Schedule of Allegations Help | Family Court Fact-Finding | JSH Law

Few Family Court documents cause as much difficulty as an allegations schedule.

A litigant may be trying to reduce years of domestic abuse, coercive control, financial restriction, threats, intimidation, post-separation behaviour or disputed child-related events into a table containing only a handful of rows.

That can feel impossible.

And sometimes a simple incident-by-incident table genuinely is not capable of explaining the case properly.

The law now recognises that problem more clearly.

Practice Direction 12J was amended with effect from 5 January 2026. The previous terminology of “Scott Schedules” was removed. The current direction refers instead to a schedule or table and expressly requires the court to consider whether it can contain:

• the key facts in dispute;
• specific incidents;
• details or examples of any alleged pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour;
• the issues actually to be tried; and
• the responding party’s position.

The purpose is not to chop a pattern of abuse into artificial fragments.

It is to help the court understand what needs determining while preserving the context necessary to assess the alleged behaviour properly.

Allegation → Context → Evidence → Response → Finding

The schedule helps define the dispute.

It does not prove the allegation merely because the allegation appears in a table.

The short answer: how do you write a Family Court allegation?

Start with the behaviour you say occurred.

A useful allegation should ordinarily make clear:

1. When did it happen?
2. Where did it happen?
3. What exactly do you say the other person did or said?
4. What was the relevant context?
5. What was the effect on you and, where relevant, the child?
6. What evidence supports the allegation?

If coercive or controlling behaviour is alleged, a single date may not tell the story.

The allegation may instead need to identify a period, repeated behaviour, representative examples and the cumulative effect, depending on what the court has directed.

Do not start by squeezing years of history into random rows

JSH Law can provide privately funded, defined-scope assistance with organising allegations and responses for litigants in person.

Depending on the case, that may include:

• reviewing the fact-finding directions;
• identifying what the court has actually ordered;
• reviewing an existing allegations schedule;
• organising discrete allegations;
• identifying possible pattern allegations;
• building a coercive-control chronology;
• mapping evidence to allegations;
• reviewing responses;
• identifying admissions and partial admissions;
• preparing evidence-reference schedules;
• identifying evidential gaps; and
• preparing for the fact-finding hearing.

What is a schedule of allegations?

It is a structured document setting out disputed allegations which may need to be determined by the Family Court.

It is commonly used in private children proceedings where domestic abuse or other relevant harm is alleged.

Depending on the court’s directions, columns may include:

• number;
• date or period;
• allegation;
• impact;
• evidence relied upon;
• response;
• evidence relied upon in response; and
• a space for the court’s eventual finding.

There is no universal template that overrides the judge’s directions in your particular case.

If the order provides a template or specifies the columns, use it.

Is it still called a Scott Schedule?

You will still hear practitioners and older guidance use the term Scott Schedule.

But the terminology in PD12J changed on 5 January 2026.

The current Practice Direction refers to a:

schedule or table

rather than prescribing the older Scott Schedule terminology.

That change reflects an important substantive point.

The document is meant to assist the court.

It should not force allegations of coercive control into an artificial format that prevents the judge from seeing the wider pattern.

Start with the court order — not an online template

Before drafting anything, read the latest sealed order.

Identify:

• whether the court has ordered a schedule or table at all;
• who must prepare it;
• who must respond;
• the filing and service dates;
• whether the number of allegations has been limited;
• what columns the court requires;
• whether impact must be included;
• whether evidence references are required;
• whether supporting statements have been directed;
• whether police or other disclosure has been ordered;
• what allegations the court proposes to determine; and
• the date and purpose of the fact-finding hearing.

Is a C1A the same thing as a schedule of allegations?

No.

Form C1A is the HMCTS supplemental form used to tell the court about harm or risk of harm in relevant children proceedings, or to respond to allegations made by another person.

It may alert the court to issues including:

• domestic abuse;
• child abuse;
• drug or alcohol concerns;
• abduction;
• other safeguarding concerns; and
• the protective action sought.

A schedule directed later in the proceedings has a different purpose.

It is usually designed to help define the specific disputed facts which may require determination.

The current C1A was updated by HMCTS in June 2026, so use the current form where one is required.

Schedule, witness statement and findings schedule are not the same document

Confusing these documents often leads to schedules which are too long and statements which simply repeat the table.

