A mum-of-two killed herself while struggling to cope with the fall-out from the end of a relationship that by then bore the ‘classic signs’ of emotional abuse, an inquest has heard. Michelle Sparman, 48, from Battersea in southwest London, ended her life on the Rose Ward at Queen Mary’s Hospital in Roehampton on August 24, 2021. She had been admitted to the acute psychiatric unit voluntarily following an overdose three days earlier.

An inquest into her death has heard that her family will be inviting Assistant Coroner Bernard Richmond KC to consider how the behaviour of her ex-partner Roger Stephens impacted on her mental health. He has previously acknowledged sending too many text messages and making Michelle’s life ‘very difficult’ by putting stress on her. But he also insisted he ‘absolutely’ loved her and blamed hormone changes for her mental health issues.

The court heard today how Michelle messaged her sister in November 2020 saying Mr Stephens’ messages ‘affects me so much for every day for the whole day’, adding: ‘I will end up killing myself.’. By the following February, she had instructed a solicitor to write a letter asking him to refrain from further contact. It stated that since moving out he ‘continued to attend the family home daily’, had been ‘verbally abusive and threatening’, and continued to ‘call and message her excessively’.

The letter added: ‘This behaviour is causing my client a lot of anxiety and cannot continue.’. Michelle threatened to block him in March, but the court heard they had to stay in contact to make arrangements about childcare. On April 5, he messaged her: ‘All of us feel sad in our own way because of you.’ She told a friend later that day his messages ‘just emotionally drain me’. Inner West London Coroners’ Court heard that on May 23, Michelle sent him a message detailing how his texts hurt her.

She wrote: ‘I can’t cope with the toxicity anymore the nasty text messages, every single one that is so personal hurts me so deeply and leaves its mark.’. The court heard Michelle complained again throughout June that his messages were painful to read. After the messages were read into the record, Mr Richmond said: ‘It is quite clear that there had been behaviour which even Roger had admitted was creating extra stress and that behaviour was at times humiliating, demeaning and added to the stress of the break-up. He couldn’t accept the break-up.

‘What matters of course is the effect of this on her was to add to her stress, so that would have been operative at the time.’. He added: ‘I would be prepared to acknowledge that she herself perceived herself at the time to be abused.’. Jennifer MacLeod, representing the family, said: ‘The family’s position is that she perceived that as abuse, and all the medical professionals we have heard from perceived that as abuse.’.

The assistant coroner told the court he was not ‘going to label Roger an abuser’, pointing out evidence that on occasions she described feeling ‘grateful’ to Mr Stephens for supporting her. But Ms McLeod followed on: ‘If it is a complex emotional situation. If it is a situation where there is sometimes some benefit from the relationship. ‘If there is a situation where there are mixed feelings, in my submission that does not stop it from being abusive.’.

Mr Richmond agreed: ‘Quite the contrary.’. Ms MacLeod added: ‘It is absolutely classic. The fact that there are complaints around this are indicative of it being abusive, not the other direction. ‘If all the facts are there and if you are thinking about a conclusion of abuse, why wouldn’t you label it as such?’. Mr Stephens, who is an unrepresented party to the inquest, was called by Mr Richmond to give evidence a second time.

He told the assistant coroner he found the break-up ‘completely shocking’. He also said the effect of the menopause on Michelle’s mental health ‘hasn’t been mentioned enough in this inquest’. Mr Stephens admitted ‘at times really bombarding her with texts’ which were occasionally ‘angry’, ‘begging her’ and ‘guilt-tripping her’. ‘Do you accept that you were using every technique you could think of to try and get back with you?’ Mr Richmond asked, to which Mr Stephens replied: ‘Yes.’.

But he denied his actions were ‘calculated’. Mr Richmond went on: ‘The intention behind everything you were trying to do was to try and get her to come back to you, wasn’t it?’. Mr Stephens replied: ‘Yes, to put the family back together.’. The assistant coroner went on: ‘Can we say that whatever your intention, the impact on her if you kept on and on and on is the same as if you were doing it deliberately?’.