A Marathon of Manipulation: The Devastating Case of Reuben (A Child) [2025] EWFC 392 (B)
- Falsely Accused Network
- Nov 19
- 5 min read
By Mike Thompson — Founder, Falsely Accused Network
When I read Reuben (A Child) [2025] EWFC 392 (B), what struck me most was not the legal complexity, nor even the nine-year litigation history. What hit me hardest was this:
This little boy’s life was consumed — and damaged — by one parent’s relentless, obsessive, and emotionally corrosive behaviour.
And the court has finally called it out.
This judgment should be compulsory reading for every professional dealing with high-conflict cases, because the behaviours described here are exactly what thousands of fathers across England and Wales tell us every single week.
But in this case, every last detail is laid out in black and white by a District Judge who had finally seen enough.
---
A Childhood Hijacked by Conflict
Reuben has spent more time in court proceedings than most criminals.
Why?
Because his mother would not stop dragging this child back into litigation, again and again, for nine long years.
The judge highlighted:
Four separate sets of proceedings
More than 3,200 pages of material
Five additional C2 applications by the mother in this single case
Constant demands to reduce or halt contact
Ongoing accusations, none of which were ever proven
A complete inability to follow orders or accept professional advice
This wasn’t co-parenting.
This was warfare, waged at the expense of a child who deserved much better.
---
The Mother’s Behaviour: The Court Couldn’t Ignore It Any Longer
What stands out most is how utterly disconnected the mother’s evidence was from reality.
The judge found her:
Combative
Emotionally volatile
Contradicted by documents on multiple occasions
Rigid and inflexible
Hostile to professionals
Entrenched in her own narrative
Unable to support Reuben’s relationship with his father
Even more damning:
✔ She denied making applications that she had literally signed.
✔ She denied labelling the father an “abuser”—despite written records proving she did.
✔ She denied school reports that raised concerns about her behaviour, not the father’s.
✔ She rejected the guardian’s evidence, the Early Help worker’s evidence, and medical documentation.
Every professional who tried to help was met with hostility the moment they disagreed with her.
The judge found her so entrenched in her own story that she could no longer see — or meet — her son’s emotional needs.
---
Reuben’s Behaviour: A Home Divided
The most shocking contrast in the entire judgment is this:
When Reuben was with his father:
Calm
Happy
Playful
Affectionate
Thriving
100% school attendance
No extreme behaviours
No distress
A strong, natural bond
When Reuben was with his mother:
Screaming fits
Violence
Throwing stones
Kicking balls at glass doors
Attacking his mother
Extreme dysregulation
“School refusal”
Dramatic physical symptoms
Reported emotional breakdowns
Even threats of sedation to get him into school (per the school’s recorded concerns)
The guardian described the behaviour she observed in the mother’s house as:
> “Absolutely shocking.”
And the judge made it clear:
This was not caused by the father.
This was not masking.
This was the product of the emotional environment the mother had created.
An environment the judge said had emotionally harmed Reuben.
---
Weaponising ASD and Medical Issues
The mother consistently medicalised every reaction, every emotion, every difficulty.
If Reuben didn’t want to do something?
It became a “symptom”.
If he had a headache?
It became evidence of harm.
If he was upset?
Blame the father.
Even when:
The school saw none of this behaviour.
The father experienced none of it.
Medical professionals observed that the mother’s narrative did not align with reality.
The judge rejected her masking theory as implausible and unsupported by any evidence.
---
The Father: Calm, Child-Focused, Stable
The contrast could not be clearer.
The father:
Was calm, measured, and honest throughout
Admitted what he didn’t know
Encouraged Reuben’s relationship with his mother
Completed CBT, Triple P, anxious child courses, and ASD training
Managed appointments appropriately
Provided a stable routine
Ensured perfect school attendance
Gave Reuben space to express himself normally
He didn’t have theatrics.
He didn’t have dramatic stories.
He had evidence, and he had a son who behaved like a completely different child in his care.
---
The Court’s Decision: A Necessary Reset
District Judge Worthley made a courageous and necessary call:
Reuben will now spend the majority of term-time with his father.
A 61%/39% split in favour of the father.
The mother, for the first time in nine years, must face the consequences of her own actions.
The judge even imposed:
✔ A strict communication restriction
to stop the mother bombarding the child with messages.
✔ A three-and-a-half-year s.91(14) order
to stop her from dragging Reuben back into more litigation.
The judge did not mince words:
The mother’s behaviour would result in continued emotional harm unless firm boundaries were put in place.
---
A Landmark Judgment Exposing a Pattern We See Every Day
At the Falsely Accused Network, we see this pattern constantly:
One parent weaponises emotional narratives
Professionals become targets if they don’t “agree”
A child is overwhelmed by a parent’s anxiety
Contact is restricted not because of evidence, but because of suspicion
Court orders are ignored
Professionals are painted as incompetent or biased
The other parent fights for years to simply be a parent
This case is the textbook example.
A mother so entrenched, so rigid, so convinced she alone knows best, that she could no longer see the damage being done.
The judgment exposes it with clinical precision.
---
Reuben Deserved Better — and Now, Finally, He Has a Chance
This case isn’t a “win” for the father.
It’s a rescue mission for a child who has lived in emotional chaos for most of his life.
The court has finally:
Broken the cycle
Reduced the mother’s ability to weaponise contact
Provided Reuben with stability
Put boundaries around communication
Protected him from further litigation harm
Most importantly:
The court has affirmed that one parent’s anxiety, hostility, and narrative can be just as harmful as any overt abuse.
And when that behaviour becomes entrenched, the court must intervene.
---
Final Thought
Reuben’s story is tragic — but far from unique.
Every week, FAN hears from fathers living through the same nightmare:
Unfounded allegations
Endless applications
Manipulation of professionals
Emotional pressure placed on the child
A narrative that cannot be challenged
Years of litigation
Relationships damaged almost beyond repair
This judgment finally exposes exactly how damaging this pattern is.
And it sends a message:
Courts are beginning to recognise emotional manipulation for what it is — a form of harm.
If you’re a parent facing this kind of behaviour, you are not alone.
And as this case shows, the truth can prevail — even after years of distortion.
Link for the full judgement is here ;
Comments