Tag Archive for: balance of probabilities

You are here: / / balance of probabilities

The balance of probabilities is the standard of proof applied in civil and family proceedings. A fact is established on the balance of probabilities if it is more likely than not to be true, based on the evidence as a whole. This standard differs from the criminal standard of proof and does not require certainty or proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Content under this tag explains how courts assess evidence using the balance of probabilities, how credibility, consistency, and contemporaneous material are weighed, and how misunderstandings of the standard can lead to misplaced expectations or flawed arguments. It is particularly relevant for litigants in person navigating findings of fact, safeguarding issues, and evidential disputes.

Posts

What Is Evidence in Family Court? A Clear Guide for Litigants in Person (UK)

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Evidence is the foundation of every decision the Family Court makes. It is not emotion, not opinion, and not repetition — it is material capable of proving a fact in issue. Whether you are raising safeguarding concerns, responding to allegations, or seeking financial remedy, the court will decide your case based on what is properly evidenced before it. For litigants in person, misunderstanding what counts as evidence — and how it should be presented — is one of the most common and costly mistakes in proceedings. This guide explains what evidence actually is, how it is assessed, and how to ensure your material assists rather than undermines your case.

What Is Evidence in Family Court? A Clear Guide for Litigants in Person (UK)

Key Takeaways for Litigants in Person

  • Evidence is not what you believe — it is what you can prove.
  • Family Court decisions are based on admissible, relevant and proportionate evidence.
  • Witness statements are evidence. Attachments (exhibits) support that evidence.
  • The court assesses credibility, consistency and risk — not volume.
  • Hearsay is generally admissible in family proceedings but carries weight considerations.
  • Your evidence must relate directly to the child’s welfare (in Children Act cases).

Introduction: Why “Evidence” Is So Often Misunderstood

One of the most common misconceptions among litigants in person is this: “If I tell the judge what happened, that’s enough.”

It is not.

Family proceedings in England and Wales are governed by the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (“FPR 2010”). While the Family Court is more flexible than the criminal courts in terms of admissibility, it is still a court of evidence. Judges decide cases based on material properly before them.

Understanding what evidence actually is — and how it is used — will fundamentally change how you prepare your case.

What Is Evidence?

Evidence is information presented to the court to prove or disprove a fact in issue.

In family proceedings, evidence typically takes the form of:

  • Witness statements
  • Oral testimony
  • Documents (emails, texts, school reports)
  • Photographs
  • Medical records
  • Police disclosures
  • Cafcass reports
  • Expert assessments

The key question is always: What fact does this prove?

If you cannot answer that clearly, the document may not assist your case.

The Legal Framework

Evidence in family proceedings is governed by:

Unlike criminal proceedings, hearsay evidence is generally admissible in family proceedings, but the court must assess the weight it should carry.

Facts in Issue

The court is not interested in every grievance between adults. It is concerned with facts in issue — those facts which directly affect the legal decision to be made.

For example, in a child arrangements dispute, relevant issues may include:

  • Allegations of domestic abuse
  • Substance misuse
  • Emotional harm
  • Parenting capacity
  • Risk of harm

In financial remedy proceedings, relevant issues might include:

  • Disclosure of assets
  • Income
  • Needs
  • Standard of living during marriage

Evidence must relate to these issues. Irrelevant material weakens credibility.

Witness Statements: Your Primary Evidence

Your witness statement is evidence. It is not an argument.

A proper statement should:

  • Be factual.
  • Be chronological.
  • Distinguish clearly between fact and belief.
  • Refer to exhibits properly.
  • End with a Statement of Truth.

Practice Direction 22A governs statements of truth. Signing a statement of truth without belief in its accuracy can have serious consequences.

Exhibits: Supporting Evidence

Exhibits are documents attached to your statement to support what you say.

For example:

  • If you state that a school raised safeguarding concerns, attach the school email.
  • If you refer to police attendance, attach the incident log if available.

Each exhibit must be clearly labelled (e.g., JSH1, JSH2) and referred to within the body of your statement.

Hearsay Evidence in Family Court

Hearsay is a statement made outside court which is relied upon to prove the truth of its contents.

Under the Civil Evidence Act 1995, hearsay is admissible in civil proceedings, including family cases.

However, admissible does not mean decisive. Judges assess:

  • Whether the maker of the statement can be called.
  • Whether the statement is consistent.
  • Whether it is corroborated.

Simply saying “my friend told me…” carries limited weight.

Standard of Proof

The Family Court applies the civil standard of proof: the balance of probabilities.

The court asks: Is it more likely than not that this happened?