Does being ordered to prepare allegations automatically mean there will be a fact-finding hearing?

Not necessarily.

PD12J requires the court to decide whether fact-finding is actually necessary.

The court considers matters including:

• whether allegations are admitted;
• whether other evidence already provides a sufficient factual basis;
• the nature of the allegations;
• whether the allegations, if proved, would affect the welfare decision;
• whether findings are needed for a proper assessment of risk;
• what evidence would be required;
• whether the relevant welfare questions can be answered without a separate fact-finding hearing; and
• whether a separate hearing is necessary and proportionate.

The Court of Appeal reaffirmed that approach in K v K [2022] EWCA Civ 468.

The point of fact-finding is not to determine every historic complaint between former partners. It is to determine facts needed for the welfare and risk decisions before the court.

Which allegations should go into the schedule?

Start with relevance.

Ask:

• If this allegation were proved, what would it tell the court?
• Would it affect the assessment of future risk?
• Would it affect the child’s welfare?
• Would it help explain an alleged pattern?
• Would it affect safe child arrangements?
• Would it affect the reliability of a significant disputed account?
• Is it already admitted?
• Has another court already made a relevant finding?

The strongest allegation is not necessarily the most dramatic allegation.

It is the allegation which helps answer a question the court genuinely needs to resolve.

How to write a clear allegation

Avoid beginning with a conclusion.

For example:

“The respondent coercively controlled me throughout the marriage.”

tells the court the legal characterisation you want it to reach.

It does not yet tell the court what conduct it is being asked to determine.

Instead identify the behaviour.

For example:

“Between January and June 2025, the respondent repeatedly required the applicant to provide photographs showing her location, demanded access to her phone and became threatening when she did not respond immediately. Examples relied upon include the messages dated 14 February, 3 April and 19 May 2025.”

The court can now understand:

• the period;
• the conduct alleged;
• its repetitive nature; and
• the examples said to evidence it.

Whether the behaviour amounts to coercive or controlling behaviour is then a matter for evidential evaluation.

Example schedule structure

Your court order may require a different format, but a working table might look like this:

The example is deliberately factual.

It identifies the alleged behaviour while preserving the responding party’s ability to answer it.

Coercive control cannot always be reduced to individual incidents

This is the central difficulty with schedules in coercive-control cases.

One incident may appear minor when viewed alone.

The significance may lie in:

• frequency;
• repetition;
• escalation;
• the relationship between different behaviours;
• the circumstances in which they occurred;
• the cumulative impact; or
• how the behaviour restricted the other person’s autonomy.

In Re H-N and Others (Children) (Domestic Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearings) [2021] EWCA Civ 448, the Court of Appeal warned against allowing an incident-based schedule to distort the fact-finding exercise where the real allegation concerns a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour.

Current PD12J now expressly says that a schedule or table can include:

details and/or examples of specific events and of any pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour

so that the alleged abuse can be considered holistically, rather than focusing only on isolated incidents.

Sometimes a hybrid or clustered approach makes more sense

Judicial guidance recognises that different types of allegations may require different presentation.

A specific allegation such as:

“On 3 March 2025 he punched me in the face”

can normally be defined by date, place and event.

An allegation such as:

“Between 2022 and 2025 he controlled my access to money, monitored my whereabouts, isolated me from family and repeatedly threatened to take the children if I challenged him”

requires a broader evidential analysis.

Depending on the court’s direction, a useful structure might group evidence into themes such as:

• financial or economic control;
• monitoring and surveillance;
• isolation;
• threats and intimidation;
• child-related coercion;
• post-separation behaviour; or
• litigation-related behaviour where relevant.

A fuller statement can then provide the narrative and context.

How should the impact of an allegation be described?

Impact should be specific.

Avoid generic wording such as:

“This caused me trauma.”

if you can explain what actually changed.

Depending on the facts, relevant impact may include:

• fear;
• altering daily behaviour;
• avoiding friends or family;
• loss of financial independence;
• leaving employment;
• changing where you went;
• changing how you communicated;
• sleep disturbance;
• seeking medical help;
• contacting police or support services;
• moving home;
• impact upon parenting;
• the child’s exposure to fear or tension; or
• another evidenced consequence.

Do not diagnose yourself or a child unless there is an appropriate evidential basis.

Describe what occurred and what you observed.

