A judge's ruling that a rape victim must negotiate child care with her ex-husband, who had previously subjected her to rape and domestic abuse, has been slammed.
The family courts ruled that the man who has not been named, raped the lady "on more than one occasion" and subjected her to domestic violence, including physical abuse, emotional abuse, and facets of controlling and coercive behaviour.
Even though the mother asked for visits to be monitored, the judge ruled in favour of unsupervised contact between the father and his son.
Judge Alan Jenkins of the family court's remote hearing in November encouraged the man and woman to settle their child custody dispute "amongst themselves" by engaging in direct negotiations.
The appeals court heard that the couple first met in 2006, got married in 2010, and then divorced in 2018. In 2020, the woman reported her ex-husband to the police for rape and sexual abuse.
Senior judge Emma Nott determined in March that a fresh trial was necessary because the first judge had botched the proceedings.
In the appeal judgement, Judge Nott writes, "I accept entirely [the] mother's statement that she was intimidated by and felt distressed by - and therefore felt she was not able properly to represent her views - her direct dealings with father."
At a later time, she clarified, "It was inappropriate in my view for the mother to be directed to negotiate directly with father about the issue of contact."
Judge Nott warned the “mother is the victim of significant and serious domestic abuse and violence, including sexual violence”. She said that during child contact the father would "sexually intimidate" her and "coerce her into sex" even if their child was in the next room.
The appeal was launched in the family courts by barrister Charlotte Proudman, who told The Independent that her client had submitted personal photos of his ex-wife to the court and been reported to the police.
The human rights attorney was outraged that the woman had to "look at her rapist on a screen" because of the lack of specific precautions in place for her.
She added: “The judge asked the rapist and victim to speak to each other. I think it is appalling that happened."
“It shows unfortunately the family courts are still not implementing special measures for victims of rape and other forms of domestic abuse consistently in every case, and that can result in victims feeling intimidated, distressed, and suffering emotionally.”
She went on to say that the victim of rape was "emotionally harmed" by the hearing.
Dr Proudman said: “The way the trial judge spoke to the mother was not acceptable. He shut down any explanation she tried to give and dismissed her concerns about contact with a rapist and her child.”
She went on to say that how the woman was treated in the family courts is "part of a bigger picture and pattern" in which family courts do not always apply exceptional measures.
She cautioned that if victims believe they will be forced to communicate with their rapist, they will be dissuaded from seeking justice through the family courts.
