LKM v NPM

In domestic-abuse fact-finding proceedings, the court should identify and determine only allegations that are relevant, necessary and proportionate to the child-welfare decision. The assessment should focus on the overarching pattern and relationship, while retaining sufficient examination of individual incidents to establish that pattern.

Evidence must be evaluated on a balance of probabilities through a broad, non-compartmentalised assessment of the whole evidential picture. Findings must be based on evidence and proper inferences, not speculation. Behaviour may remain relevant to welfare even if it does not amount to criminal conduct or fall within the definition of domestic abuse. Credibility, consistency, documentary support, inherent probability, memory limitations and the context of alleged abuse must all be considered.

The father applied for a child arrangements order concerning the parties’ seven-year-old twin sons. The mother made numerous allegations of domestic abuse, including physical and verbal abuse, coercive or controlling behaviour, financial abuse and obsessive behaviour. The father alleged parental alienation, hostility and false allegations by the mother and her family.

Case management reduced the allegations to a four-day fact-finding hearing. The central issues were the nature of the parties’ relationship, whether the father had behaved abusively towards the mother and children, and whether the mother had undermined the children’s relationship with their father.

1. Scope and case management. The court applied the principles in Practice Direction 12J, the May 2022 domestic-abuse fact-finding guidance and the relevant practice guidance. Only allegations relevant and necessary to the children’s future welfare required determination. The court properly focused on the relationship and overarching patterns rather than every subsidiary incident.
2. Evaluation of evidence. Findings had to be based on evidence and proper inferences, assessed on the balance of probabilities. The evidence required a broad panoramic and non-compartmentalised evaluation. The court considered the parties’ credibility, internal and external consistency, contemporary documents, inherent probability, demeanour, memory limitations and the totality of the evidence. A lie about one matter did not establish that all other evidence was false. The court also avoided assumptions about how a victim of domestic abuse should behave or present.
3. Meaning and relevance of abuse. Behaviour could be emotionally abusive and relevant to welfare without amounting to coercive or controlling behaviour, domestic abuse as defined in Practice Direction 12J, or criminal conduct. The substance, intention, context and impact of behaviour had to be considered holistically.
4. Application. The mother’s evidence was broadly reliable and was supported by diaries, the father’s account to Dr Oppedijk, other evidence and the children’s interviews. The father’s evidence was unreliable unless corroborated. The mother proved the essential allegations, except sexual abuse. The father failed to prove parental alienation or improper hostility.
5. The relationship was permeated by emotional abuse. The father had sometimes behaved physically and emotionally abusively towards the children and had used physical force against the mother on at least one occasion. He remained capable of good parenting, but until he addressed the identified character flaw he posed a risk of emotional and limited physical harm outside supervised or supported contact.