Technical Matter Guide
Law, procedure and authorities checked 23 September 2026Allegations in child-arrangements proceedings: what must be proved, what needs fact-finding and what happens next?
Private-law children proceedings often contain competing accounts of domestic abuse, coercive control, harmful parenting, neglect, substance misuse, emotional harm, interference with relationships or other safeguarding concerns. The Family Court does not determine allegations simply because they have been made. It must identify which disputed facts are relevant to the child's welfare, decide whether determination is necessary and proportionate, manage the evidence fairly and then base its welfare decision on an appropriate factual foundation.
Allegation, evidence, admission and finding are different things
A private-law case can contain serious allegations without the court having yet made any determination about whether they occurred.
The standard of proof
Findings in Children Act proceedings are made on the ordinary civil standard: the balance of probabilities.
The question is whether the court considers that the alleged fact is more likely than not to have occurred. There is no heightened standard simply because the allegation is extremely serious.
Re B (Children) [2008] UKHL 35: one civil standard of proof
The House of Lords confirmed that the relevant standard in Children Act proceedings is the simple balance of probabilities.
Serious allegations do not attract a separate or higher legal standard. The court evaluates all of the evidence and decides whether the fact is more likely than not to have occurred.
Domestic abuse is broader than physical violence
PD12J adopts the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 definition, which includes physical and sexual abuse, violent or threatening behaviour, controlling or coercive behaviour, economic abuse and psychological, emotional or other abuse.
Abuse can consist of a single incident or a course of conduct. It can also operate through behaviour directed at a child or another person.
Does the case actually need a fact-finding hearing?
A fact-finding hearing is not automatic merely because serious allegations are made.
PD12J requires the court to decide as early as possible whether disputed allegations need to be determined in order to provide a reliable factual basis for risk assessment and the child's welfare decision.
The first question is relevance
The court should identify the actual welfare decisions it needs to make and ask:
- if this allegation were proved, would it affect the child's arrangements?
- would it affect assessment of future risk?
- would it affect whether contact can safely take place?
- would it affect parenting capacity?
- would it affect the form of a section 7 assessment?
- or can the welfare decision safely and fairly be made without determining it?
Re K [2022] EWCA Civ 468: identify the real welfare issue first
The Court of Appeal emphasised that directing a fact-finding hearing is a major case-management decision.
Before ordering one, the court should identify the real welfare issues, understand the allegations and ask whether determination of those facts is actually necessary to resolve the children's future arrangements.
Fact-finding creates delay and adversarial litigation. It should therefore be used where the disputed facts matter, not simply because allegations exist.
PD12J: necessity and proportionality
Under paragraphs 16 and 17 PD12J, the court considers whether findings are needed:
- to provide a factual basis for a welfare report;
- to permit accurate risk assessment;
- before a final welfare order can safely be considered;
- or before a domestic-abuse intervention is considered.
The court must also consider whether there are admissions or other evidence providing a sufficient factual basis already, whether the allegations would actually be relevant if proved, and whether a separate fact-finding hearing is necessary and proportionate.
Fact-finding should answer the welfare question — not try the whole adult relationship
The family court is not required to determine every accusation exchanged during a relationship.
The proper scope is the factual dispute that needs resolution in order to understand risk and make decisions for the child.
Re H-N and Others [2021] EWCA Civ 448: patterns and purpose
Re H-N is the leading modern authority on domestic abuse fact-finding in private-law children proceedings.
It emphasises that coercive and controlling behaviour may need to be understood as a pattern rather than reduced to isolated incidents. At the same time, findings should remain directed towards the issues necessary for evaluating the child's future welfare and risk.
Evidence, chronology and allegation schedules
Allegations should be particularised sufficiently for the other party to know what case they must answer and for the court to understand what factual issue is being asked to determine.
| Record | What it should show |
|---|---|
| Date / period | When the alleged behaviour happened, or the best available timeframe where an exact date is genuinely unavailable. |
| Conduct alleged | What was actually done or said rather than only a conclusion such as “controlling” or “abusive”. |
| Context | Why the incident matters and whether it forms part of a broader alleged pattern. |
| Child impact | What the child experienced, saw, heard or was affected by where relevant. |
| Evidence relied upon | Messages, photographs, police disclosure, medical records, third-party evidence or other material. |
| Response | Admission, denial, alternative explanation or qualification by the responding party. |
| Welfare relevance | Why determination of this issue may affect risk, contact, parenting capacity or another question the court must decide. |
Pattern evidence and incident evidence may need different treatment
Specific incident
A discrete alleged assault, threat, missed handover or communication may often be capable of being identified by date, event and supporting evidence.
Course of conduct
Coercive control, isolation, economic abuse or post-separation behaviour may be difficult to understand without a chronology showing repetition, escalation and cumulative impact.
Evidence does not have to be documentary
Family courts routinely make findings from oral evidence. An allegation is not automatically incapable of proof because there is no police report, medical entry, photograph or contemporaneous message.
Equally, documentary material should not be treated as self-explanatory. Context, authorship, timing and what the document actually proves all matter.
Re A (A Child: Findings of Fact) [2022] EWCA Civ 1652: do not demand corroboration that the law does not require
The Court of Appeal overturned findings in a case involving serious domestic abuse and transnational marriage abandonment.
