MG v SN
[2024] EWFC 202 (B)
A v B
30 April 2024
[2024] EWFC 124 (B)
Family Court
Mom and Dad fought a lot, and Mom accused Dad of abuse. The judge didn't believe Mom's story completely because she wasn't always truthful and there wasn't enough proof. Dad's accusations against Mom weren't proven either. The judge decided that Dad can't see the kids yet until there's a proper assessment to make sure they are safe.
Key Facts
- •The case concerns three children, C (8), D (7), and E (4).
- •The mother (A) applied for a 'lives with' order, no-contact order, prohibited steps order, and a non-molestation order against the father (B).
- •The father last saw the children in December 2021.
- •The hearing involved allegations of controlling and coercive behaviour, violence, financial abuse, and sexual abuse by the father, and allegations of abuse by the mother and her family towards the children.
- •The mother's allegations of financial abuse and the sexual abuse allegations were not pursued.
- •The court had access to video evidence and various social services assessments.
- •The mother was represented by Ms Ellison, and the father by Mr Iqbal.
Legal Principles
In Family Court, the person making an allegation must prove it on the balance of probabilities.
Family Court case law
Findings of Fact must be based on evidence and inferences, not suspicion or speculation.
Family Court case law
A Lucas direction: lying about one thing doesn't mean lying about everything else.
R v Lucas [1981] QB 720
Assessment of witness demeanour can be unreliable.
Family Court case law
Avoid stereotypical images of victims or perpetrators.
Family Court case law
Domestic abuse includes controlling, coercive, or threatening behaviour, violence, or abuse.
Domestic Abuse Act 2021, Family Procedure Rules Practice Direction 12J
Non-molestation orders are considered under Part IV of the Family Law Act 1996.
Family Law Act 1996, Part IV
Three criteria for granting a non-molestation order: evidence of molestation; applicant or child needs protection; order needed to control respondent's behaviour.
Family Law Act 1996, Part IV
Outcomes
The mother's application for a non-molestation order was dismissed.
The court found no evidence of post-separation molestation or harassment, and the mother's concerns related to historical events within the marriage.
Most of the mother's allegations against the father were not proven.
The court found the mother to be an inconsistent witness with unreliable evidence, and lacked corroboration for many claims. The video evidence showed the mother behaving abusively.
The father's allegation of abuse by the mother towards the children was not proven.
The court found that while the children were exposed to parental conflict, there was insufficient evidence to support the allegation of direct abuse.
The prohibited steps order remains in force pending further assessment.
Further assessment is required to determine safe reintroduction of the father to the children.