This standard applies to allegations of domestic abuse, coercive control and other safeguarding concerns.

Evidence in Children Act 1989 Cases

Under section 1 of the Children Act 1989, the child’s welfare is the court’s paramount consideration.

Your evidence must therefore assist the court in applying the welfare checklist:

  • The child’s wishes and feelings
  • Physical, emotional and educational needs
  • Likely effect of change
  • Risk of harm
  • Parental capability

If your evidence does not relate to welfare, it may not assist the court.

Fact-Finding Hearings

Where allegations of domestic abuse are disputed, the court may list a fact-finding hearing.

At such hearings:

  • Witnesses give oral evidence.
  • They are cross-examined.
  • The judge makes findings of fact.

The legal framework often engages Practice Direction 12J where domestic abuse is alleged.

Credibility and Consistency

Judges assess:

  • Internal consistency of your evidence.
  • Consistency with documents.
  • Plausibility.
  • Reaction under cross-examination.

Overstatement damages credibility more than understatement.

Digital Evidence

Texts, emails and social media messages are frequently relied upon.

Best practice includes:

  • Providing full threads, not selective extracts.
  • Avoiding alteration or annotation.
  • Ensuring dates and times are visible.

Selective presentation may backfire.

Expert Evidence

Expert evidence (e.g., psychological assessments) requires court permission under FPR 25.

Experts owe their duty to the court, not to either party.

Common Mistakes

  • Confusing argument with evidence.
  • Submitting excessive irrelevant material.
  • Failing to paginate or index documents.
  • Making serious allegations without supporting material.
  • Assuming the judge “already knows.”

How JSH Law Assists

We support litigants in person with:

  • Structuring witness statements.
  • Organising exhibits.
  • Identifying relevant evidence.
  • Preparing chronologies.
  • Aligning material with the welfare checklist.

Evidence must be strategic, not emotional.

Book a 15-Minute Consultation

If you are unsure whether your evidence supports your case effectively, book a short consultation to review your position.

Useful Links

Regulatory & Editorial Notice

This article is provided for general information and commentary only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Every case turns on its own facts and legal context.

JSH Law provides litigation support services to litigants in person, including strategic guidance, document preparation assistance and hearing support. JSH Law is not a firm of solicitors and does not conduct litigation or provide reserved legal activities.

Where reference is made to legislation or third-party material, such references are for informational purposes only and do not imply endorsement.

Documents and courtroom setting illustrating how family courts assess disputed allegations using the balance of probabilities.

Should an Ex-Partner’s Allegations Be Taken at Face Value in Family Court?

/0 Comments/in , /by

What happens when there isn’t “clear and convincing” evidence?

A real Facebook question that comes up every day

“Should my ex’s allegations be taken at face value?
What if there isn’t clear and convincing evidence of abuse?”

This question is asked constantly in private children proceedings, safeguarding disputes, and high-conflict separations.

It usually comes from someone who is:

  • Shocked by allegations they dispute
  • Alarmed by how seriously professionals are treating them
  • Afraid that a lack of early evidence means the court will simply “believe” the other parent

The short answer is this:

No — allegations are not automatically accepted as fact.
But no — they are not ignored just because evidence is not immediately available either.

Understanding that distinction is critical.

The biggest misconception: “clear and convincing evidence”

One of the most common misunderstandings I see is the belief that the family court requires “clear and convincing evidence” before it will act.

That is not the test in England & Wales family proceedings.

That phrase comes from:

  • US family law
  • Criminal law discussions
  • Internet misinformation

It is not the legal standard applied by UK family courts when deciding allegations of abuse.

What standard of proof does the Family Court use?

The balance of probabilities

In England & Wales, the family court determines disputed allegations on the civil standard of proof:

Is it more likely than not that the alleged behaviour occurred?

This is known as the balance of probabilities.

It applies to:

  • Domestic abuse allegations
  • Coercive and controlling behaviour
  • Incident-based allegations
  • Fact-finding hearings

There is no higher evidential threshold simply because an allegation is serious.

That does not mean the court is casual or careless — quite the opposite.

The court’s role: careful evaluation, not blind acceptance

Judges and magistrates are required to:

  • Assess allegations with care
  • Avoid assumptions
  • Consider the totality of the evidence

In many family cases, especially abuse cases, the court is dealing with:

  • “Word against word” accounts
  • Little or no independent corroboration
  • Evidence that only emerges over time

In those situations, the court may:

  • Order fact-finding hearings
  • Require schedules of allegations and responses
  • Seek third-party disclosure (police, schools, GP records, social services)
  • Weigh consistency, plausibility, and surrounding context

Allegations are therefore tested, not simply believed — but they are also not dismissed at the door.

