A mother believes her abusive ex-husband should be professionally supervised when having contact with their four children. But despite the man admitting his history of abuse towards the mum and children, a judge allowed him to have contact with the children supervised by one of his friends.
The mum appealed against the Wrexham family court judge's decision but she was unsuccessful. The Court of Appeal found the judge was "entitled" to find such contact was in the children's best interests.
Physical and emotional abuse
The parents are "well-educated professionals in full-time employment", said the Wrexham family court judge, Mr Justice John McKendrick. He also called them "very engaged and articulate parents".
"The father admitted a number of acts of abuse towards the mother and children including controlling behaviours towards the mother, socially isolating the mother, smacking the children, and ill-treating the youngest child on an occasion in 2023," said Sir Stephen Cobb, one of the judges in the Court of Appeal.
They were married for a number of years before separating in 2023. Their four children range in ages from six to 14.
"The mother's case is that the marriage was characterised throughout by the father's coercive and controlling behaviour, punctuated with acts of physical and emotional abuse towards her and the children," said Sir Stephen.
After the parents separated and proceedings began in the family court, the dad turned up uninvited at the family home. This was a breach of the agreed arrangements by which he could see the children.
A psychological assessment found the dad had traits of narcissistic personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder. It also referred to his "aggressiveness, irresponsibility and a lack of remorse".
All the children loved their father and spoke about wanting to see him more often, according to a social worker appointed to represent the children's best interests. The social worker added that the children were comfortable seeing their dad in the company of one of his friends, a woman referred to as JM.
In line with the recommendation from the social worker, Wrexham family court made an order for the dad to have contact with the children every other Saturday for seven hours, and every other Wednesday for two hours, supervised by JM. However, the dad did not take up the offer of Wednesday contact as it was "impractical for him".
Dad secretly bought son a phone
The dad kept joint parental responsibility, meaning the mum had to consult with him on decisions about the children's welfare, such as their health and education. He agreed to self-refer to a domestic abuse programme.
The dad then repeatedly breached the order, according to the mum, who claimed there were times when the children were left with him unsupervised. She was also infuriated by an incident involving the oldest child's mobile phone.
The mum had taken away the boy's phone because of an issue with him accessing "inappropriate websites". This had made it more difficult for the dad to have phone contact with him – so the dad secretly bought him a new phone and set up an online bank account enabling him to pay the bills.
This was admitted by the dad. He also offered "no convincing response" to the mum's allegation that he had tried to undermine her and turn the children against her by saying she was stopping them from seeing him, said Sir Stephen.
More tensions arose after the mum decided, without consulting the dad, that the oldest child should see a psychiatrist, who then diagnosed him as having a form of ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder). The dad did not accept the diagnosis and objected to the boy being given medication.
The mum then made a court application seeking permission to give the boy his ADHD medication. Soon after this she unilaterally stopped the dad's contact with the children.
Mr Justice McKendrick sought a second medical opinion, which confirmed the diagnosis of ADHD. The judge then ordered the boy be given his medication.
During the months when the children did not see their dad, there was evidence showing improvements in the school performance of two of the children. However, there was also evidence that the oldest child was displaying "aggressive" behaviour, which on one occasion led to police being called to the family home. The boy later told a social worker he missed his dad.
The mum then made an application for the dad's contact to be professionally supervised. She said she saw the importance of the contact but that it must be "safe and child-centred".
A terrible time
After meeting the children, a court-appointed social worker concluded they should stop having direct contact with the dad "in order to protect them from further emotional and psychological harm". They should only have monthly indirect contact, such as by letter, said the social worker.
Going against this recommendation, Mr Justice McKendrick allowed the dad to continue having fortnightly contact supervised by his friend JM. Despite this, the judge was very critical of the dad's decision to secretly buy the oldest child a phone.
This was, the judge said, "precisely the type of emotionally harmful intervention that is probably leading [the boy] to have such a terrible time". He added: "The father has limitations on the understanding of the emotional harm that has been caused to the children."
Mr Justice McKendrick also criticised the mum for unilaterally stopping contact with the dad. "I consider that has been emotionally harmful to the children," he said.
The "appropriate balance", the judge believed, would be for the dad to have contact slightly reduced from the previous order. Supervised by JM, he would have contact for five hours a fortnight. Phone contact would no longer be allowed.
Mr Justice John McKendrick concluded: "This is not one of those category of cases where the father's actions are so serious that he can be shut out of the children's life."
The judge did not find evidence of any domestic abuse from the dad after 2024. But in her subsequent appeal, the mum argued the judge had not given enough attention to his "coercive and controlling behaviour" towards her.
Considering the appeal, Sir Stephen did find the dad's recent attempts to undermine the mum could be seen as coercive and controlling behaviour. But he also found Mr Justice McKendrick had understood that this was causing the children "emotional harm".
Speaking about the children's desire to see their dad, Sir Stephen said: "The father's abusive behaviour will inevitably have shaped the children's experiences, perceptions and emotional responses, and may therefore have influenced the wishes they expressed.
"It is notable, for example, that [one of the children's] aspiration was not for her parents to live together, but for them to remain on the same island while living sufficiently far apart 'that they don't see each other'. That observation is a telling illustration of the extent to which domestic abuse had become normalised within the children's understanding of family life."
Facts were carefully examined
Ultimately, the Court of Appeal found Mr Justice McKendrick had carefully examined the facts and made appropriate findings on whether the dad could have limited contact, supervised by JM, whom the judge had a positive impression of.
But the Court of Appeal upheld one element of the mum's appeal – her argument that the judge should not have placed her under a one-year restriction from making further applications without the court's permission.
Although Mr Justice McKendrick had believed the series of court proceedings to be "harmful to the children", Sir Stephen found he had failed to identify a sufficient basis for restricting the mum's future access to the court. This means the order restricting access will now only apply to the father.
