The Family Court held a three-day fact-finding hearing on a father's allegations of abuse by a mother and her allegation that he alienated the children, and heard the case on 12 to 14 October 2026.
Key facts
- Who: Parents in children cases where each side alleges abuse or manipulation, and the children involved
- From: Heard 12 to 14 October 2026
- Source: QR v ST [2026] EWFC 300 (B)
In QR v ST [2026] EWFC 300 (B), Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Richards, sitting as a judge of the Family Court at Nuneaton County Court, gave a judgment on a finding-of-fact hearing under the Children Act 1989. The judgment is anonymised and the children are referred to as MN and OP.
Background
A case that concluded in 2018 ordered that the children live with their mother, QR, and spend time with their father, ST. In 2025 the father said both children told him they had been abused by their mother, and he kept them in his care. Both parents now seek orders about where the children live and contact. The mother represented herself. Mr Agu was appointed as qualified legal representative (QLR) for the purposes of cross-examination.
A Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) letter of 26 February 2026 said it was essential to establish the facts about reports of physical harm, and the alternative that the children had been influenced. An order of 16 June 2026 directed a fact-finding hearing. Given limited court time, the judge narrowed the allegations to be tried.
The question
Had the mother abused the father and the children? Had the father coached, manipulated or alienated the children against her? The judge applied the balance of probabilities and said findings must rest on evidence, not speculation.
The decision
The judge restricted the father's first allegation, of abuse during the relationship from 2012 to 2017, to two particulars in his supplementary statement. On those, the judge found the mother had perpetrated domestic abuse, including an incident where she pushed the father against a wall holding a knife to his throat and one where she threw a TV remote at him, causing bleeding and a black eye.
The judge found the father a credible witness: his evidence was consistent and detailed, and he made concessions. A lack of contemporaneous supporting evidence weakened his case, although the judge said such a gap is not unusual in domestic abuse cases. Handwritten notes by the paternal grandmother gave some support. The mother's evidence was assessed as of limited reliability and was not accepted on this allegation.
The mother's allegation that the father coerced, coached or manipulated the children, and alienated them from her, was not proved. The judge found no direct evidence, said the allegation rested on supposition and inference, and found the father's behaviour since 2018 inconsistent with a motive to alienate. The judge said other possibilities existed, including that the children's allegations were substantially true or that the children had invented them.
On the father's allegations of physical and emotional abuse of the children, the judge said his own evidence was of limited help because the children first made the allegations in October 2025. There was no relevant medical evidence, and neither party had sought any. The earlier knife finding carried some weight on propensity despite differences. The judge put significant weight on the absence of concern from schools, a neighbour or any professional before October 2025, save for a 2019 overdose incident, and on the absence of any earlier disclosure by the children. The judgment then turned to the children's welfare and asked where their voice was in the allegations.
What this means for parents in cross-allegation cases
- The court decides disputed facts on the balance of probabilities, using evidence rather than speculation.
- A lack of supporting evidence that could have been obtained, such as medical records, weakened an account in this case, even though the judge accepted that such evidence is often scarce.
- In this case the coaching allegation failed because it rested on supposition and inference, with no direct evidence.
- The judge considered Family Justice Council guidance on alienating behaviour and Re Y (Experts and Alienating Behaviour: The Modern Approach) [2026] EWFC 38.
Sources
- QR v ST [2026] EWFC 300 (B), Family Court: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2026/300