Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Family Court refused a father’s application for direct contact, finding persistent physical and coercive abuse and that the children’s refusal of contact was genuine.
A Father v A Mother [2026] EWFC 110 (27 April 2026)
The Family Court found repeated physical abuse and coercive control by the father, rejected alienation allegations, refused direct contact, and made a one-year section 91(14) order.
The judge erred in excluding the mother's allegations of domestic abuse and coercive control from consideration in determining the child's welfare, failed to provide adequate reasons for departing from the social worker's recommendations for equal time, and wrongly made a Specific Issue Order regarding PRIDE week attendance without sufficient justification. These errors materially affected the welfare decision and require the matter to be remitted for rehearing.
Source excerpt
The court made a child arrangements order for three children to live with their mother in Sweden, removed the father’s parental responsibility, and granted a non-molestation order.
The High Court dismissed SAL 1s appeal against a teaching prohibition order, holding the panel had properly considered duress, coercive control, and mitigation.
The seriousness, persistence, and violence of the offending, including repeated intentional strangulation and coercive control, required an immediate custodial sentence; the original community order was unduly lenient and outside the sentencing range.
Source excerpt
GI v K [2026] EWHC 480 (Fam) (23 January 2026)
Family appeal concerning child arrangements, domestic abuse allegations, and a PRIDE week specific issue order. The appeal succeeded on key welfare and reasons grounds.
The sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive given the seriousness, multiplicity, and aggravating factors of the offending; the judge properly applied the Sentencing Council guidelines, considered aggravating and mitigating factors, and the extended licence period was justified for public protection.
Source excerpt
The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that the father did not sexually assault or coerce the mother, nor act in a controlling manner. The mother was not a victim of coercive control. The court found that A was not sexually abused by a third-party while in the father's care, and the father was innocent of all related allegations. The court found that the mother emotionally manipulated the children, asked A leading questions to obtain evidence of sexual abuse, encouraged and influenced A to make false allegations, and suspended contact based on false allegations. The mother admitted…
Source excerpt
The court found that while the overarching allegation of coercive control was not proven, VG perpetrated multiple acts of violence against KY, aggravated by alcohol misuse, including reckless injury, unlawful assault, and threatening behaviour. These acts impede KY's ability to safely parent C and are vicariously harmful to the child. Interim direct contact is unsafe pending resolution of criminal proceedings and risk minimisation.
Source excerpt
Explore more