Link the allegation to evidence — do not paste the evidence into the allegation

The schedule should help somebody locate the evidence.

It does not usually need to reproduce entire message threads, police records or witness statements.

Useful references might look like:

If no bundle has yet been prepared, identify the source document sufficiently clearly to find it later.

Then update page references when required by the court’s timetable.

Professional records: be accurate about what they actually prove

Police, medical, school, social-care and domestic-abuse-service records can be important.

But distinguish between:

• something the professional observed;
• a contemporaneous disclosure recorded by the professional;
• information provided by the other party;
• information provided by a third party;
• a professional opinion;
• an arrest or investigation;
• a criminal charge;
• a conviction; and
• a Family Court finding.

For example:

“GP record dated 4 April records Applicant reporting that Respondent threatened her”

is more accurate than:

“The GP proved he threatened me.”

Evidential precision matters.

WhatsApp, texts, emails and voice notes

Digital communications may provide powerful contemporaneous evidence.

They can show:

• what was said;
• when it was said;
• repetition;
• tone;
• admissions;
• demands;
• threats;
• financial pressure;
• monitoring;
• arrangements concerning children; or
• what happened immediately before or after an alleged event.

Preserve the original communication where possible.

Avoid presenting cropped screenshots which remove:

• the sender;
• date;
• time;
• preceding context; or
• your own responses.

Current PD27A also means that message evidence should not simply be dumped wholesale into the hearing bundle.

Identify the particular material that matters and follow the court’s directions about its inclusion.

How should you respond to an allegation?

Read the allegation carefully.

Then decide what your actual position is.

It may be:

• admitted;
• denied;
• partly admitted;
• admitted as to the event but disputed as to context;
• admitted as to words used but disputed as to their alleged meaning;
• not recalled; or
• otherwise qualified.

A useful response identifies the point of disagreement.

For example:

“Denied. This is a lie.”

tells the court very little.

Compare:

“Denied. Respondent accepts asking Applicant where she was on 14 February but denies demanding photographic proof or threatening her. Respondent says the exchange concerned collection of the child and relies on the full message thread dated 14 February 2025.”

The dispute is now identifiable.

Admissions matter

If an allegation is admitted, the court may not need to spend hearing time determining that factual issue.

Under PD12J, where an admission of domestic abuse is made at a hearing, the judge must record it in writing and it must be set out in a schedule to the relevant order.

That is different from a casual statement such as:

“I admit we argued.”

The court needs clarity about precisely what fact is admitted.

A partial admission should therefore be drafted carefully.

For example:

“Respondent admits sending the message but denies that it was intended as a threat and disputes the allegation that similar threats were made repeatedly.”

Do not hide a separate counter-case inside the response column

A response explains your answer to the allegation made against you.

It is not automatically the correct place to introduce every allegation you wish to make against the other party.

Sometimes context requires reference to the other person’s conduct.

But if you seek findings on separate allegations of your own, those allegations may need to be formally identified and case-managed.

Check:

• your C1A or response;
• the latest order;
• any directions about cross-allegations;
• the permitted schedule structure; and
• the issues the court has identified for determination.

Do not assume that placing a new accusation inside a response box automatically puts that allegation before the court for determination.

How many allegations can you put in a Family Court schedule?

There is no universal PD12J rule saying every party may include exactly five, six or ten allegations.

The number may be controlled by:

• the judge’s case-management decision;
• the nature of the allegations;
• the issues relevant to welfare;
• the hearing time available;
• proportionality; and
• the directions made in your individual case.

If your order says:

“Each party shall identify no more than six allegations”

then six is the limit unless the court varies that direction.

Do not simply add another twelve rows because you believe they are important.

If the limit makes it impossible to present an alleged pattern fairly, that is a case-management issue to raise appropriately.

What if you cannot remember the exact date?

Do not invent one.

Domestic abuse often occurs over a long period and exact dates may genuinely be difficult to recall.

If appropriate, identify the date as accurately as you can:

• “approximately March 2024”;
• “between January and April 2025”;
• “during the Easter school holiday 2025”;
• “approximately two weeks after separation”;
• “on or around 6 June 2025”; or
• another identifiable period supported by the evidence.

Explain uncertainty honestly.

Contemporary messages, photographs, medical appointments, bank transactions or calendar records may sometimes help anchor the event to a more precise period.

What if a new allegation or important evidence emerges later?

