Background
This case involves a father (M) and mother (G) and their two young children, B, aged 5, and M, aged 3. The parents separated in May 2022, and for nearly four years, the children’s lives have been dominated by contentious legal proceedings. In November 2024, a fact-finding hearing before HHJ Renvoize established that the father had perpetrated domestic abuse against the mother. This abuse took the form of controlling and humiliating messages, and most notably, using the legal process itself as a tool for harassment and control through a “relentless barrage” of unjustified applications.
The court in 2024 dismissed all the father’s serious allegations against the mother, including parental alienation and physical abuse. Despite findings against him and an order for professionally supervised contact, the father’s disruptive conduct continued. He refused to cooperate with the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass), made further meritless applications for a transfer of residence, and attempted to undermine the mother’s decisions about the children’s schooling, which had been settled by court order. This pattern of behaviour led Cafcass to conclude it could not safely appoint an officer to the case due to the father’s “intimidatory behaviours.”
Although the children were reported to enjoy the supervised contact sessions that eventually began in June 2025, the father’s conduct remained a serious concern. The current hearing before Mr Justice Harrison was to determine the final child arrangements, considering expert psychological and social work evidence in light of the father’s established history of abuse and his ongoing problematic behaviour.
The Court’s Holding
Mr Justice Harrison, relying heavily on the psychological assessment of Dr. Mark Hardiman, concluded that the father’s pattern of behaviour posed a significant risk of emotional harm to the children and the mother. The court accepted Dr. Hardiman’s evidence that the father understands the world through a rigid, biased lens, finding it difficult to accept any perspective that differs from his own. This led him to continue to press his views relentlessly, a behaviour experienced by others as controlling. The court found the father had not genuinely accepted the 2024 findings of abuse and was unlikely to change his harmful conduct without therapeutic intervention, which he was also unlikely to accept.
The court determined that the primary need was to “stabilise the family system” and protect the mother and children from the father’s intrusive and controlling behaviour. While acknowledging that the children enjoyed their time with the father, the court found that unsupervised contact, or any significant increase in contact, was not in their best interests, as it would expose them to the unresolved conflict and the father’s negative views of their mother. Therefore, the court ordered that the father’s contact would continue but remain limited and professionally supervised to ensure the children’s emotional safety.
To prevent the father from continuing to use the legal system as a form of abuse, the court imposed a Section 91(14) order for three years. This order prevents the father from making any further applications regarding the children without first obtaining the court’s permission. The decision prioritized the children’s need for stability and safety over the father’s desire for a shared care arrangement, which the court dismissed as being “totally without merit” in a previous hearing.
Key Takeaways
- A parent’s litigation conduct, such as filing repeated, meritless applications, can be legally recognized as a form of domestic abuse (coercive control) that directly informs child arrangement orders.
- Courts will rely heavily on expert psychological evidence to assess a parent’s capacity for change and the potential for future emotional harm, especially when there is a history of domestic abuse.
- The protection of a child’s stable home environment and the well-being of the primary caregiver from ongoing harassment can outweigh a parent’s request for increased contact, even if the child enjoys supervised visits.
- A Section 91(14) order is a critical tool used by courts to shield families from further harm when a parent weaponizes the legal process.
Why It Matters
This judgment is a significant statement on how UK courts address coercive control that manifests as post-separation litigation abuse. It affirms that the welfare of the children is paramount and that this includes protecting them from the emotional harm caused by being caught in the middle of one parent’s relentless and controlling campaign against the other. The court’s decision makes it clear that a parent’s failure to accept prior adverse findings and modify their behaviour is a key indicator of future risk.
For family law attorneys, this case highlights that a holistic welfare analysis must give substantial weight to the long-term impact of a parent’s abusive personality and conduct on the entire family system. It is not enough for contact sessions to appear positive in isolation; the court will scrutinize the abusive parent’s ongoing behaviour and its effect on the children and the resident parent. The ruling demonstrates the court’s resolve to use its powers, including Section 91(14) orders, to provide finality and safety for families exhausted by high-conflict litigation.