F v M

A fact-finding hearing may be inquisitorial or investigative, but must protect all participants. The court’s central task is to establish the truth. Alleged coercive or controlling behaviour must be assessed in its wider context. An isolated act does not establish controlling behaviour without evidence of a relevant pattern, purpose and effect. Ordinary relationship conduct, including preferences about appearance, shared finances, encouragement of exercise and negotiation of family space, may be consistent with a healthy relationship. The court must distinguish abuse aimed at subordination or dependence from protective conduct and culturally different expectations.

The father applied under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court concerning his 13-month-old son. Both parents made serious allegations against the other, including allegations of coercive and controlling behaviour, physical violence and manipulation by extended family members.

The central issues were whether the father had engaged in coercive or controlling behaviour or physical violence, and how the parties’ competing accounts should be evaluated in the context of their relationship, family circumstances and the mother’s vulnerability.

1. A fact-finding hearing may be inquisitorial or investigative, but must protect all involved. The court’s concern is to establish the truth.
2. Under Rule 3A.2A of the Family Procedure Rules 2010, alleged domestic abuse may diminish the quality of evidence and participation. The court must consider whether participation directions are necessary. Special measures were appropriate for the mother.
3. The court followed its approach in F v M [2021] EWFC 4. Alleged coercive or controlling behaviour must be assessed as a pattern within the wider evidential context. Coercive behaviour may include assault, threats, humiliation and intimidation. Controlling behaviour involves conduct designed to make a person subordinate or dependent, including isolation, exploitation, deprivation of independence or regulation of everyday activities.
4. The father’s comments about make-up, interest in exercise, financial arrangements, passport retention and dealings with visiting relatives did not establish coercive or controlling behaviour in context. The passport was retained as a protective response to a genuine fear of abduction, though the conduct was not endorsed.
5. The allegations against the father were dismissed on the evidence. The mother had suffered controlling behaviour and serious violence in the past, but the father was not the perpetrator.