A father lost parental responsibility, all contact with his child, and had a long-term protective order made against him after the court found he had continued a coercive and controlling pattern of behaviour throughout the proceedings. The case is a significant example of a court formally recognising and applying the DARVO framework — where a perpetrator Denies wrongdoing, Attacks the person who raised it, and Reverses Victim and Offender roles — as clinically identified by an expert psychologist with direct consequences for orders made.
2 min readAll cases are fully anonymised and publicly available. Where a source link is provided, you can read the full judgment for yourself. These observational insights reflect community experiences and do not constitute legal advice.
The parents separated and have been in family court proceedings for several years over their child. At an earlier fact-finding hearing, the court rejected all the father's allegations against the mother and made findings of coercive and controlling behaviour against him, including use of the court process as 'lawfare'. After further expert assessments, supervised contact was found to be more harmful to the child than beneficial. All contact was later paused. At the final hearing, the father applied to adjourn without legal representation — the judge refused. The Cafcass officer changed her recommendation between reports, ultimately recommending no contact and a protective order until the child turns 18.
The court accepted all of the mother's allegations including: continuing hostility, false claims about her parenting, coaching the child during a contact visit to say he wanted to live with the father, and misusing out-of-context quotes from reports and judgments. All of the father's allegations against the mother were rejected. Orders made: (1) No contact — neither in person nor indirect. (2) Parental responsibility removed — applying the test of whether it would be granted today, the judge said no, as the father sought control and vindication rather than the child's welfare. (3) Section 91(14) order for a set period — preventing further applications without court permission. (4) Non-molestation order for a set period — the father had already breached an earlier version at least twice.
In this case the court recognised DARVO as a clinically identifiable pattern — not just advocacy language — with direct consequences for the orders made. Being technically competent at running a case (detailed statements, focused cross-examination) may not outweigh a finding of abusive underlying conduct. Quoting selectively from reports or judgments is a serious risk: courts may check the surrounding context. A section 91(14) order can be made based on an ongoing pattern shown through how a case was conducted — not only where many applications have already been made. Practice Direction 12J requires the court to be satisfied that contact can be safe before ordering it where domestic abuse has been found.
This case is directly relevant to McKenzie Friends supporting either party in proceedings involving domestic abuse allegations. It illustrates: (1) how DARVO was clinically evidenced and judicially recognised in this case; (2) that selective quoting from reports or judgments may be challenged and can damage credibility; (3) that procedural competence does not substitute for conduct — the judge praised the father's case-running skills while still making findings against him; (4) that section 91(14) orders can follow from the pattern of conduct shown in proceedings, not just from a history of hopeless applications.
DARVO
Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender — a recognised pattern where someone accused of wrongdoing denies it, attacks the person who raised it, and claims to be the real victim.
Parental responsibility
The legal rights and duties a parent has for decisions about a child — such as schooling, medical treatment and religion. Can be removed from an unmarried father by the court.
Coercive and controlling behaviour (CCB)
A pattern of behaviour intended to dominate, frighten, isolate or control a partner — not a single incident.
Lawfare
Using the court process itself as a form of abuse — for example, bringing repeated applications to exhaust or intimidate the other party.
Section 91(14) order
A court order that stops a person from making further family court applications about a child without first getting the court's permission. A filter, not a total ban.
Non-molestation order
A court order prohibiting a person from threatening, harassing or being violent towards another. Breaching it is a criminal offence.
Practice Direction 12J
Rules the court must follow when domestic abuse has been found — the court cannot order contact unless it is satisfied the child and the other parent will be safe.
Welfare checklist
The list of factors in the Children Act 1989 a court must consider when deciding what is best for a child, including the child's needs, any change in circumstances, and harm suffered or at risk.
Mentalisation-Based Treatment
A type of therapy aimed at helping someone better understand the emotional impact of their actions on others.
Cafcass
The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service — an independent body that reports to the court on what is in a child's best interests.
Supervised contact
Contact between a parent and child that takes place with a trained worker present to keep it safe.
Fact-finding hearing
A hearing where a judge decides, based on evidence, what actually happened between the parties — typically used in domestic abuse cases before decisions about children are made.
Navigating court alone?
A McKenzie Friend can help you make sense of this in the context of your own case.
Find your supportWe use essential cookies only to provide you with the best experience on our website. No tracking or analytics cookies are used.