A significant problem was the treatment of the mother's evidence as though it needed external corroboration before it could be accepted, together with a failure to evaluate the allegations sufficiently in the context of the abuse that had already been established.
The judgment reinforces the need to evaluate the evidence as a whole rather than treating each allegation as an isolated evidential compartment.
Evidence discipline for litigants in person
Avoid producing hundreds of pages simply because they mention the other party. Ask what proposition each document helps establish.
A useful structure is:
- allegation;
- response;
- evidence relied upon;
- what that evidence actually shows;
- relevant context;
- and why determination matters to the child's welfare.
Cafcass, safeguarding assessments and expert evidence
Cafcass can assess risk — but the court determines disputed facts
Cafcass performs an essential safeguarding and welfare function. A Family Court Adviser may identify possible harm, analyse risk and make recommendations about the child.
That professional function is different from the court's judicial task of determining disputed allegations.
D [2026] EWCA Civ 969: allegations cannot silently become findings through a section 7 report
In D, the court had previously decided that a fact-finding hearing was not necessary. Cafcass later prepared a section 7 report and recommended a major reversal of the child's arrangements.
The Court of Appeal identified serious problems in the way disputed domestic-abuse allegations had entered the welfare assessment despite there being no findings.
The case demonstrates an important procedural principle: if a welfare recommendation materially depends upon disputed allegations being treated as fact, the court may need to revisit whether those facts require determination.
Section 7 reports after fact-finding
PD12J provides that where a fact-finding hearing has been directed, the court will not usually request the section 7 welfare report until after the fact-finding hearing.
The judgment or an agreed list of findings should then be provided so that the subsequent welfare assessment is based on the correct factual platform.
Allegations of alienating behaviour
Current Family Justice Council guidance requires particular care where a child is reluctant, resistant or refusing to spend time with a parent and allegations of alienating behaviour are raised.
The guidance makes several important distinctions:
- there is no evidential basis for a diagnostic “parental alienation syndrome”;
- the child's reluctance or refusal does not itself prove alienating behaviour;
- domestic abuse and other harmful parenting must be properly considered;
- the court should identify the actual behaviour alleged;
- and disputed findings of domestic abuse or alienating behaviour remain judicial functions.
Family Justice Council 2024: behaviour and evidence before labels
The guidance was produced specifically to reduce the risk of polarised labels replacing careful fact-finding and child-focused welfare analysis.
It directs attention towards what behaviour occurred, what caused the child's position and what impact the behaviour had on the child.
Expert evidence does not replace the judge
Expert evidence in children proceedings is controlled by Part 25 and section 13 of the Children and Families Act 2014. The court controls whether expert evidence is necessary.
An expert's overriding duty is to assist the court within their area of expertise. They do not determine whether a disputed allegation of domestic abuse or alienating behaviour has legally been proved.
Fact-finding hearings, interim arrangements and procedural fairness
The court decides the facts
At a fact-finding hearing the court considers the evidence relevant to the directed allegations and determines whether the party bearing the burden of proof has established them on the balance of probabilities.
That may require oral evidence and cross-examination as well as documentary evidence.
Interim Child Arrangements Orders while facts are unresolved
Where the court has directed fact-finding, or relevant domestic-abuse allegations remain undetermined, PD12J requires particular caution before making interim arrangements.
An interim order should not expose the child or the other parent to an unmanageable risk of harm.
The court may consider:
- whether direct contact is safe;
- whether contact needs supervision or support;
- whether indirect contact is more appropriate;
- what safeguards are needed around handover;
- and whether the proposed arrangement is actually beneficial for the child.
Vulnerability and participation
Part 3A FPR and PD3AA contain important protections for parties and witnesses whose participation or evidence may be affected by vulnerability.
Where it is stated that a party or witness is, or is at risk of being, a victim of domestic abuse by another relevant person, the Rules require the court to apply a vulnerability assumption for participation purposes unless the person asks otherwise.
Participation directions may include
- screens or separate arrangements at court;
- live-link evidence;
- different waiting or entrance arrangements;
- an intermediary where appropriate;
- adjustments to the structure and timing of the hearing;
- a ground-rules hearing;
- and directions governing the manner of cross-examination.
Cross-examination in person may be prohibited
In cases falling within the statutory scheme, direct cross-examination by one party of another may be prohibited. Practice Direction 3AB governs the procedure, alternative means of questioning and, where appropriate, appointment of a court-funded Qualified Legal Representative.
After findings are made
Findings are not the final welfare decision. They form part of the factual foundation for what comes next.
Where domestic abuse is established, PD12J requires the court to consider:
- the harm already suffered by the child and parent;
- future risk;
- the impact of abuse on parenting capacity;
- whether the perpetrating parent recognises the abuse and its effect;
- whether behaviour has changed sufficiently to manage future risk;
- and whether any proposed contact can operate safely and beneficially.
© 2026 JSH Law Ltd. All rights reserved.
© 2026 JSH Law Ltd. All rights reserved.
© 2026 JSH Law Ltd. All rights reserved.
© 2026 JSH Law Ltd. All rights reserved.
© 2026 JSH Law Ltd. All rights reserved.