Thread by @CCChatMagazine

This case CLEARLY demonstrates the urgent need for a proper understanding of #coercivecontrol #parentalalienation and the reality of judicial bias in family law cases where a mother has alleged coercive control and rape by the father.

THREAD
judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl…

This is an appeal about excluding evidence in family proceedings.

The father seeks contact with children aged 5 and 2.

The mother opposes contact on the basis that the father had subjected her to extreme coercive and controlling behaviour and to sexual abuse, including rape.

The mother wanted to rely on evidence of what she believes is strikingly similar #coercivecontrol shown by the father towards his new partner.

This judge excluded the evidence, as she considered the report to contain hearsay and she did not see how the father could have a fair trial if the report was admitted on the assumption that everything in it was true.

Counsel for the mother replied that he was certainly not suggesting the report would be admitted on the basis everything in it was true and that the father would have the opportunity to challenge the contents.

The judge STILL disagreed.

The judge said the proper course was to seek permission to submit a statement in evidence from every witness. Instead, as she is noted to have said:
"You haven't done that. You've ignored previous court orders, simply put the reports in the bundle and exhibited. 1/

Deeply disrespectful of court orders. Won’t allow that report to go before the court of fact finding hearing. Too late to do anything about it now. Hearing has to go ahead." 2/

Mother’s counsel pointed out that there were also letters from the both parents AND ex husband of Father’s new partner, and that they were willing to come to court to give evidence.

THE JUDGE CLAIMED IT WAS HEARSAY, EVEN THOUGH HEARSAY EVIDENCE WAS ADMISSIBLE!!!!!

And predictably, father’s counsel then made submissions about removing the letters from father’s new partner’s parents and her ex, on the basis that they were filed without permission and did not speak to the allegations in the case.

(Well, of course he would, wouldn’t he?)

The appellate judges are generous about the shortcomings of the judge who refused to admit evidence.

“ I consider that the judge’s criticism of the mother's solicitors was based on a misunderstanding of the procedural history.”

( My view: the judge showed bias towards father)

Appellate judge goes on to say:

“ It is not a history out of which anyone comes very well, least of all the court,”

( Understatement of the year)

On behalf of the mother, Ms Maggie Jones accepted that the court has broad powers to admit or exclude evidence. However, she argued that the judge was wrong to exclude this evidence as it was highly relevant, both to the fact finding hearing and to any welfare decision.

The evidence concerning father's relationship with new partner and , crucially, her children showed a STRIKINGLY SIMILAR PATTERN OF BEHAVIOUR to that alleged by mother.

Showing a propensity for the father to act in a COERCIVE and CONTROLLING manner.

Father’s counsel submitted that judge was entitled to exclude evidence as much of it is hearsay/speculation, so that upcoming fact-finding could continue in circumstances where father has gone without contact for three years.

( I wonder if the father claimed #parentalalienation)

As far as evidence in cases of alleged domestic abuse is concerned, the court has a broad power to control evidence:
The Family Procedure Rules 2010 provide:
(1) The court may control the evidence by giving directions as to –
(a) the issues on which it requires evidence;

b) the nature of the evidence which it requires to decide those issues; and
(c) the way in which the evidence is to be placed before the court.
(2) The court may use its power under this rule to exclude evidence that would otherwise be admissible.

3) The court may permit a party to adduce evidence, or to seek to rely on a document, in respect of which that party has failed to comply with the requirements of this Part.
(4) The court may limit cross-examination.

ALSO:

Hearsay evidence is admissible in proceedings concerning children by virtue of the Children (Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence) Order 1993. Part 23 of the Rules includes provisions for the management of such evidence.

Practice Direction 12J applies :

when it is alleged or admitted or there is other reason to believe that the child or a party has experienced domestic abuse perpetrated by another party or that there is a risk of such abuse.

Domestic abuse includes any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive or threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are or have been intimate partners or family members.

Coercive behaviour is defined as “an act or a pattern of acts of assault, threats, humiliation and intimidation or other abuse which is used to harm, punish or frighten the victim.”

Controlling behaviour defined as “an act or pattern of acts designed to make a person subordinate

and/or dependent by isolating them from sources of support,exploiting their resources and capacities for personal gain, depriving them of the means needed for independence, resistance and escape and regulating their everyday behaviour.”

Para19 of PD contains a list of matters court must consider when making directions for a fact finding hearing,including at paragraph (d) what evidence is required to determine the existence of coercive, controlling or threatening behaviour, or of any other form of domestic abuse.