K (Father) v P (Mother) [2024] EWFC 235 (B) (21 March 2024)

This case concerned the re-hearing of a fact-finding trial (following a previous appeal which saw the first fact finding judgment set aside). Allegations were made by the Respondent Mother (M) against the Applicant Father (F). Mr Davis was successful on behalf of the Father at the re-hearing and all of the allegations were dismissed.

Allegations

M made allegations that F sexually abused her and their daughter. The allegations dated from the period shortly before the parties’ separation in June 2021, when the child was a baby. The relevant evidence included covert video recordings made by M.

The schedule of allegations sought included domestic abuse, allegations of sexually inappropriate or abusive behaviour by F towards the child, as well as emotional and financial abuse.

Decision

The court dismissed M’s allegations in their entirety.  

The court considered that M was lacking in self-confidence, sensitive to criticism, anxious and avoidant of conflict. Further, her evidence was unreliable in that she was highly vulnerable to overinterpreting or misinterpreting events and behaviours, and evolving a narrative over time which did not reflect reality.

These issues were compounded by M having had three sets of solicitors by the time of the re-hearing. M filed and served three batches of video footage comprising of 29 videos, which the advocates wasted considerable time trying to reconcile. Many were duplicates, shortened or modified versions of the original exhibits but some were new.

The court noted that M tended to blame her former solicitors for muddles in her statements, for example, where exhibits did not match their descriptions because they had been applied to the wrong clip. Much of the confusion was borne out of insufficient attention to detail by both M and her former solicitors. In addition, there was a distinct lack of ownership on M’s part of the materials she filed and signed her name to.

In contrast, the court found that F had been a generally credible witness who gave a coherent and consistent accounts of what occurred.

Much turned on the covert video footage. Recorder Reed KC was careful to watch and rewatch all of the videos several times. In particular, she scrutinised a video of F caring for the child in the bedroom whilst wearing a dressing gown with his genitals exposed. The court could not identify any facial expression of arousal as alleged by M. Further, the court accepted F’s evidence that he was not aroused nor obtaining sexual gratification. Had he been, it might have been expected he would continue his activity particularly considering he did not know he was being recorded. That was plainly not the case.

Considering the video evidence overall, the court found that there was a gross mismatch between M’s beliefs and descriptions and what was actually evidenced. The covert video footage showed F interacting with his daughter in an entirely appropriate way. Recorder Reed KC determined that M held distorted beliefs about what can be seen in the videos, owing to her highly suspicious mindset which left her vulnerable to being persuaded by others as to how to view F’s conduct, whether that was the view offered online or latterly by professionals.

Next steps

The court expressed concern about M’s ability to accept the findings and facilitate resuming contact between F and his daughter. Recorder Reed KC directed the parties to make proposals on contact to be determined at a subsequent hearing a few weeks later. In the interim, she positively encouraged agreement over a resumption of contact.

Samuel Davis appeared on behalf of the Applicant Father.

Case note by 42BR Pupil, Matthew Timm.

K (Father) v P (Mother) [2024] EWFC 235 (B) (21 March 2024)

3rd Oct 2024

Samuel Davis

Call 2016

Matthew Timm

Call 2021