F v M [2021] EWFC 4 (Hayden J)
Introduction
This case remains the key authority on coercive and controlling behaviour in private law children cases. Mr Justice Hayden provided a thorough framework for recognising and proving patterns of such behaviour in contact proceedings.
Background to the case
The case arose from a private law dispute over children. The father had applied for contact with his two young children, aged three and six, who lived with their mother. The mother made serious allegations that the father had subjected her to a sustained pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour throughout their relationship. She claimed that he had isolated her from family and friends, exercised financial control, monitored her communications, and persistently undermined her. These allegations went beyond individual incidents of violence or intimidation, instead showing a continuous pattern of domination and psychological abuse.
Significantly, the court also considered evidence relating to the father’s later relationship with another woman. This “similar-fact” evidence helped to reveal a consistent pattern of controlling behaviour across different relationships. The matter was heard over a two-week fact-finding hearing in November 2020, and Mr Justice Hayden delivered judgment on the 15th of January 2021.
Family Court’s Decision
Mr Justice Hayden made a series of serious factual findings against the father, concluding that he had repeatedly engaged in controlling and coercive behaviour towards the mother and also towards another woman he was in a later relationship with.
After a two-week fact-finding hearing, the judge determined that the father had consistently humiliated, intimidated, and dominated the mother, creating what he described as a “brutalising, dehumanising regime” that stripped her of her independence. His behaviour was not just about isolated incidents of aggression but showed a clear ongoing pattern of control. The same patterns were also seen in his later relationship, which helped confirm the mother’s account. Hayden J described the father as “a profoundly dangerous young man,” posing risks both to women he targeted and to any children around him.
As a result of these findings, the judge dismissed the father’s request for contact with the children, deciding that meeting him would put both the mother and the children at risk of harm. He emphasised that any future contact would need to be handled with extreme care to protect their well-being. Overall, the court found that the father’s behaviour was serious coercive and controlling abuse, dismissed his version of events, and denied his application for contact.
Why F v M [2021] EWFC 4 (Hayden J) matters
The judgment highlighted the importance of the Family Court recognising coercive control as a serious and distinct form of domestic abuse. The judge criticised procedural tools like Scott Schedules, noting that they were poorly suited to capturing ongoing patterns of controlling behaviour. He encouraged judges and practitioners to look at the overall impact of abuse instead of just individual incidents. The case has since become a key reference for how family courts should approach and assess coercive and controlling behaviour in domestic abuse cases.
Practical Implications for Clients
This case shows that the Family Court treats coercive control seriously, focuses on patterns over time, may limit or refuse contact to protect children or parents, and expects the cumulative impact of abuse to be clearly shown.
Practitioner Takeaways
Practitioners should recognise coercive control as serious abuse, focus on patterns rather than isolated incidents, and document behaviour thoroughly. Traditional tools like Scott Schedules may be insufficient, therefore expert evidence can help. Any risk to the children or the other parent should be clearly identified, with evidence demonstrating the broader impact of the abuse within its full context.
By: Hanna Barzinji
03/11/2025