Re H (A Boy) 2026- coercive and controlling behaviour and the welfare assessment

Gemma Irving and Georgia Wright recently advised the mother in the reported case of Re H (A Boy) [2026] EWFC 43 (B).

The recent decision of the Family Court in Re H (A Boy) [2026] EWFC 43 (B) addresses the competing claims of separated parents where one seeks to relocate abroad with a young child, while the other seeks to maintain or expand their role in the child’s life within England and Wales, complicated by allegations of domestic abuse in the form of coercive and controlling behaviour.

The case concerned a 2-year-old boy (H). The mother, a South African national, applied for permission to relocate home to South Africa with H. The father opposed the application, seeking instead shared care arrangements in England.

Coercive and controlling behaviour

In relocation cases there can often be hesitancy in pleading or relying on allegations of domestic abuse. This is because of the need for the victim to persuade the court that they are capable of promoting the child’s relationship with the other parent - the perpetrator of their abuse - should the relocation be permitted. Those facing abuse may also need advice about domestic abuse injunctions.

In this case, although the mother raised the history of abuse to provide context and background, she did not seek findings of domestic abuse or advance her case on the basis of the emotional impact on her. Despite the abuse she had suffered, she was promoting direct contact between the father and child.

However, during their assessment, CAFCASS picked up on instances of coercive and controlling behaviour and raised concerns about the mother’s ability to parent effectively as a result. CAFCASS drew attention to the likely emotional toll on the mother if she remained “trapped here by her abuser”.

CAFCASS’ position was that, in this case, coercive and controlling behaviour was a “swing factor” in their welfare evaluation such that, if findings of coercive and controlling behaviour were made, the mother’s application to relocate should be permitted. Conversely, should there be no findings, CAFCASS were of the view that the welfare assessment was more finely balanced and the mother’s application should be refused.

The court concluded therefore that one of the central issues for determination was whether the mother was able to prove, on the balance of probabilities, the alleged pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour by the father during the relationship (and indeed thereafter, during the course of their post-separation coparenting relationship). They said that this was relevant to the welfare evaluation under the Children Act and PD12J and therefore the overall decision of whether relocation should be permitted.

You can find out more about the development of section 91 and the Children’s Act in our guide.

Allegations and the evidence

The mother described a pattern of verbal denigration, intimidation, financial control, isolation from her family, interference with caregiving, and gaslighting. She submitted that these matters directly affected H through their impact on her ability to parent safely and stably in the UK.

Another “striking feature” of this case was that the father had previously (on more than one occasion) agreed to the relocation, providing his consent as part of an overall settlement linked to financial arrangements. He then subsequently withdrew his consent after the mother started to make arrangements in reliance on his consent. This was, it was submitted, yet another example of the father’s emotionally abusive and controlling behaviour.

Many of the allegations made by the mother were evidenced by covert recordings, as well as police disclosure. The mother sought permission to rely on these covert recordings which evidenced the parties’ interactions and informed the court’s understanding of their relationship and the context in which the application was being made. We’ve written more about covert recordings and the risks in our article.

Having not previously challenged the recordings, at trial, the father sought to question their reliability, stating that the recorded incidents reflected mutual conflict, miscommunication and cultural differences rather than abuse. He further asserted that they were selective, staged, or lacking context, and therefore did not represent the true nature of the relationship.

Findings

In a damning judgment, HHJ Nott found that the mother’s evidence “reflected the perspective of a person who has endured a lengthy and difficult relationship environment yet who has consistently sought to preserve dignity, stability, and workable future arrangements for the parties’ young son” and that her evidence was “consistent with the account of a person attempting – often under considerable emotional pressure – to manage and navigate a volatile and controlling partner”.

Comparatively, the father was found to be “an unreliable, self-referential and defensive witness” who “lacked insight into his behaviour and its impact upon the mother and H. His evidence was marred by: (i) the minimisation of abusive conduct; (ii) repeated attempts to transfer blame to the Mother; (iii) significant inconsistencies between his statement and his police interview; (iv) a refusal to accept objective descriptors for behaviour that is plainly abusive; and (v) self-centred reasoning regarding both the past relationship and future arrangements for H.”