Do not silently rewrite the schedule after the other party has responded.

New allegations can create procedural fairness issues because the other party must know the case they are required to answer.

If something significant emerges:

• preserve the evidence;
• identify when you became aware of it;
• consider whether it is relevant to an existing allegation;
• consider whether it amounts to a genuinely new allegation;
• check the existing directions; and
• raise the issue promptly if further court directions are required.

What belongs in the witness statement instead?

The witness statement usually provides the fuller evidential account.

Depending on the directions, it may explain:

• the relationship history necessary to understand the allegation;
• the circumstances immediately before and after an event;
• how an alleged pattern developed;
• the effect of repeated behaviour;
• why particular conduct caused fear;
• what was said to professionals at the time;
• what evidence exists;
• relevant changes in behaviour;
• the child’s experience where properly evidenced; and
• the party’s response to the opposing evidence.

Witness statements are evidence and are ordinarily verified by a statement of truth.

A schedule is not a substitute for a properly directed witness statement where fuller evidence is required.

Be especially careful with allegations involving what a child has said

Do not turn the child into the investigator.

Avoid:

• repeatedly questioning the child about allegations;
• asking the child to produce evidence;
• asking the child to record the other household;
• asking the child to photograph things for court;
• coaching wording;
• showing the child allegations schedules or statements unnecessarily; or
• placing adult responsibility for proving the case upon the child.

If a child has made a spontaneous statement which is relevant, record:

• the date;
• where you were;
• who was present;
• what prompted the conversation, if anything;
• the child’s words as accurately as possible; and
• what you did afterwards.

Avoid improving the language later.

The schedule is a map for the fact-finding hearing — not the whole hearing itself

Before the hearing, you should know for each allegation:

• what fact you want the court to find;
• what your evidence is;
• where that evidence appears;
• what the other party says;
• what evidence they rely upon;
• the main factual dispute;
• any relevant inconsistency;
• any admission;
• any evidence which weakens your position; and
• why the allegation matters to the welfare decision.

PD12J provides that the fact-finding process can be inquisitorial or investigative while ensuring allegations are properly put and answered.

The focus remains the key disputed facts.

Cross-examination protections in domestic abuse cases

A fact-finding hearing may involve oral evidence and questioning.

But a litigant should not assume that alleged victim and alleged perpetrator will necessarily question each other personally.

Part 4B of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 and Practice Direction 3AB provide prohibitions on direct cross-examination in specified circumstances.

The court must consider the issue where those provisions may apply.

Depending on the circumstances:

• direct cross-examination may be automatically prohibited;
• the court may make a direction prohibiting it;
• alternative means of obtaining the evidence may be considered; or
• where the statutory requirements are met, a qualified legal representative may be appointed for the limited purpose of cross-examination.

These arrangements should be addressed before the evidence begins.

What happens to the allegations after the judge has decided them?

The schedule begins as allegations.

After the hearing, the important document becomes the court’s findings.

PD12J requires the court, wherever practicable, to make findings about:

• the nature of domestic abuse established;
• its degree or extent;
• its effect on the child;
• its effect on the parents; and
• its effect on other relevant persons.

The findings must be recorded in writing in a schedule to the relevant order.

That distinction is crucial:

Never describe an unproven allegation as a finding.

The findings should follow the case into the Cafcass welfare assessment

Where a fact-finding hearing has been directed, PD12J says that a Section 7 report will not usually be requested until after that hearing.

Once findings have been made:

• the judgment should be provided to Cafcass or Cafcass Cymru; or
• where there is no transcribed judgment, an agreed record of findings should be provided.

The subsequent welfare assessment should therefore work from the facts actually found by the court.

It should not silently downgrade established findings back into:

“Mother alleges…”

Nor should unproved allegations be presented as though the court established them.

Where does the allegations schedule sit in the court bundle?

Follow the current bundle index and any case-specific order.

The schedule should be:

• the correct current version;
• clearly dated;
• consistent with the court’s directions;
• easy to locate;
• cross-referenced accurately; and
• capable of being used alongside the witness statements and supporting evidence.

Avoid including multiple obsolete versions unless the previous version itself is evidentially relevant.

A judge should not have to work out whether:

“Schedule FINAL v4 amended 2”

is actually the version being determined.

