Coercive Control, a House in His Sole Name, and Two Children
Nadia (33) married Ravi (36) nine years ago and they have two children, Ayaan (12) and Sara (5). Over the last three years Ravi has controlled all household money, has kept Nadia's bank card, monitors her phone with a tracking app, and has repeatedly told her she will 'never get the house'. Two weeks ago he pushed her against a kitchen counter during an argument about a school trip. Ayaan saw this and telephoned his grandmother. Police attended but made no arrest; a crime report exists and Nadia has a photograph of bruising to her forearm. The family home was bought in Ravi's sole name in 2016 using a deposit from his parents and a mortgage in his name alone, though Nadia has paid £400 a month into the joint account used for the mortgage since 2017. Ravi has moved to his brother's flat but says he will return 'whenever he likes' and has sent 40 messages in two days. Nadia has £200 in cash, no salary, and Sara has asthma, which is worse when she is stressed.
1. What urgent protective orders should be sought, and should any be sought without notice?
Read the worked answer
Two orders, on different foundations.
Non-molestation order. The evidence is strong: a recent physical assault witnessed by a child, a photograph of bruising, a police crime report, and a barrage of 40 messages in two days. The test is a need to secure the applicant's health, safety or well-being, and courts read 'well-being' to include psychological harm and coercion. The order should be drafted widely enough to cover pestering, tracking, entering the street, and contacting Nadia through third parties, but not so widely as to cut off legitimate communication about the children.
Occupation order. This is harder, because the house is in Ravi's sole name and he has a beneficial interest as legal owner. Nadia can only seek an order excluding him if she can show she is entitled to occupy - for example as an associated person with a home rights/matrimonial home right, or by establishing a beneficial interest through her £400 monthly contributions. The court then applies a balance-of-harm test: the harm to Nadia and the children if he returns, weighed against the harm to Ravi if he is excluded. A child with asthma whose condition worsens under stress, and a 12-year-old who witnessed violence, tilt that balance heavily.
Without notice? Yes for the non-molestation order, given the immediacy and the messaging. For the occupation order, only if there is a genuine risk of him returning before a hearing can be listed. Full and frank disclosure is essential, including the deposit from his parents.
2. How should the court's approach to Ayaan's evidence and to the children's interests be handled?
Read the worked answer
Ayaan is 12 and saw the assault. He is not simply a background fact; he is a child who has been exposed to domestic abuse, and that exposure is itself a welfare issue under any welfare checklist.
Do not put him in the witness box. Calling a 12-year-old to give evidence against his father in family proceedings is rarely in his interests and will be strongly resisted. The abuse can be proved without him: the police report, the officer's notes, the photograph, Nadia's statement, and the grandmother's account of the call. If his account is needed, seek a direction for an intermediary or a written statement admitted without cross-examination, and a court report on his wishes.
Recognise the risk of minimising. The common defence is 'it was one push, she exaggerates'. Answer it with the pattern: the bank card, the tracking app, the money control, the statements about the house. Coercive and controlling behaviour is a recognised form of domestic abuse even without further violence, and the court should be invited to consider the pattern, not just the incident.
Sara's asthma. This is not decoration. Medical evidence that stress aggravates her condition supports the case that Ravi's return to the home creates a risk of harm to a child, which is relevant to the occupation order and to the welfare analysis.
3. What should be proposed about Ravi's contact with the children?
Read the worked answer
Separate the two questions: Nadia's protection and the children's relationship with their father. Confusing them weakens both.
Contact should not be suspended indefinitely. There is no allegation that Ravi has harmed the children physically, and a court will not sever a relationship because of conflict between parents. Proposing sensible contact makes Nadia's protective case look measured rather than tactical.
Make it safe first. Propose that contact is interim and supported: daytime contact in a public or agreed setting, handovers through a third party or at a contact centre, and no discussion of the proceedings or of Nadia in the children's presence. Some jurisdictions require attendance at a separated parents programme before unsupervised overnight contact; if available, offer it.
Ayaan's position. He may refuse to go. Do not treat a 12-year-old's refusal as a wish to be overridden, nor as an automatic veto. Ask for a child and family assessment of his views, and be prepared for the possibility that his reluctance is a direct consequence of what he saw.
Protective order wording. Ensure the non-molestation order does not prevent contact arrangements being communicated; carve out a channel (solicitors or a parenting app) so that Ravi cannot claim the order prevents him seeing the children.
Financial context. Ravi's control of money is part of the abuse. Note the need for interim maintenance and access to funds in the same application; a woman with £200 cannot litigate.