The JSH Law Six-Question Check: A Practical Framework for Testing Family Court Evidence
— The JSH Law Six-Question Check is a practical preparation framework for examining important conclusions in family-court material. It is not a legal test. It helps identify where information comes from, what evidential status it has, what context matters, whether the person affected has been able to participate, what consequence is proposed and who is responsible for what happens next.
A polished family-court document can still hide an important evidential problem
Family-court information rarely travels directly from an event to the judge.
A parent describes something. A professional records it. Another report summarises the record. A recommendation is made. A statement refers to that recommendation. Eventually, the court may be asked to make a decision which depends upon some or all of that material.
At each stage, something can change.
A qualification can disappear. A disputed allegation can begin to read like an established fact. An isolated event can lose the surrounding context that gave it meaning. A child’s words can be recorded without showing how they influenced the analysis that followed.
Can you trace an important conclusion back to the information supporting it — and then trace it forward to the decision, action or responsibility that follows?
Turn “something is wrong with this” into a precise preparation question
The Six-Question Check is designed to help litigants in person examine important material systematically, without trying to turn every disagreement into a legal argument.
Identify what you are actually looking at
Separate allegation, evidence, observation, opinion and judicial finding rather than allowing them to blur together.
Follow the reasoning chain
Connect the original source to the analysis, recommendation, proposed consequence and person responsible for carrying it out.
Work out what needs attention next
Identify whether the real problem is evidential, contextual, participatory, procedural or practical before deciding what work is needed.
The six questions
Start with one conclusion, recommendation or factual proposition that may materially affect the next decision in the case. Then work through the questions in sequence.
You do not need to apply the framework to every sentence in a large court file. The purpose is to examine the points that actually matter.
Source
Where did this information actually come from?
The first question is about provenance. A statement may appear in several documents without being independently supported by each of them.
- Who actually witnessed or reported the event?
- Where does the information first appear?
- What is the date and context of the original account?
- Are later documents adding evidence or repeating the same source?
- Does the summary accurately reflect the underlying material?
Status
What kind of information is it?
A disputed allegation is not the same thing as an admission. A professional observation is not the same thing as a judicial finding.
- Is the point still disputed?
- Has anybody independently verified it?
- Is it a professional interpretation rather than a factual observation?
- Has the court already determined it?
- Has repetition made uncertain material appear more settled than it is?
Context
What surrounding information is needed to understand it fairly?
Evidence can become misleading when it is detached from the circumstances in which it arose.
- What happened immediately before and after?
- How does it fit within the wider chronology?
- What supports or contradicts the account?
- Are there qualifications or limitations?
- Is an alleged pattern relevant?
- Were alternative explanations considered?
Participation
Has the person affected been able to understand and respond?
Good decision-making depends not only upon collecting information, but upon people being able to participate meaningfully in the process.
- Was the concern put clearly?
- Was the response recorded accurately?
- Were communication or participation needs recognised?
- Were reasonable adjustments relevant?
- Was a child given a suitable opportunity to communicate?
- Has disagreement been confused with inability to participate?
Consequence
What decision or action is being proposed because of it?
This question moves from evidence into reasoning.
- What identified issue is the proposed action intended to address?
- What evidence supports the recommendation?
- Were competing explanations considered?
- What welfare consequence is being identified?
- Is the recommendation more certain than the evidence beneath it?
Responsibility
Who must do what next?
A sensible plan can still fail if nobody is clearly responsible for implementing it.
- Who is responsible?
- What exactly must they do?
- By when?
- What information must be provided?
- How will completion be recorded?
- What happens if the arrangement cannot be implemented?
The Six-Question Check is a preparation framework — not a legal test
It does not determine whether an allegation is true, whether Cafcass is right or wrong, whether an expert opinion should be accepted or what order the Family Court should make.
Those questions depend upon the evidence, applicable law, procedure, the issues before the court and the circumstances of the individual child and family.
The purpose of the framework is narrower: to identify what needs to be understood, checked, clarified, evidenced or responded to.
A worked example: a recommendation about contact
Consider a fictional report which states that a child is anxious before contact and recommends reducing contact.
The Six-Question Check does not tell us whether contact should be reduced. It tells us what needs to be understood before the reasoning can be evaluated properly.
Applying the framework
This example is deliberately neutral. The same questions can expose material supporting a recommendation as well as gaps within it.
| Question | What to examine |
|---|---|
| Source | Who reported the anxiety? Was it observed directly, reported by a parent, recorded by a school, or described by the child? |
| Status | Is the anxiety a direct observation, a reported account, a professional assessment, an expert opinion or a fact already determined by the court? |
| Context | When did it occur? What happened around it? What did the child actually say? Were other possible explanations considered? |
| Participation | How was the child spoken to? Have relevant adults had a proper opportunity to understand and respond to the material being relied upon? |
| Consequence | Why is reducing contact said to address the identified concern? What reasoning connects the evidence to that recommendation? |
| Responsibility | If arrangements change, who implements the change, who supports the child, and when or how will the position be reviewed? |
The framework can be applied to many different parts of a family-court case
The six questions stay the same. What changes is the material you are examining.
