Fact-Finding Hearing

Gap #593

The assumption

If the other parent reports a new allegation at a different police station, a magistrate can immediately overrule the family court's contact order.

The reality

Reporting an allegation to the police, at any station, does not change a child arrangements order. The order stays in force until the family court varies or discharges it on an application under the Children Act 1989. When contact stops after a new allegation, it is usually because one of these separate steps has been taken. Bail conditions. Where someone is arrested, bail can carry conditions, and those can restrict contact with a child. In Nottinghamshire County Council v The Mother (Police Bail) [2024] EWHC 666 (Fam), which was a care case, police bail conditions prevented unsupervised contact with any child and left no room for the family court to allow it. Mrs Justice Lieven said it is not for the family court to dictate bail conditions to the police, but that the family judge was much better placed than the police to assess the risk to the child, and that she hoped the police would consider the role of the family court when setting bail conditions. The judgment records that an application to vary police bail conditions can be made to the magistrates' court. A Domestic Abuse Protection Order. The police can apply for a DAPO by complaint to a magistrates' court (section 28 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021). Practice Direction 36ZG notes that, under section 36(1), the requirements of a DAPO must so far as practicable avoid conflict with any other court order or injunction the person is subject to, as well as conflict with their religious beliefs and interference with their work or with their attendance at an educational establishment. An application to vary or discharge a DAPO goes to the court that made it. A new family court order. A parent can apply to the family court to vary the child arrangements order, or for a protective order such as a non-molestation order. The police do not pass a new allegation to the family court automatically. Under the Disclosure of Information between Family and Criminal Agencies and Jurisdictions: 2024 Protocol, which replaced the 2013 Protocol and the old Annex H order template, police material is requested using the protocol's own forms. In private law proceedings the request goes to the police on the Annex 1 form, accompanied by an order in the court's standard form at Annex 5. The protocol states that use of its annexed forms is mandatory, and Annex 2 is the guidance written for completing Annex 1 in private law proceedings. Requests are expected to be focused and proportionate rather than a blanket trawl, and the guidance contemplates a 20-day timescale for the police response. In practice the court usually directs this where a fact-finding hearing is contemplated; where no direction has been made, the litigant in person has to ask the court to make the order. The DAPO rules send information the other way: when a family court makes a DAPO, the court officer emails a copy to the police within one day (Practice Direction 36ZG, paragraph 20). This part of the law is in transition. DAPOs have run in pilot areas only since 27 November 2024. The pilot ends on 24 November 2026, and from 25 November 2026 DAPOs are due to be available across all court jurisdictions in England and Wales, with Practice Direction 36ZG amended rather than replaced. Check the current position before relying on this after that date. Each of these is changed in a different place, so it matters which one has actually been made. This is general information, not legal advice.

Gap #418

The assumption

(Domestic Abuse Findings) Contact was ordered once, so the court will go back to it.

The reality

An interim order can be stayed or overtaken by later evidence. In a 2026 case, supervised contact was ordered straight after a fact-finding hearing and then stayed. The judge at the final hearing called that order premature and placed no weight on it.

Gap #312

The assumption

A judge's decision not to hold a fact-finding hearing is something an appeal court will readily revisit if I disagree.

The reality

Whether to hold a fact-finding hearing is a case management decision, and appeal courts are especially reluctant to interfere with those. The bar is that the decision was plainly wrong, not merely arguably wrong, and a judge who has heard the case across many hearings is given even more latitude by an appeal court.

Gap #311

The assumption

If I keep asking for a fact-finding hearing, the court eventually has to hold one to settle the truth of my allegations.

The reality

There is no right to a fact-finding hearing. A court can lawfully decide one is not necessary or proportionate, particularly where professionals have had months of direct observation and found no evidence supporting the allegations in practice. Insisting a fact-finding hearing happen before accepting any order or professional view is not a valid precondition.

Case B – 2026

A father lost parental responsibility, all contact with his child, and had a long-term protective order made against him after the court found he had continued a coercive and controlling pattern of behaviour throughout the proceedings. The case is a significant example of a court formally recognising and applying the DARVO framework — where a perpetrator Denies wrongdoing, Attacks the person who raised it, and Reverses Victim and Offender roles — as clinically identified by an expert psychologist with direct consequences for orders made.

Re D (Change of Circumstances: Domestic Abuse Allegations) 2026

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.

Case C – 2026

A mother appealed three findings from a fact-finding hearing. Two serious assault allegations had been replaced with mutual combat findings and critical video evidence had not been properly considered. The High Court allowed the appeal on two grounds and ordered a rehearing — but by then the case had been running for years, with no child contact throughout.