Common mistakes in schedules of allegations and responses

What? → When? → Context → Evidence → Impact → Response → Why it matters

A strong allegations schedule is not the one with the most dramatic language.

It is the one that allows the court to understand precisely what fact is disputed, what evidence bears upon it and why determination of that fact matters.

How JSH Law can help with schedules of allegations and responses

JSH Law provides privately funded, defined-scope litigation and document-preparation support for litigants in person.

Depending on the directions and agreed scope, support may include:

• reviewing the latest order;
• reviewing C1A material;
• reviewing an existing allegations schedule;
• organising discrete allegations;
• identifying alleged patterns of behaviour;
• preparing a pattern chronology;
• grouping evidence thematically where appropriate;
• drafting allegation wording from the client’s factual instructions;
• mapping allegations to supporting evidence;
• preparing evidence-reference schedules;
• reviewing the other party’s responses;
• organising admissions and partial admissions;
• preparing a contradictions schedule;
• identifying evidential gaps;
• organising professional disclosure;
• preparing or reviewing witness statements;
• bundle preparation; and
• fact-finding hearing preparation.

Asking JSH Law for allegations-schedule help? Send these first

Do not start by forwarding thousands of screenshots.

Start with:

1. The latest sealed court order.
2. The directions relating to fact-finding.
3. Your C100.
4. Your C1A and any response.
5. Any allegations schedule already prepared.
6. The other party’s responses, if received.
7. Your most recent witness statement.
8. Any safeguarding letter or Cafcass material relevant to the allegations.
9. Any previous findings or admissions.
10. Your next hearing date and filing deadline.
11. A short note identifying the behaviour you believe the court needs to understand.

Defined-scope fact-finding support

JSH Law support is privately funded.

You may need help with:

• one allegations schedule;
• reviewing responses;
• building an evidence matrix;
• preparing a statement;
• organising a coercive-control chronology; or
• broader fact-finding hearing preparation.

The task, scope and fee basis will be agreed before substantive work begins.

Frequently asked questions about schedules of allegations

Related JSH Law guides

• Domestic Abuse Evidence & PD12J in Family Court
• Family Court Evidence & Chronology Help
• Family Court Hearing Preparation
• Family Court Bundle Preparation Help
• Cafcass & Section 7 Report Help
• Family Court Position Statements
• Urgent Family Court Document Help

Legal framework, guidance and key authorities

This page has been prepared by reference to current official sources including:

• Practice Direction 12J – Child Arrangements and Domestic Abuse and Harm
• Judiciary – Fact-finding hearings and domestic abuse in private-law children proceedings
• K v K [2022] EWCA Civ 468
• Re H-N and Others (Children) (Domestic Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearings) [2021] EWCA Civ 448
• HMCTS – Form C1A: Allegations of Harm and Domestic Violence
• Family Procedure Rules Part 22 – Evidence
• Practice Direction 22A – Written Evidence
• Practice Direction 3AB – Prohibition of Cross-Examination in Person
• Practice Direction 27A – Family Proceedings: Court Bundles

Legal and procedural information last checked: 16 September 2026.

Important service information

JSH Law provides defined-scope litigation support, document-preparation assistance and practical support for litigants in person.

Assistance with an allegations schedule involves helping organise the client’s factual case and evidence within the scope agreed. JSH Law does not determine whether an allegation is true, make findings of domestic abuse or guarantee that the court will direct a fact-finding hearing or make a particular finding.

The litigant in person remains responsible for ensuring that factual allegations are accurate, approving documents, complying with court orders, filing and serving documents where required and meeting deadlines.

Where regulated legal advice, conduct of litigation, reserved advocacy or formal representation is required, assistance should be sought from an appropriately authorised legal professional.

This page provides general procedural and educational information for Family Court proceedings in England and Wales. It is not case-specific legal advice. Fact-finding decisions are highly fact-sensitive and the court controls which allegations, evidence and issues are to be determined.

Immediate safety comes before perfect evidence

If you or a child may be at immediate risk, do not delay seeking urgent help while trying to perfect an allegations schedule.

Use the appropriate emergency, safeguarding or urgent legal route for the circumstances. Evidence organisation can follow once immediate safety has been addressed.

The schedule should help the court see the case — not hide the pattern

If the history spans years of messages, incidents and professional records, the first job may be to organise the evidence before deciding what belongs in the court-directed schedule.

JSH Law can help build that structure.