What Actually Happens at a Fact-Finding Hearing? A Real Case Explains It

General information only. This is not legal advice. If you are involved in family court proceedings, you should seek advice specific to your circumstances.

If you're a litigant in person facing allegations in family court, or making them, the phrase "fact-finding hearing" can feel abstract until you see how one actually plays out. A recently published judgment gives a clear, real-world example. The judgment was anonymised by the court and identifying details have been removed.

The background

The parents' relationship broke down amid allegations of domestic abuse. One parent later applied for a child arrangements order. Because the other parent raised a number of allegations of abuse in response, the court had to hold a fact-finding hearing (FFH) before it could decide anything about contact with their child.

One parent also faced separate criminal charges arising from some of the same events. The judge was careful to note that the family court applies a different, lower standard of proof (the balance of probabilities) than the criminal court, and that nothing in the family judgment affects that parent's right to a fair criminal trial.

What was actually being decided

A number of allegations were originally put forward in a schedule of allegations, a table listing each allegation and the response to it (older cases call this a Scott Schedule). The judge narrowed this down, discarding allegations that were repetitive, based on opinion rather than fact, or related to matters she didn't have enough evidence to determine.

What remained fell into two broad categories:

• Allegations of coercive and controlling behaviour.
• Several specific incidents of physical violence over the months before the parents separated.

One parent accepted some of what happened but disputed most of it, and denied any pattern of coercive control.

How the judge weighed the evidence

This is often the part litigants in person find hardest to prepare for. The judge didn't simply believe one party over the other. She assessed each allegation individually, looking at consistency with what had been said to police at the time, text messages, medical evidence, and photographs of injuries.

A few points worth noting if you're heading into your own FFH:

• Inconsistency isn't automatically fatal to your case. The judge reminded herself that victims of abuse react in different ways, and that an account being less complete to the police at the time doesn't automatically mean it's untrue later.
• But it does matter. Where one party's account to the police differed from their later evidence on particular allegations, the judge found this undermined those specific allegations.
• Concessions cut both ways. Where one party admitted parts of what happened, those admissions were given real weight.
• The overarching pattern matters more than any single incident. The court had to consider whether there was a pattern of coercive control, not just isolate individual incidents.

What was found and what wasn't

The judge did not find a pattern of coercive or controlling behaviour overall; several individual strands of that allegation were not proven.

However, she did find that some of the individual allegations of harmful behaviour were proven on the evidence, and that these were serious enough to affect the welfare assessment for the child.

What happens next

This is the part many litigants in person don't realise: a fact-finding hearing doesn't decide contact arrangements on its own. It establishes what happened, so that CAFCASS and the court can then assess risk and welfare.

In this case, the judge:

• Refused direct contact for now, given the findings and the ongoing criminal proceedings.
• Allowed limited indirect contact instead: cards, letters or small gifts to the child via a family member, and updates and photos in return, on a set schedule.
• Directed CAFCASS to prepare a further report addressing what steps need to be taken before contact can safely progress.
• Encouraged the parent to take practical steps within their control now, rather than waiting for the next hearing.

Why this case is worth reading if you're a litigant in person

A few things stand out that apply well beyond this specific case:

1. A schedule of allegations gets trimmed for a reason. Don't be alarmed if not every allegation you've raised makes it to a fact-finding hearing. The court is focused on what's actually necessary to decide welfare, not on every grievance in the relationship.
2. What you told the police at the time will be examined closely. If your account has developed or changed since then, be ready to explain why, honestly and clearly.
3. Admissions matter, on both sides. Conceding a point you can't realistically dispute often carries more credibility than denying everything.
4. Findings aren't the end of the story. Even serious findings don't automatically mean no contact forever. The court is looking for a pathway toward safe contact, and that pathway usually involves specific, named steps.

If you're preparing for your own fact-finding hearing and want support navigating the process, Bridge The Gap's directory of independent McKenzie Friends can help you find someone local to you.

---

Further Reading

• C100 Application: A Complete Guide to Child Arrangements Orders
• How to Prepare for Your First Family Court Hearing
• Case Studies — Anonymised UK Family Court Judgments
• Find a McKenzie Friend