By Gavin Evans
Dr Gavin Evans is a freelance journalist and author of eight non-fiction books including books of popular science and sporting biographies. He has a PhD in political science and has lectured in media law, media theory and journalism at the Culture and Media department at Birkbeck College, Cardiff University and at the London School of Journalism.
The 30-something woman I was about to interview in the Family Court’s consultation room had a vibrant energy and even the hint of a smile. But once we were both seated I could see there was a nervous tension behind the smile and it soon became clear why.
‘Hannah’ and ‘Theo’ (not their real names – Family Law rules don’t permit identification of litigants) started dating more than a decade ago and at first all went well. “He was the perfect boyfriend,” she said in our post-trial interview, “just charming, good, nice and he did everything. Yeah we were happy together.”
She was a graduate from a top university, making her way in the world as a City-based professional. He was a bit older, a European immigrant with three children from a previous marriage and was also working in business and he seemed prepared to make accommodations to make life easier for her – and to please her parents.
They got married and for a while they were happy together. Looking back, however, she now recognises that she should have paid more attention to the “red flags”.
“The main one was the way he referred to his former wife – that she was ‘horrible, crazy, mad’, and he kept crying about how she had a ‘victim mentality’.” He would later make similar accusations against Hannah.
Their first serious conflict came after their son, ‘Fred’, was born and it focused on choosing a school, after which “it broke down quickly”. A more serious dispute erupted when Theo announced “without consultation” that his three children from his previous marriage would be living with them after their mother left the country permanently. Two of them – a boy and a girl – shared a room and “bickered non-stop”.
What was even more upsetting for Hannah was that the boy cried every night because he was missing his absent mother. Theo acknowledged in court he would “spank” this boy about once a week. “I begged him to stop hitting his son,” Hannah said, which he eventually did in 2022. He said in court: “I am deeply ashamed about that.”
He also admitted in court that he once slapped one of his girls in the face when she was a young teenager, which he acknowledged in court was “abusive”.
Theo said his older son “hated” his stepmother but Hannah responded in the interview that he had “conspired” with his other children. “I felt belittled in my own home. He’d tell them I was stupid and would say, ‘Don’t bother about her – if she wants something done you don’t have do it.’ So I was being disempowered in my own home.”
His behaviour towards Hannah also became alarming. She said he “throttled” her in bed, against her will, and began physically pushing her around, and, several times, pushed her out of the bed. “I didn’t feel safe at all,” she said. “I was afraid of him. I am still very scared of him.”
Soon they were in perpetual conflict, which affected both profoundly. He said he suffered from depression, lost his job and expressed suicidal thoughts including once putting a rope around his neck, but noted that his mental state improved through vigorous exercise. She was treated for PTSD and struggled to get to sleep at night. “My whole life has been affected by this,” she said, describing him as “coercive and controlling”.
They separated and divorced. Their son lived with Hannah but Theo saw him twice a week during school days one weekend night per week.
In court she described their last years together as Dante’s “Seventh Circle of Hell”. When I asked her about this, and whether she was still in the seventh circle, she offered a wry smile and she had moved to “maybe the upper circles of hell”.
Still, she said, the conflict continued. Theo sued to secure more access to his now-eight-year-old son – asking for two-thirds-one-third in his favour for a year (to make up for previous lost contact) and then 50-50 thereafter.
The Family Court trial, that took six days in court between August 2025 and February 2026, was the final stage of this dispute. A screen separated them in court so that they could not see each other.
But it is not the end of Theo’s attempts to use the law to get his way. The Family court heard that Theo had made formal complaints against nine professionals, including some involved in the case, and also had two separate legal cases against Hannah. Counsel for the court-appointed children’s guardian described his litigious behaviour as coercive and a “form of manipulation which he doesn’t recognise because he is not in touch with his emotions”. The Family Court judge made a finding that the father had engaged in Controlling and Coercive Behaviour .
So-far Hannah has forked out more than £40,000 in legal fees, giving her no option but to work full-time despite also being “a single parent with no family support”.
And yet she describes herself as “lucky in some ways” because her employers are supportive and “know a bit about this”. They allow her to work flexibility although, “when I leave work early for my son then I have to catch up at night and early in the morning, so it’s just a non-stop treadmill. All I do is work, exercise and look after my son. I’ve been isolating myself from other people, partly because I have no time but also because I don’t want to talk about this to them all of the time.”
The judgment was largely in her favour, finding that Hannah would provide most of the care and decisions for Fred. Theo will look after him from Fridays after school until 5pm on Saturdays during term time and for two weeks during the summer holidays and will be allowed to take him abroad during this time if he gives Hannah two week’s notice.
Now that the Family Law case is over and there is a barring order preventing Theo from contacting her directly, she feels some relief. “Things will definitely change. They will certainly get better. For one thing I will be able to move around more and visit my family up-country because both of my parents are unwell.”
At a further hearing in March, costs were awarded to the mother. The father announced his intention to appeal against this.
Published 23 March 2026.