When Saying the Right Things Is Not Enough: Domestic Abuse, Coercive Control and Child Arrangements in the Family Court

A recent Family Court judgment is likely to attract attention from family law professionals because it addresses a question that frequently arises in private law children proceedings:

When can a court be satisfied that a parent who has previously been found to have committed domestic abuse has genuinely changed?

The case involved a parent seeking significantly increased time with their children, including a shared care arrangement. The children had a loving relationship with that parent, and it was accepted that the parent cared deeply about them. However, despite those factors, the court declined to make the substantial changes sought. The reason why is important.

The Difference Between Compliance and Change

One of the central themes of the judgment is the distinction between:

• accepting findings of abuse;
• attending programmes or courses;
• learning the language of insight and accountability;
• genuinely internalising behavioural change.

The court accepted that meaningful steps had been taken since earlier findings of domestic abuse. However, when examining the evidence as a whole, the judge concluded that there remained ongoing attitudes and behaviours that suggested deeper change had not yet occurred.

This serves as a reminder that family courts are concerned not only with what parents say, but with how they behave over time and what impact that behaviour has on children and the other parent.

Looking at the Bigger Picture

The judgment reflects the modern approach to domestic abuse cases, which focuses on patterns of behaviour rather than isolated incidents.

The court examined a range of issues that, on their own, might appear relatively minor. These included disputes about mobile phones, disagreements regarding school matters, attempts to make unilateral decisions affecting the children, and communication between the adults. Viewed collectively, however, the court concluded that these events formed part of a wider pattern that continued to undermine the other parent's ability to parent effectively.

The judgment demonstrates how courts increasingly assess whether controlling or coercive dynamics continue after separation rather than limiting their focus to behaviour that occurred during the relationship.

Domestic Abuse Does Not End at Separation

An important feature of the judgment is its recognition that children can continue to be affected by domestic abuse long after the parents have separated.

The court considered evidence suggesting that the children had become exposed to adult disputes and narratives about the relationship breakdown. Concerns were raised that some of the children's attitudes and behaviours reflected ongoing parental conflict and unresolved adult issues.

The judgment reinforces the principle that children are affected not only by what they witness directly but also by the emotional environment in which they are raised.

The welfare question therefore becomes broader than whether a parent loves a child. The court must also consider the messages children are receiving about relationships, respect, conflict and the role of the other parent.

The Importance of Understanding Domestic Abuse

Another striking aspect of the judgment concerned the evidence of professionals involved in the case.

The court expressed concern that insufficient weight had been given to the long-term impact of domestic abuse when assessing the children's welfare and future arrangements.

This is particularly significant because it reinforces the importance of understanding how coercive and controlling behaviour can continue to affect family dynamics even where physical violence is no longer present.

The judgment highlights that recommendations focusing solely on co-parenting, communication or shared parenting arrangements may be inadequate if they do not fully address the underlying impact of domestic abuse.

Why Shared Care Was Not Ordered

The court accepted that there were benefits to the arrangements being proposed. The children enjoyed spending time with the parent seeking greater involvement and there were genuine advantages identified in the evidence.

However, the court concluded that the risks outweighed those benefits.

The central concern was that increasing the amount of time spent with that parent would create more opportunities for ongoing conflict, undermining behaviour and reinforcement of unhealthy family dynamics.

As a result, the court decided that the children should remain primarily in the care of the other parent, whilst making more modest adjustments to existing arrangements.

Why This Judgment Matters

This case illustrates how family courts are increasingly focusing on the reality of behavioural change rather than appearances.

Parents who have previously been found to have committed domestic abuse may demonstrate genuine progress, and many do. However, where concerns remain about attitudes, insight, accountability and the ongoing impact of behaviour on the other parent or the children, courts will continue to place child welfare above all other considerations.

The wider message is clear.

Successful parenting after separation requires more than compliance with court orders, attendance at programmes or saying the right things. It requires a genuine understanding of how past behaviour affected others and a sustained commitment to avoiding repetition of those patterns in the future.

For separating parents, professionals and those involved in private law children proceedings, this judgment serves as a powerful reminder that meaningful change is measured not by words alone, but by consistent behaviour over time.