A second appeal concerning a child arrangements order for a young child, D. The Court of Appeal found the original judge's decision — that D should live with her mother — was fundamentally flawed because the judge had implicitly adopted findings of domestic abuse from a Cafcass officer's report without holding a fact-finding hearing, and because the Cafcass report itself failed to properly assess the impact of changing D's home and school. The order was set aside and the matter sent for a full rehearing.
2 min readAll cases are fully anonymised and publicly available. Where a source link is provided, you can read the full judgment for yourself. These observational insights reflect community experiences and do not constitute legal advice.
Following separation, a mother sought an order for her young daughter D to live with her, alleging domestic abuse by the father. Despite a Cafcass safeguarding letter recommending a fact-finding hearing for the abuse allegations, the FHDRA judge decided one was not necessary. A Section 7 report was ordered; the Cafcass officer recommended D live with the mother. The Deputy District Judge adopted that recommendation, ordering D to move home and change schools. The father appealed, arguing the decision rested on flawed evidence and lacked proper reasoning. The first appeal largely upheld the 'live with' order; the father then appealed to the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the second appeal, holding the original judgment was 'fundamentally flawed' and 'unjust as a result of procedural irregularity'. The DDJ had wrongly treated the Cafcass officer's implicit findings of abuse as established fact without a fact-finding hearing; the Cafcass report was inadequate, particularly in failing to assess the impact on D of moving home and school; and the judgment lacked the detailed reasoning required. The child arrangements order was set aside and the case remitted for a complete rehearing before a different judge.
This judgment illustrates that serious allegations such as domestic abuse generally require a proper fact-finding hearing — courts and professionals should not treat allegations as proven without one. It also shows why a court's decision must be explained clearly and must weigh the real-world impact of major changes to a child's life. For litigants in person, it is a reminder to ask, where appropriate, that disputed facts are formally determined and that the court's reasoning is transparent.
A McKenzie Friend could help a litigant understand why a fact-finding hearing may be needed, prepare questions and a chronology to support that request, and help identify where a Cafcass report or judgment has not addressed key welfare factors or explained its reasoning — all of which were central to this appeal succeeding.
Neutral Citation Number
A unique reference for a court judgment showing the year, court, and judgment number (e.g. [2026] EWCA Civ 969).
Child arrangements order
A court order setting out who a child lives with and who they spend time with.
Fact-finding hearing
A dedicated hearing to decide whether disputed allegations, such as domestic abuse, are proven on the evidence.
Cafcass
The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service — independent officers who advise the court on what is safe and best for a child.
Section 7 report
A report prepared by Cafcass or social services setting out the child's circumstances and welfare recommendations.
FHDRA
First Hearing Dispute Resolution Appointment — the first court hearing in child arrangements proceedings.
Navigating court alone?
A McKenzie Friend can help you make sense of this in the context of your own case.
Find your supportWe use essential cookies only to provide you with the best experience on our website. No tracking or analytics cookies are used.