Test important factual statements, assessments and recommendations against their source and reasoning.
Separate direct evidence, allegations, interpretation, admissions and matters already determined.
Check that apparently neutral entries remain faithful to the original source and evidential status.
Keep the underlying result, the expert’s interpretation and the proposed welfare consequence distinct.
Connect each material allegation with its evidence, response, context and relevance to the decision sought.
Identify what was directly observed, what was reported by somebody else and what represents professional interpretation.
Check that attribution, dates, qualifications, uncertainty and evidential status survived the summarisation process.
Identify who is expected to implement each important step, by when, and how progress will be reviewed.
Start with one important conclusion
Do not try to rewrite the whole case. Pick the paragraph, recommendation, allegation or proposed action that matters to the next decision and make a short working note.
| Question | Your working note |
|---|---|
| Source | What is the original material? Who provided it? Where can I find it? |
| Status | Allegation, admission, observation, record, professional opinion, expert opinion or judicial finding? |
| Context | What surrounding events, qualifications, pattern evidence or competing material matter? |
| Participation | Who has had an opportunity to understand and respond? Was there any communication or participation barrier? |
| Consequence | What decision, recommendation or action is said to follow from this point? |
| Responsibility | Who must act, by when, and how will completion or review be checked? |
What the Six-Question Check can — and cannot — do
It can help you
- identify the original source of an important proposition;
- separate allegations from findings;
- spot missing context or qualifications;
- identify participation problems;
- examine the reasoning behind a recommendation;
- identify evidential or procedural gaps;
- focus a request for clarification; and
- work out what preparation may actually be needed next.
It does not
- decide whether an allegation is true;
- replace the welfare analysis required by law;
- determine whether Cafcass or an expert is correct;
- predict what a judge will decide;
- replace applicable legal tests or procedural rules;
- turn every disagreement into a challenge;
- replace properly authorised legal advice where that is required; or
- make the final litigation decision for you.
Precision usually produces a more useful response
The framework is designed to move case preparation away from broad statements of disagreement and towards identifiable evidential or reasoning issues.
“The Cafcass report is wrong and does not understand my case.”
“This conclusion appears to rely on a reported account rather than direct observation. The competing record is not addressed, and the report does not explain why that material leads to the recommendation proposed.”
What the framework is designed to make easier to spot
Repetition becoming “fact”
The same allegation appears in several professional documents, giving the impression of several sources when they all derive from one original account.
A qualification disappears
A cautious or conditional professional opinion is later summarised in much more certain language.
Behaviour becomes a label
A person is described as uncooperative without examining communication, vulnerability or participation barriers.
A child is heard but not followed through
Wishes and feelings are recorded but it is unclear how they informed the analysis or recommendation.
AI sounds more certain than the evidence
A summary removes attribution, uncertainty or evidential status and produces a cleaner but less reliable account.
A plan exists only on paper
An apparently sensible recommendation depends on somebody acting, but responsibility, timing or review is left unclear.
Where is the difficulty in your case?
The Six-Question Check can help identify the type of work that may be needed next. JSH Law support can be used for a defined task; you do not necessarily need somebody to take on every aspect of the proceedings.
Chronologies, statements, schedules, exhibits, large document sets and identifying relevance or evidential gaps.
Explore evidence and document support →Review safeguarding material, section 7 reports, disputed allegations and professional recommendations.
Explore Safeguarding & Cafcass support →Turn relevant facts, evidence and issues into structured written material for you to review and use.
Explore court-document support →Understand what the next hearing is dealing with, what preparation matters and how to organise the material you need.
Explore hearing support →If orders, applications, evidence, Cafcass material and years of history have become difficult to see clearly, start by mapping the case.
Explore case navigation →You do not need to send your entire case history. Begin with the next hearing or deadline and the document or conclusion causing the current difficulty.
Book a 15-minute consultation →See the framework in context
The Six-Question Check grew out of the same evidence-led approach used across JSH Law guidance: understand the source, distinguish what has actually been established, organise the material proportionately and connect the evidence to the decision the court needs to make.
Need help applying the framework to a difficult part of your case?
You do not need to organise the entire file before asking for help.
A useful starting point is usually the latest court order, the date and purpose of the next hearing or deadline, and the particular report, allegation, recommendation or evidence problem that needs attention.
If further work may help, the initial consultation can be used to identify the immediate task and whether a defined piece of JSH Law support is appropriate.
The JSH Law Six-Question Check is a practical case-preparation framework developed by JSH Law Ltd. It is not a statutory test, rule of evidence, judicial test or substitute for the Family Procedure Rules, Practice Directions, court orders or advice from an appropriately authorised legal professional about the facts of an individual case.
Family-court material must be considered in the context of the particular proceedings, the issues before the court, applicable law and procedure, existing findings and any case-specific directions.
JSH Law Ltd provides non-reserved legal services, litigation support and McKenzie Friend assistance. JSH Law Ltd is not an SRA-authorised solicitors' firm, does not go on the court record as your legal representative and does not conduct litigation on your behalf. You remain responsible for your proceedings, factual accuracy, decisions, deadlines, filing and service unless a particular lawful task has expressly been agreed.
