthened by the wider evidence of her parents, friends, university acquaintances, tutors and
the university chaplain. The court was satisfied that:

• F raped M, probably on more than one occasion.

• He alienated M from her friends and family. Further, he was determined to erode her
morale and self-esteem and ensure that she quit her university course.
• He took away all of M’s means of communication.
• He controlled M’s food.
• He restricted M’s physical movement.
• He exploited M financially by taking her savings and by using her name to run up
debts.
• He forced her into a second pregnancy.
• He indulged in gratuitous emotional torture of M’s parents. He used M to threaten,
intimidate and frighten them.
• He made entirely groundless accusations that M’s parents were prejudiced and hostile
to him as a Muslim, that they had tried to force M to terminate her first pregnancy,
and that M was at risk of honour-based violence. He cast himself as a victim, and it
was concerning that that had been tacitly accepted by the police and others without a
more sceptical assessment of his credibility.

It followed that the court was satisfied that between December 2013 and September 2017, F
subjected M to a brutalising, dehumanising regime, which subjugated her and was profoundly
corrosive of her autonomy. If necessary, it would also have made those findings to the criminal
standard of proof (see paras 19, 29-31, 43, 45-59, 64, 110-111 of judgment).

Similar fact evidence: F’s relationship with J - The evidence concerning F’s relationship with J
was relevant and admissible. There were striking parallels between F’s relationships with M and
J. When the two relationships were compared, the force of F’s abuse came into greater focus,
and the comparison served to better illustrate the corrosive and debilitating impact of that abuse.
Like M, J was alienated from her family and friends. The evidence showed that F was directly
© 2022 Thomson Reuters. 3
F v M, 2021 WL 00136821 (2021)

involved in engineering her job resignation, as he had been in M quitting university. In both
cases, there was real professional concern that each woman had made the decision reluctantly
and under duress. J had acted completely out of character in uprooting her children, disappearing
without trace and losing sight of their best welfare interests. When J’s father had attempted to
see her, F had manipulated events to portray him as an aggressor and had persuaded J to take out
a non-molestation order against him. That had similar tones to his demonisation of M’s parents
(paras 72-81).

Conclusion as to F’s character- F was profoundly dangerous to women he identified as

vulnerable, and he was dangerous to children. The risks he presented to women were not only to
their emotional and physical well-being but also to their sexual safety. Further, he clearly had the
capacity to cause much harm and distress to those who crossed him more generally, particularly
those within the sphere of the women he controlled (para.101).

Identifying coercive and controlling behaviour - Understanding and identifying coercive and
controlling behaviour required an evaluation of a pattern of behaviour in which the significance
of isolated incidents could only truly be understood in the context of a much wider picture. The
statutory guidance published pursuant to the Serious Crime Act 2015 Pt 5 s.77(1) identified
paradigm behaviours, and it was necessary to be vigilant for those, A County Council v LW
[2020] EWCOP 50, [2020] 4 W.L.R. 164, [2020] 7 WLUK 673 applied. It was also helpful to
consider the guidance and assistance in the FPR PD 12J and s.76 of the 2015 Act. In assessing
evidence of coercive and controlling behaviour, it was necessary to factor in a recognition of the
behaviour’s insidious scope and manner. It was often difficult for professionals to identify the
behaviour, but there would frequently be clues, hints, indicators and triggers in what people
reported that might stimulate wider forensic curiosity and investigations of greater subtlety and
nuance. Much of the evidence in the instant case showed how the families, friends, work
colleagues and neighbours knew what was happening to M and J from an early stage. Broader
professional education on the scope and ambit of coercive and controlling behaviour was likely
to generate greater alertness to abuse of that type. Communication and sharing of information
between different police forces should be regarded as an imperative (paras 60-61, 102-105, 108-
112).

© 2022 Thomson Reuters. 4