PR v NY & Ors

In family fact-finding proceedings, the court should identify and determine the overarching issues relevant to the child’s welfare, rather than attempt to resolve every subsidiary allegation. Domestic abuse may comprise patterns of coercive, controlling, physical or emotional behaviour. Conduct need not amount to a criminal offence, or satisfy the statutory definition of domestic abuse, to remain relevant to welfare decision-making. The court must evaluate the evidence panoramically, considering the parties’ credibility, consistency, documentary material, inherent probabilities and the totality of the evidence. Findings may be made on the balance of probabilities. A parent’s love for a child does not prevent that parent from causing significant harm. Established abuse, abduction and a continuing risk of manipulation may justify professionally supervised contact.

The applicant mother commenced wardship proceedings after the respondent father abducted the parties’ three children from England to Algeria. The children remained there for an extended period, although two subsequently returned to England with the mother. The father remained in Algeria with the third child.

The court converted a proposed jurisdictional hearing concerning forum non conveniens into a fact-finding hearing concerning allegations of domestic abuse, coercive and controlling behaviour, physical and emotional abuse, abduction and attempted re-abduction. The central issues were which allegations were necessary and proportionate to determine, whether the alleged behaviour was established on the balance of probabilities, and its implications for the children’s future welfare and contact arrangements.

1. The court confined the enquiry to the relationship between the parties, selected allegations of abuse and the abductions. This approach reflected the need to address the overarching issues relevant to welfare and the guidance in Re H-N and K-v-K.

2. The court adopted a broad, panoramic assessment. It considered the parties’ oral and written evidence, consistency over time, documentary and other supporting evidence, inherent probabilities, inferences and credibility. The court warned against compartmentalising evidence or applying assumptions about how a victim of domestic abuse should behave.

3. The mother’s allegations were established on the balance of probabilities. The father had subjected her to coercive and controlling behaviour, verbal abuse, threats and physical abuse. He had also subjected the children to emotional and physical abuse, including excessive chastisement. His abduction of the children caused significant harm, notwithstanding his professed love for them.

4. Conduct could remain relevant to welfare even if it was not criminal or did not fall within the definition of domestic abuse. The court was concerned with the substance and impact of the behaviour, including whether it affected the children or the other parent and the formulation of appropriate welfare orders.

5. The father’s abduction history, manipulation of the mother, children and courts, and refusal to acknowledge his behaviour created a very significant continuing abduction risk. No form of contact was considered safe unless professionally supervised, whether direct or indirect. Further consideration was required concerning any future relationship between the children and the father.

The mother’s application for fact-finding relief succeeded in substance, with the important allegations established.

First-instance fact-finding judgment in wardship proceedings. No appellate history is stated in the judgment.