F v M [2023]

1. Facts:

• In the case of F v. M, the father (F) was accused of using family proceedings as a form of coercive control (CC) over the mother (M).

• The father’s actions included restricting the mother’s access to ante-natal care and isolating her, which were perceived as controlling behaviours intended to exert influence and stress upon her.

• The mother sought legal relief to address these issues. The court considered several measures, including a Prohibited Steps Order and a Section 91(14) Order under the Children Act 1989.

2. Outcome:

• Prohibited Steps Order: The court granted a Prohibited Steps Order to prevent the father from further restricting the mother’s access to ante-natal care and other necessary services.

• Section 91(14) Order: The court also issued a Section 91(14) Order, which prohibits the father from making further applications to the court regarding the children without obtaining prior permission. This order aimed to prevent the misuse of the court process as a form of coercive control.

• The court’s decision was based on the finding that the father’s actions constituted a misuse of family proceedings, causing unnecessary stress, expense, and emotional strain on the mother.

3. Impact and Analysis:

• Addressing Coercive Control: The case highlights the court’s recognition of coercive control within family law proceedings. By issuing both a Prohibited Steps Order and a Section 91(14) Order, the court addressed the father’s use of legal proceedings as a tool for ongoing control and manipulation.

• Protective Measures: The decision underscores the court’s role in implementing protective measures to safeguard individuals from abusive behaviours, including the use of legal processes to exert control. These measures aim to alleviate stress and protect the well-being of the victim, in this case, the mother.

• Section 91(14) Order: The use of Section 91(14) reflects a proactive approach to preventing the abuse of court processes. This order limits the father’s ability to make further applications, thus reducing the risk of continued litigation that could be used to control or harass the mother.

• Legal and Emotional Impact: The case illustrates the significant emotional and financial toll that coercive control can have on individuals involved in family proceedings. The court’s intervention aimed to mitigate these impacts by ensuring that the proceedings were used appropriately and not as a means of ongoing abuse.

• Reinforcing Legal Protections: F v. M reinforces the importance of providing legal protections against coercive control and misuse of family law processes. It demonstrates the court’s commitment to addressing the broader implications of domestic abuse and ensuring that family law serves its purpose of protecting and supporting vulnerable individuals.