MI v AA

MI v AA

On the balance of probabilities, the father either personally carried out or instructed others to carry out the criminal damage incidents targeting the mother's family property, motivated by frustration over contact progression. Identification evidence based on gait and mannerisms is insufficient alone, but cumulative circumstantial evidence, father's evasiveness, prior breaches, and lack of credible alternative explanations support the finding.

Parties
Applicant: MI; Respondent: AA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 May 2026
Procedural Posture
Children Act Proceedings / Family Law / Judgment After Finding of Fact Hearing
Outcome
Findings made against father on balance of probabilities; permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Child Arrangements Order, Non Molestation Order, Criminal Damage, Domestic Abuse, Procedural Fairness, Identification Evidence
Family Law Child Arrangements Domestic Violence Child Arrangements Order Non Molestation Order Criminal Damage Domestic Abuse Procedural Fairness +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MI

Applicant

AA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Children Act Proceedings / Family Law / Judgment After Finding of Fact Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the father was responsible for criminal damage incidents targeting the mother's family property
  2. 2 Whether contact between father and child should be supervised or indirect only
  3. 3 Procedural fairness regarding mother's ability to give evidence due to mental health

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities, the father either personally carried out or instructed others to carry out the criminal damage incidents targeting the mother's family property, motivated by frustration over contact progression. Identification evidence based on gait and mannerisms is insufficient alone, but cumulative circumstantial evidence, father's evasiveness, prior breaches, and lack of credible alternative explanations support the finding.

Court Disposition

Findings made against father on balance of probabilities; permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Direct contact between father and child to cease; indirect contact only with monthly updates for two years.
  • Prohibited steps order and section 91(14) direction for two years.