HHJ Nott found that the father’s behaviour fell “squarely within the behaviours contemplated in PD12J as constituting coercive or controlling behaviour” and found that the mother had therefore established a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour directed at her by the father during the marriage, and post-separation.

As part of making these findings, HHJ Nott scrutinised the covert recordings and considered them in light of the Family Justice Council’s 2025 Guidance on the Use of Covert Recordings, which caution careful scrutiny of motive, context and reliability, but noting that this did not mandate their exclusion.

Like CAFCASS, HHJ Nott concluded that the recordings did not and could not have manufactured the father’s responses and that the covert nature of the recordings did not undermine their probative value; they portrayed a consistent pattern.

Welfare assessment

Having made the findings, HHJ Nott then considered the welfare checklist, incorporating her findings in considering H’s welfare. Most notably:

H’s physical, emotional and educational needs

HHJ Nott referred to the CAFCASS officer’s view that, if abuse were found, the impact on the mother of being unable to return home was highly relevant to H; a distressed, trapped primary carer would adversely affect H. Conversely, if relocation were permitted, H’s needs could be met in a calmer, supported environment whilst still safeguarding his paternal relationship through structured arrangements.

Any harm H has suffered or is at risk of suffering

HHJ Nott considered this factor on a dual basis: the harm suffered by H directly and the harm suffered indirectly via the mother. HHJ Nott referred to examples of H being directly harmed by way of being present and distressed when the father was exhibiting frightening and controlling behaviour towards the mother which carried an obvious risk of emotional harm. She also considered her findings of abuse towards the mother and the fact that the consequence of denying the relocation would mean that the mother would be embedded in an environment shaped by that abuse, with the foreseeable impact on her mental health and caregiving capacity. Conversely, allowing the relocation would reduce that risk, support the mother as the primary carer, and thereby reduce H’s risk of emotional harm.

How capable each parent is of meeting H’s needs

When considering this factor, HHJ Nott noted that both parents were capable of meeting H’s needs but raised concerns about H’s ability to remain child focused in circumstances where there had been financial abuse, resulting in the mother being left in tenuous living arrangements, with the father seeking to prevent her from having any interest in the FMH, even suggesting that she should be eligible for social housing as a result of being a victim of domestic abuse, whilst simultaneously denying the allegations.

The findings of coercive and controlling behaviour therefore directly impacted the welfare analysis because of the effect on the safety and emotional welfare of H, the credibility and parenting capacity of the parties, and the justification of relocation as a protective measure.

Decision

In reaching her decision, HHJ Nott stated that ‘no parent has limitless emotional reserves’, referring to the many pressures the mother was bearing, including housing precariousness, limited day-to-day support in the UK, and the continuing relational strain. She reasoned that these pressures could not be maintained indefinitely without an adverse effect on the mother’s wellbeing and caregiving capacity.

On the evidence, HHJ Nott agreed with the mother’s position that her capacity to parent H would be significantly enhanced in South Africa, where she would have reliable family support and a clearer pathway back into suitable and flexible employment. Notably, she further found that the mother may actually have understated how important those supports were to her continuing to function as a highly competent primary carer in the context of the father’s hostility towards her.

Conclusion

The significance of coercive and controlling behaviour in this case was a central welfare factor that influenced how the court assessed risk, parenting ability and the practicality of each parent’s proposal; specifically the father’s proposal for shared care and the mother’s case for relocation. Coercive and controlling behaviour was not a secondary matter here.

Ultimately, the case illustrates the developing approach of the court and CAFCASS and the application of PD12J. Patterns of domestic abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour are no longer treated as a side issue; they are central to determining what arrangements and outcome best serves and promotes the child’s welfare bearing in mind their impact on the primary parent’s mental health and caregiving capacity.

If you want to find out more, we have also written about the court’s approach to internal relocation cases in our article Court of Appeal clarifies law on internal relocation.

If you need advice on child arrangements, relocation or domestic abuse allegations, contact our family law team.