Court Finds Mother Proved Domestic Abuse Allegations, Upholding Child Arrangements Order In M v F Case

Citation: [2024] EWFC 55 (B)
Judgment on


In the matter of M v F [2024] EWFC 55 (B), Her Honour Judge Owens presided over a Fact-Finding hearing in allegations arising between two parents (referred to as ‘M’ and ‘F’) over the welfare of their child, ‘A’. This hearing was conducted under the jurisdiction of the Family Court, sitting at Oxford. The primary focus of the hearing was to assess allegations of domestic abuse and the implications for the child arrangements order sought by M, the applicant.

Key Facts

The facts of the case center around the two parents of a child ‘A’, born in 2020. M and F met abroad in 2010, moved to the UK in 2016, married in 2019, and subsequently separated in June 2022, with divorce proceedings following in July 2022. M applied for a Child Arrangements Order, and on the basis of the allegations presented by M, Her Honour Judge Owens deemed a Fact-Finding hearing necessary. The allegations pertained to physical, emotional, and psychological abuse towards M and emotional abuse towards A. F alleged that M prevented him from having a relationship with A, possibly implicating alienating behaviors.

The judge applied several core legal principles in the analysis and judgment of the case:

  1. Standard of Proof: It was underscored that the burden of proof, particularly in civil proceedings as in Re B (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) [2008], is on a ‘balance of probabilities.’ This held regardless of the seriousness of the allegations.

  2. Evaluation of Evidence: Drawing from Re A (A child) (Fact finding hearing: Speculation) [2011], evidence must not be speculative, but should rather be based on substance. The evidence was also considered as a whole rather than in isolation, as was highlighted in cases like Re T [2004].

  3. Domestic Abuse: PD12J and the principles from Re H-N and others [2021] provided guidance on the definition and significance of domestic abuse allegations. The judgment outlined that not every poor behavior constitutes abuse – the focus is on behavior that either causes or risks causing harm.

  4. Parental Alienation: F’s allegations of parental alienation were addressed under the framework established in Re S (Parental Alienation: Cult) [2020] and Re C [2023]. The court must ascertain three elements to conclude alienating behaviors exist, focusing on the child’s resistance to a parent, its justifiability, and the potential manipulation by the other parent.

  5. Demeanor of Witnesses: The judge considered the demeanor and witness testimony but did so cautiously, recognizing that demeanor can be misleading as per R v Lucas [1981].

  6. Filing of Evidence: F’s failure to comply with the procedural necessities for filing evidence, as required by the Family Procedure Rules, was considered in determining the admissibility of his submissions.


Judge Owens concluded that M had successfully proved her allegations against F by a balance of probabilities, whereas F failed to substantiate his counter-allegations against M. The evidence demonstrated F’s unwillingness to engage with the court process properly, and his continued abusive behavior towards M and A. On the other hand, F’s assertion that M engaged in alienating behaviors lacked evidential support, and the conduct of M throughout the hearing was found to be focused on A’s best interests.


The court’s analysis in M v F [2024] EWFC 55 (B) demonstrates the application of established legal principles regarding the standard of proof, the evaluation of evidence, and the definitions of domestic abuse and parental alienation. The judgment emphasizes the importance of substantiated evidence, the distinction between poor behavior and abusive conduct, and the implications of each for child welfare proceedings. The outcome underlines an acknowledgment of the difficulties inherent in such sensitive family law matters, reaffirming the judicial commitment to the welfare of the child as the paramount concern.

Related Summaries