The Court of Appeal has clarified the scope of judicial criticism against any individual witness, whether a lay person or a professional, within family court proceedings. But the case at the centre of the decision has a much wider impact, says June Venters KC. The 3PB barrister, who represented the father in the case, explains why it is a powerful illustration that fathers can also be victims of domestic abuse.
The judgment in this High Court case sets out the findings sought by both parents. In summary, the mother alleged physical, emotional and sexual abuse of herself, emotional abuse of the children, and sexual abuse of one child. The father alleged that the mother had engaged in acts that alienated the children from him. The court found in favour of the father.
This case powerfully illustrates just how fathers can be and indeed are the victims of domestic abuse and that abuse perpetrated by a mother against a father is as pervasive and damaging as abuse from a father – even more so where there is a lack of professional curiosity to understand what is actually happening within a family, rather than falling back on well-rehearsed stereotypes about the nature of abuse and the gender of perpetrators.
The imbalance in public and legal discourse
Much of the necessary and important focus in recent years, both in public dialogue and legal reform, has rightly been placed on the impact of domestic abuse on families. Whilst the reforms have general application, in reality the focus in public dialogue, amongst professionals and lawyers, and in court, has been on abuse suffered by mothers and children at the hands of male partners. This has led to critical and necessary changes in the way the courts handle domestic abuse cases, particularly those involving female victims, to ensure their safety, and that of the children, is prioritised.
However, this necessary focus carries a significant risk: professionals, lawyers and the court may subconsciously default to a narrative where the father is assumed to be the perpetrator and the mother the victim. This can lead to the genuine abuse suffered by a father being minimised, overlooked, or even dismissed, especially when the father is presenting as the victim of emotional or psychological abuse. Whilst there is increasing recognition of different types of abuse (re H v N sets that out with clarity), there remains a real risk that men are less willing or able to articulate that they are the victims of non-physical abuse and when they do, they are often not listened to.
The reality of paternal victimisation
This specific case powerfully illustrates just how fathers can be and indeed are the victims of domestic abuse and that abuse perpetrated by a mother against a father is as pervasive and damaging as abuse from a father – even more so where there is a lack of professional curiosity to understand what is actually happening within a family, rather than falling back on well-rehearsed stereotypes about the nature of abuse and the gender of perpetrators.
In this case the abuse was wide ranging, including:
Psychological and emotional harm: Abusive tactics such as manipulation, acts tending to alienate a child from a parent, controlling behaviour regarding the children, and relentless undermining of the father’s role can inflict severe psychological damage on a father and the children, and destabilise their relationship.
Controlling litigation and process abuse: A persistent feature of abusive behaviour in family cases is the misuse of the court process itself, commonly known as litigation abuse. This can involve the mother generating repeated, unfounded applications or allegations to inflict constant legal and financial distress upon the father, exhausting his resources and diverting judicial focus from her own harmful conduct. Short notice/emergency applications, where the court is persuaded to deal with matters without all of the relevant evidence, or the opportunity to properly scrutinise that evidence or see it challenged can lead to damaging outcomes for children and parents.
In this specific case, the court determined that the late service upon the father of the most sensitive and life-changing notice of a court hearing by the mother, who was legally represented, was to gain some “litigation advantage” and fundamentally breached the father’s Article 6 rights (the right to a fair trial).
Notably, and by way of example, the father was deprived of his agreed right to separately convene a funeral for his daughter so that he and his family could attend the following day. Despite that agreement, he was notified of a hearing to determine this issue only 29 minutes before it commenced – a hearing that a journalist was made aware of significantly earlier than both the father and those representing the child.
This culminated in the father, while suffering unimaginable grief, receiving copies of his daughter’s suicide notes (for the first time) just nine minutes before the start of the hearing, forcing him to participate unrepresented from his living room, over the telephone, experiencing the event as a surreal and devastating unreality.
The experience of the mother contrasted starkly. She was legally represented by Ms Proudman, junior counsel. She had the opportunity to prepare a statement in support of her application. She had appended evidence from the child’s counsellor, who has now been discredited for her involvement in these proceedings, a decision that was upheld by the court of appeal [Re: E (A Child) (Disclosure to Regulator & Naming of a Witness in a Judgment) [2025] EWFC 423.
