Finding of fact

Email for guidance 


Finding of fact

If a fact-finding hearing is necessary the person making allegations will need to schedule them with dates and details of what happened and support this with a detailed statement. The other party will then have the opportunity to respond to both documents. Witnesses can also give statements. The court may also make orders to obtain information such as police or medical records where relevant. At the hearing, both parties and any witnesses will need to give evidence to the court and be questioned on their positions to try to establish who is telling the truth, before the Judge makes a decision.

The judge will usually go through each allegation and whether it is proved (believed to be true) or not. The judge will then decide how the case progresses. Sometimes if no allegations are proved decisions as to child arrangements can be made there and then. Usually, the judge will allow the parties time to reflect and either order another hearing with or without further involvement from CAFCASS. If findings are made the court will have to decide whether there are steps that can be taken for it to be safe for a child to see that parent such as providing for a violent parent to attend a Domestic Violence Perpetrator Programme to address their violent behavior. Sometimes the findings will be so serious that the court will decide that it is not safe for the parent to spend time with the child or may decide that they should not do so face to face and can only send occasional letters or cards.

Parents who consider making serious false allegations need to be warned that doing so will usually in itself be considered harmful to the child and could be considered so serious that the court decides that it is not in the child's best interests to live with or in extreme circumstances even spend time with that parent.

...............................................................................................................................................................................

High court judge warns against appealing and finding of fact, I have explained to many parents that any such finding could have massive consequences, I strongly advise that in such cases you use a barrister at this hearing. The Guidance and case law make clear that the courts and professionals have been too willing to embark on fact-finding hearings without proper consideration as to what purpose those hearings will serve in the context of the proceedings as a whole. If this Guidance is applied robustly then the courts should see a decrease in the number of fact-finding hearings being listed as well as a decrease in the length of such hearings as the issues for determination to be narrowed and focused. Certainly, this writer and others working in the area have already seen magistrates and district judges taking this approach and refusing fact-finding hearings in cases where both parties have submitted that such a hearing is necessary.
Whether this approach will actually lead to decrease in cost and delay remains to be seen. One of the criticisms in the Guidance was that unnecessary fact findings also meant the "ill-focused use of scarce expert resources", presumably referring to numerous medical experts coming to court to give evidence that could not realistically be challenged. However, one concern is that the Guidance, if applied, will inevitably shift the focus on to the welfare stage and the courts will be requesting reports from professionals who are being asked to consider their recommendations in the light of a number of different possible factual scenarios, presumably at a higher cost.
Perhaps the benefits of the Guidance can be more easily appreciated in the private law sphere. where in all but the most serious domestic violence cases a progression of contact from a supervised setting to unsupervised could be managed without the need for a fact-finding hearing when the alleged perpetrator is willing to undertake work such as anger management courses and provide undertakings to the court.
Read more: https://www.mckenziefriendfamilylaw.com/finding-of-fact-in-family-law-cases/


High court judge warns against appealing and finding of fact, I have explained to many parents that any such finding could have massive consequences, I strongly advise that in such cases you use a barrister at this hearing. The Guidance and case law make clear that the courts and professionals have been too willing to embark on fact-finding hearings without proper consideration as to what purpose those hearings will serve in the context of the proceedings as a whole. If this Guidance is applied robustly then the courts should see a decrease in the number of fact-finding hearings being listed as well as a decrease in the length of such hearings as the issues for determination to be narrowed and focused. Certainly, this writer and others working in the area have already seen magistrates and district judges taking this approach and refusing fact-finding hearings in cases where both parties have submitted that such a hearing is necessary.
Whether this approach will actually lead to decrease in cost and delay remains to be seen. One of the criticisms in the Guidance was that unnecessary fact findings also meant the "ill-focused use of scarce expert resources", presumably referring to numerous medical experts coming to court to give evidence that could not realistically be challenged. However, one concern is that the Guidance, if applied, will inevitably shift the focus on to the welfare stage and the courts will be requesting reports from professionals who are being asked to consider their recommendations in the light of a number of different possible factual scenarios, presumably at a higher cost.
Perhaps the benefits of the Guidance can be more easily appreciated in the private law sphere. where in all but the most serious domestic violence cases a progression of contact from a supervised setting to unsupervised could be managed without the need for a fact-finding hearing when the alleged perpetrator is willing to undertake work such as anger management courses and provide undertakings to the court.
Read more: https://www.mckenziefriendfamilylaw.com/finding-of-fact-in-family-law-cases/


