GB (Parental Alienation: Factual Findings), Re
[2024] EWFC 75 (B)
DG v KB
21 September 2023
[2023] EWFC 180 (B)
Family Court
A mom accused her ex of abuse, including rape. After a long trial, the judge believed the mom. The judge said the dad was abusive, including raping the mom, and that his actions negatively affected their child. The judge also talked about how courts should handle these cases better in the future.
Key Facts
- •DG applied for a Section 8 order for contact with his son, EMP, in April 2019.
- •KB alleges DG was abusive towards her and EMP, including an allegation of rape in 2017.
- •DG denies KB's allegations and claims KB has engaged in behaviours that frustrated his relationship with EMP.
- •The case involved a significant number of allegations and a lengthy procedural history.
- •EMP's views regarding contact with his father were initially positive but became increasingly negative over time due to several factors.
- •The court heard evidence from various witnesses, including EMP's mother (KB), father (DG), and a friend who supervised some contact (HK).
- •The court considered evidence of a significant power imbalance in the parental relationship.
- •The court considered allegations of coercive control and financial abuse.
Legal Principles
Burden of proof lies with the party asserting the fact, to the civil standard (balance of probabilities).
None explicitly stated, but derived from general principles of civil procedure.
Court considers patterns of behavior, not isolated incidents, in assessing coercive and controlling behavior.
Practice Direction 12J and case law cited in the judgment.
Inherent probabilities assist but do not change the legal standard of proof.
R v Lucas [1998] QB 720 and AB v CD & Anor [2021] EWHC 819 (Fam).
Paramount consideration in child arrangement orders is the child's welfare.
Section 1 of the Children Act 1989
Presumption of parental involvement unless the contrary is shown.
Sections 1(2A) and 1(2B) of the Children Act 1989.
Outcomes
The court dismissed DG's enforcement application based on the order of September 11, 2020.
The findings of fact rendered the enforcement application unsustainable.
The court found that DG had raped KB in March 2017.
The court weighed the evidence, including inconsistencies in KB's accounts and the lack of corroborating evidence, alongside evidence of DG's behavior and the overall power imbalance in the relationship. Despite acknowledging the complexities of proving such an allegation, the judge found KB's testimony, demeanor, and overall consistency credible. The court considered the context of the broader abusive pattern of behavior.
The court found that DG had engaged in coercive control and other abusive behaviours towards KB.
The court considered a pattern of behaviour, including DG's controlling social media posts, derogatory comments, and attempts to manipulate financial support for EMP. This, along with the finding of rape, formed the basis for the finding of coercive control.