The child’s welfare: When a mother’s abusive control extends to manipulating the child’s perceptions or actively destroying the child’s bond with the father, this constitutes significant emotional harm to the child and must be identified as abuse.
Lessons in gender neutrality and procedural integrity
This case delivers several critical lessons, primarily that whilst it demonstrates the family justice system remains alive to the fact that domestic abuse is suffered by both genders and is not confined to mothers, so must professionals, journalists and the public as a whole.
While the progress emanating from the Harm Report (2020) and the Domestic Abuse Act (2021) is undeniable—having done much to expose the historic tendency to minimize abuse, dismiss allegations, and to improve victims’ experiences—this momentum has generated an unintended consequence: a persistent tendency to focus on women as victims rather than on victims, regardless of their gender.
The case powerfully illustrates the profound harm that occurs when abuse perpetrated by a mother against a father is overlooked or downplayed.
Procedural integrity and the need for resources
Furthermore, it underscores the vital importance of the court process in conducting a proper and thorough investigation into allegations of domestic abuse.
We are currently at risk of compromising this investigative integrity due to the urgent need to reduce the amount of court time made available to such complex cases. Whilst the limited resources available must be acknowledged, the necessity of achieving justice cannot be compromised. The outcome of a fact-finding hearing provides the essential springboard to determine the future welfare of the children, who remain our paramount concern in all actions within the Family Division. Sacrificing the depth and quality of the investigation risks fundamentally undermining the court’s ability to safeguard the child’s welfare.
This case emphatically highlights the importance of legal representation in complex, high-stakes family proceedings involving serious allegations of domestic abuse.
No parent facing allegations of this nature – with the profound complexities involved and the far-reaching consequences for their relationship with their child—should be deprived of legal representation. If a parent lacks the resources to fund their defence or participation themselves, funding should come from the public purse (Legal Aid).
As was the case here, the father did not have the benefit of legal aid throughout most of the proceedings, only being granted legal aid about two weeks before the commencement of the fact-finding hearing. This placed him at a massive disadvantage, particularly when contrasted with the mother, who was legally represented by Counsel.
This is a case where for a period the father had received pro bono representation from an experienced and diligent solicitor, but lawyers cannot be expected to use their own resources to fund cases of this complexity anymore than a consultant doctor could or should be expected to conduct complex surgery/treatment at his or her own expense. There needs to be parity for both parties to have the same access to justice and all the resources necessary to properly and fairly present their case. Pro bono representation is no substitute for properly funded legal representation.
Short-term savings, long-term cost
The decision to limit funding and seek savings from the legal aid and family justice system carries a significant risk: short-term gain is highly likely to result in considerable long-term loss.
Too frequently, those who stand “accused” are unable to produce the evidential material necessary to satisfy the merits test for legal aid. By contrast, the “accuser” is often able to rely upon (untested) professional reports and documentation that establish their position as a “victim.” The absence of adequate representation in complex family proceedings, such as the present case, results in poorly prepared evidence, repeated adjournments, and procedural unfairness – as demonstrated by the breach of this father’s Article 6 rights.
These deficiencies undermine the court’s ability to reach a just and accurate determination, which is indispensable to safeguarding the welfare of the child, the court’s paramount concern. In practice, the systemic and welfare costs of remedying flawed initial findings far exceed the expense of providing timely and effective legal aid at the outset.
Although the exceptional funding route is sometimes available, it offers no certainty, and the time and resources required to pursue it impose an additional burden upon the “true” victim. Meanwhile, the “false” victim may exploit the imbalance to gain procedural advantage, often resulting in decisions such as the suspension of contact when the “true” victim remains unrepresented.
About the author
June Venters KC is a dual-qualified barrister and solicitor who provides legal advice and representation to individuals on family and criminal law cases that have children at their heart. She is an award-winning and pioneering lawyer who champions equality and access to justice for all. Her career in law spans over 40 years, and she has a unique combination of qualifications and experience evidenced by many accreditations and accolades.
