The High Court was faced with a challenging case not only because of the complex family and cultural situation, but also because of alleged coercive control and manipulation.
Background:
Both the father (F) and the mother (M) have made serious allegations against each other, some with a “criminal complexion”. F alleged that M has been manipulated and controlled by her family, and there is compelling evidence that they are organised criminals involved in a very serious crime syndicate centred in Berlin. In her defence, M is pleading that F has been coercive and controlling toward her.
F is a 32-year-old man who was born in Lebanon and moved to the UK with his family when he was 7. He is one of six siblings, and his parents placed “a very high value on hard work and academic achievement”. He is currently employed as a Senior Technology Analyst at a major bank.
M is 23 years of age and was born in Germany. The family is interrelated, as the maternal grandfather is the nephew of the paternal grandfather. The parties were introduced in August 2022 as part of an arranged marriage. They subsequently moved to the UK, where F was hoping M would develop some independence and a greater degree of freedom.
There is evidence that the maternal grandmother was less than warm to F, while F’s mother was against the marriage and opposed to the notion of a traditional arranged marriage. However, F wanted to replicate his parents’ marriage while M wished that F was more traditional.
This was a fact-finding hearing in relation to the jurisdiction of the High Court over their 13-month-old son, Y.
Decision:
The High Court dismissed allegations of coercive and controlling behaviour, as the evidence provided did not support the claim. The Court examined the evidence within the framework of the Family Procedure Rules (FPR) 2010 and relevant case law, including the principles outlined in Re A [2012] and Re B-B [2022].
The Court assessed whether some text messages exchanged between the parties were an example of controlling behaviour. The Judge noted it was important to identify the pattern of behaviour according to F v M [2021] and that, while asking his then-wife to put on less makeup could, in some situations, be construed as controlling behaviour, in this case, it was only a suggestion. He also did not request her to wear no makeup but rather less, as he found it more attractive.
The High Court gave examples of controlling behaviours, such as dictating a woman’s appearance to make her less attractive or restricting food intake. The fact that F tried to reassure her that he still found her attractive, despite her weight gain following the birth of their son, showed compassion. They also shared a joint enthusiasm for keeping fit. As a result, the Court did not find it odd that M shared her running app with F.
The allegation of control over the family finances was also unsustainable in the Court’s view, as F was the only earner. Finally, the allegations of physical violence and coercive control were not raised consistently, resulting in the Court questioning their credibility.
Implications:
This case highlights the importance of context in assessing coercive control or controlling behaviours. It also underscores the challenges of such allegations in culturally complex family disputes where the man is seen as a provider and is often required to be ‘authoritative’ towards his wife. In those situations, it is crucial to carefully assess the context and evidence.
This decision also makes it clear that any allegation not raised consistently will be questioned in relation to its credibility.