High court judge warns against appealing and finding of fact, I have explained to many parents that any such finding could have massive consequences, I strongly advise that in such cases you use a barrister at this hearing. The Guidance and case law make clear that the courts and professionals have been too willing to embark on fact-finding hearings without proper consideration as to what purpose those hearings will serve in the context of the proceedings as a whole. If this Guidance is applied robustly then the courts should see a decrease in the number of fact-finding hearings being listed as well as a decrease in the length of such hearings as the issues for determination to be narrowed and focused. Certainly, this writer and others working in the area have already seen magistrates and district judges taking this approach and refusing fact-finding hearings in cases where both parties have submitted that such a hearing is necessary.
Whether this approach will actually lead to decrease in cost and delay remains to be seen. One of the criticisms in the Guidance was that unnecessary fact findings also meant the "ill-focused use of scarce expert resources", presumably referring to numerous medical experts coming to court to give evidence that could not realistically be challenged. However, one concern is that the Guidance, if applied, will inevitably shift the focus on to the welfare stage and the courts will be requesting reports from professionals who are being asked to consider their recommendations in the light of a number of different possible factual scenarios, presumably at a higher cost.
Perhaps the benefits of the Guidance can be more easily appreciated in the private law sphere. where in all but the most serious domestic violence cases a progression of contact from a supervised setting to unsupervised could be managed without the need for a fact-finding hearing when the alleged perpetrator is willing to undertake work such as anger management courses and provide undertakings to the court.

Recent case law - practice and procedure
Appeals in respect of findings of fact made after oral evidence are notoriously difficult to formulate. The inherent advantage to the first instance tribunal in being able to observe first hand the demeanor of witnesses is well established as noted in Re S (Abduction: Custody Rights) [2002] EWCA Civ 908 at para [25]:

"Although it is possible to appeal against a finding of fact, it is notoriously difficult to succeed in so doing. Where findings of fact are made based on the demeanor of a witness, the appeal court will seldom interfere because the trial judge has the special advantage over the appellate judge."

The principles for appealing a finding of fact hearing were recently reviewed in AA V NA[2010] EWHC 1282. In this case, 89 allegations were heard over a period of 9 months during 17 days of evidence. The judge provided two draft judgments before handing down his final judgment, in which he found in favour of the mother on every allegation. The father appealed.
In allowing the appeal, Mostyn J helpfully reviewed the court's jurisdiction to consider appeals against findings of fact and concluded that (para 15):

"In my opinion, an appellate court would only be able to say that a fact-finder has plainly got the wrong answer if:
i) His conclusion was demonstrably contrary to the weight of the evidence, or
ii) The decision-making process can be identified as being plainly defective so that it can be said that the findings in question are unsafe.
I would include in the second category errors of principle as to, say, the burden or standard of proof, or a failure to take into account well-established principles as to the weight to be given to proven lies or litigation misconduct in reaching the factual findings."

Mostyn J concluded that the trial judge had placed too great a weight on allegations of litigation misconduct on the part of the father, insufficient weight on inconsistencies in the mother's account, and had not provided clear reasoning to support a finding that the father had hit the children. These issues were sufficient to undermine the entirety of the findings.
Following the finding of fact hearing, the parents had, in any event, agreed to a shared residence order in respect of the children. In view of this, a split hearing was not re-listed. As an aside, if the Practice Direction on Domestic Violence had been properly applied then this fact-finding would probably not have taken place as it appears that the outcome was unlikely to affect the ultimate welfare decision.

High court judge warns against appealing and finding of fact, I have explained to many parents that any such finding could have massive consequences, I strongly advise that in such cases you use a barrister at this hearing. The Guidance and case law make clear that the courts and professionals have been too willing to embark on fact-finding hearings without proper consideration as to what purpose those hearings will serve in the context of the proceedings as a whole. If this Guidance is applied robustly then the courts should see a decrease in the number of fact-finding hearings being listed as well as a decrease in the length of such hearings as the issues for determination to be narrowed and focused. Certainly, this writer and others working in the area have already seen magistrates and district judges taking this approach and refusing fact-finding hearings in cases where both parties have submitted that such a hearing is necessary. Whether this approach will actually lead to decrease in cost and delay remains to be seen. One of the criticisms in the Guidance was that unnecessary fact findings also meant the "ill-focused use of scarce expert resources", presumably referring to numerous medical experts coming to court to give evidence that could not realistically be challenged. However, one concern is that the Guidance, if applied, will inevitably shift the focus on to the welfare stage and the courts will be requesting reports from professionals who are being asked to consider their recommendations in the light of a number of different possible factual scenarios, presumably at a higher cost. Perhaps the benefits of the Guidance can be more easily appreciated in the private law sphere.


Please read this link below 

 


https://www.9parkplace.co.uk/news-and-events/2021/04/06/summary-of-judgement-re-h-n/