Why allegations can still affect interim decisions

This is the part many people find hardest to accept.

Even where allegations are disputed and unproven, the court may still:

  • Act cautiously
  • Limit or supervise contact
  • Delay making certain orders

Why?

Because at interim stages the court is not deciding guilt — it is assessing risk.

Child welfare comes first

Where allegations raise potential safeguarding concerns:

  • The court must ensure interim arrangements do not expose a child or parent to unmanageable risk
  • The absence of findings does not equal the absence of risk

This is why you may hear:

  • “These matters are yet to be determined”
  • Followed by cautious interim directions

That is not the court “believing everything”.
It is the court holding the ring until evidence is tested.

What this means in practice (for both parents)

If you are accused

  • Allegations are not treated as proven facts
  • You are entitled to challenge them
  • The court must decide them on evidence, not emotion
  • How you respond procedurally matters enormously

Poorly structured responses, emotional statements, or failing to engage with the process often cause more damage than the allegation itself.

If you are raising concerns

  • You do not need “perfect evidence” at the outset
  • The court understands abuse often occurs in private
  • Safeguarding decisions can still be made while facts are determined
  • You must still present allegations clearly and properly

The real risk: misunderstanding the process

Where things go wrong is not usually because of the law — but because people misunderstand it.

Common mistakes include:

  • Assuming allegations are automatically believed
  • Assuming nothing will happen without “proof”
  • Treating interim decisions as final judgments
  • Failing to prepare properly for fact-finding

Family proceedings are procedural.
Those who understand the procedure fare better — regardless of which side they are on.

How JSH Law helps in these situations

I regularly support litigants in person who are dealing with:

  • Disputed abuse allegations
  • Fact-finding hearings
  • Safeguarding-heavy private law cases
  • Interim arrangements shaped by unresolved concerns

Support includes:

  • Structuring allegation schedules and responses
  • Explaining what the court is actually deciding at each stage
  • Preparing for fact-finding properly
  • Helping clients avoid procedural missteps that escalate risk

This is not about “winning”.
It is about navigating the process safely, fairly, and strategically.

If you are dealing with disputed allegations in family court — whether you are responding to them or raising safeguarding concerns — early procedural handling matters. I support litigants in person with allegation schedules, fact-finding preparation, and safeguarding-focused case strategy.

If you need calm, practical support, you can read more about how I work or get in touch.

    Legal Basis & External References

    Issue

    Whether an ex-partner’s allegations should be accepted at face value, and what standard of proof applies in family proceedings.

    Rule

    • Standard of proof:
      The family court determines disputed allegations on the balance of probabilities.
      (Courts and Tribunals Judiciary; Cafcass)
    • Court’s evaluative role:
      Judges and magistrates must assess whether allegations are proved with appropriate care, often relying on third-party evidence where cases are “word against word”.
    • Evidence and fact-finding:
      The court may require schedules, witness statements, and third-party disclosure to determine allegations, including coercive control and incident-based abuse.
    • Interim child arrangements:
      Where domestic abuse allegations are unresolved, the court should not make interim child arrangements orders unless satisfied they are in the child’s best interests and do not expose the child or parent to unmanageable risk.

    Application

    • “Clear and convincing evidence” is not the test applied in UK family proceedings.
    • The court may still take cautious interim steps pending fact-finding, because safeguarding and welfare drive decision-making.

    Conclusion

    Allegations are not accepted at face value, but are assessed on evidence using the balance of probabilities.
    Disputed issues may require fact-finding, and interim safeguarding decisions may be made while facts are determined.

    External Sources

    1. Domestic Abuse and the Family Court
      Courts and Tribunals Judiciary (2019)
      https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/PSU-domestic-abuse-FINAL.pdf
    2. Cafcass Domestic Abuse Practice Policy
      Cafcass (current)
      https://www.cafcass.gov.uk/domestic-abuse-practice-policy
    3. Fact-Finding Hearings and Domestic Abuse Guidance
      Courts and Tribunals Judiciary (current)
      https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/fact-finding-hearings-and-domestic-abuse-in-private-law-children-proceedings-guidance-for-judges-and-magistrates/
    4. Family Procedure Rules 2010 & Practice Directions (incl. PD12J)
      Ministry of Justice (current)
      https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/family

    Regulatory & Editorial Notice

    This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice.
    Family law outcomes depend on individual facts and circumstances.
    Nothing in this article creates a solicitor-client relationship.