When Accountability Cuts Both Ways: Lessons from Mahmoud v Glanville for the Falsely Accused
- Falsely Accused Network
- Oct 29
- 3 min read
By Michael Thompson, Founder of the Falsely Accused Network (FAN)
The recent judgment in Mahmoud v Glanville & Anor (High Court, Family Division) has been praised by many for reinforcing the consequences of “abusive litigation.” The case, where a mother abducted and concealed her child from the father for eight months, resulted in a rare costs order of £115,000 and a transfer of full care to the father.
While this outcome may appear straightforward—a clear instance of holding a parent accountable for obstructive behaviour—it also raises deeper questions about how the family court system defines and applies the concept of “abusive litigation.”
At the Falsely Accused Network, we support parents—often fathers—who find themselves wrongly accused or drawn into repeated, weaponised litigation by ex-partners. From our perspective, this case highlights not just accountability, but the urgent need for balance, consistency, and protection for those targeted through vexatious proceedings and false allegations.
---
1. A Welcome Acknowledgement of Litigation Abuse
The judgment is an important recognition that litigation itself can become a form of abuse. For years, many of our members have described being dragged back into court on flimsy or fabricated grounds—sometimes dozens of times—simply because the other party refuses to accept outcomes or seeks to maintain control through the legal process.
When one parent continually breaches orders, hides a child, or fabricates allegations, the court process becomes an extension of coercive control.
Mr Justice MacDonald’s decision sends a long-overdue message: the courtroom is not a weapon. That principle should be applied equally and fearlessly, regardless of gender or which parent is making the allegations.
---
2. Costs Orders as a Deterrent – But for Whom?
The £115,000 costs order, including £20,000 to the Access to Justice Foundation, is being lauded as a deterrent against unreasonable litigation. However, this development cuts both ways.
In family cases, false allegations of domestic abuse or coercive control often trigger months—sometimes years—of unnecessary hearings. The falsely accused parent, who may already be bankrupted by legal costs, has little recourse when the accuser walks away unpunished after proven dishonesty or breaches of orders.
If the family courts are now willing to impose costs for reprehensible behaviour, then parity of application is essential. When a parent’s false allegations are dismissed, or when a party misuses non-molestation orders as a litigation tactic, the same financial accountability should apply.
Selective enforcement of “abusive litigation” risks becoming another gendered imbalance in a system already under intense scrutiny for bias and inconsistency.
---
3. The Role of Pro Bono Representation
The article rightly acknowledges the role of pro bono lawyers and the importance of access to justice. Many falsely accused parents rely on volunteer legal advocates or McKenzie Friends because they have been financially ruined defending themselves.
At FAN, we see this every week. Access to competent, affordable legal help is not a luxury—it’s a lifeline. Recognising pro bono contributions is welcome, but it must not obscure the deeper crisis: ordinary people are being priced out of justice, while publicly funded resources are routinely deployed to pursue one-sided narratives without scrutiny.
---
4. The Broader Pattern: False Allegations and “Abusive Litigation”
While Mahmoud v Glanville involved serious misconduct by the mother, we must avoid drawing a false comfort that accountability has arrived system-wide.
Across England and Wales, thousands of parents face repeated applications, non-molestation orders, and safeguarding investigations founded on false or exaggerated claims. Each new allegation resets the process—another CAFCASS report, another hearing, another psychological toll.
For these parents, the system itself becomes the abuser, and “abusive litigation” often flows from those who exploit the court’s reluctance to hold accusers to account.
If the family courts now recognise litigation abuse, they must extend that recognition to include false allegation abuse—where litigation is not just repetitive, but built entirely on untruths.
---
5. The Path Forward: Equal Accountability
The High Court’s message is clear: those who manipulate proceedings will face consequences. The challenge is ensuring this principle is applied impartially.
If a parent abducts or conceals a child – sanctions must follow.
If a parent repeatedly breaches orders – sanctions must follow.
And if a parent lies to the court, makes false abuse allegations, or uses the process to destroy another’s reputation – sanctions must also follow.
Accountability must never be gendered. Justice cannot favour the “right” type of victim.
---
Conclusion
Mahmoud v Glanville is a welcome step toward restoring integrity to family justice. But it will only mean something if the principle of “abusive litigation” is applied even-handedly—including to those who misuse the language of abuse to conceal their own misconduct.
For the many fathers, mothers, and families supported by the Falsely Accused Network, this case is both a beacon and a warning:
progress is possible, but only if accountability is consistent.
Original article link
---
Michael Thompson
Founder, Falsely Accused Network
📞 0204 538 8788
Comments