No fact find required

[Yomi]

Hello guys,
Following up on my earlier post after the FHDRA last October. Another hearing was fixed for 8th of January to consider Ex’s allegations and to know if a fact finding hearing is required.

Ex-wife made 34 allegations, ranging from physical abuse, rape and child physical abuse.
Had to use a solicitor to articulate my response and write a good position statement. It definitely helped.

Hearing was held at the Magistrate court and it was decided that ‘fact finding’ hearing is not required.
Case now referred to CAFCASS/ICFA.

Has anyone gone through this service and what should I expect?

Ex-wife has started spreading another false accusation that I have anger issues.
Tired of responding to her accusations but I have a feeling she will make this a big deal with CAFCASS.

Any advice will be appreciated.

 

[Ash]

Well done. So is it going for a section 7 then?

 

[Yomi]

Yes, we suggested an independent social worker (ISW) to complete S7 in 6 weeks due to CAFCASS delay (16 weeks wait). Court insisted they want not just a welfare report but ICFA as well. (I don’t know the difference to be honest)
S7 report to be submitted before next court date on 5th July.

 

[Ash]

Not heard of an ICFA being ordered before. So is ISW doing the S7 or not?

 

[Ash]

Looking up ICFA it sounds like a bit more than an S7 where they work with the parents and family and assess any conflict between parents.

 

[Yomi]

Cafcass will be doing the section 7.

 

[Kyle]

No FFH ordered after 34 allegations made against you that include rape, physical abuse, and child physical abuse?

That pretty much sums up the view of the court. They don't believe her. These "allegations" need to be proven. If they didn't happen. Best of luck to her.

Do you always need to respond everytime these women try this on? I no longer think so. It almost fuels it. Giving it absolutely no air-time and submitting a blanket statement that simply states that you have no interest in conflict with X. I simply wish to establish peaceful cooparenting arrangements that benefits the children. There are no reasons at all why the children can't have a perfectly normal, loving and supportive relationship with me as their father, guiding them towards adulthood in order to help them become the best they can be.

When my ex's initial allegation of alcoholism against me began to unravel, she started spouting all sorts during the remote second hearing, where the objective was to decide if a FFH was necessary. I used to beat her! I used to beat my son!! Threw him against a wall in a drunken rage!!! She did me a massive favour in that moment because it was all rather desperate.

And that's exactly how you should view this sort of behaviour. Desperate. This is where switching into professional father mode comes into its own.

Don't get dragged into the toxicity. Just keep enforcing your position that you're trying to establish an arrangement that benefits the children at the centre of this so they can grow up with both parents guiding them trough life. Be seen to be the rational, conscientious one. Women like this almost do the work for you.

Don't be critical or vengeful in anyway. Let her carry on being hostile. The court has seen it all before.

 

[jon1234]

No FFH ordered after 34 allegations made against you that include rape, physical abuse, and child physical abuse?

That pretty much sums up the view of the court. They don't believe her. These "allegations" need to be proven. If they didn't happen. Best of luck to her.

Do you always need to respond everytime these women try this on? I no longer think so. It almost fuels it. Giving it absolutely no air-time and submitting a blanket statement that simply states that you have no interest in conflict with X. I simply wish to establish peaceful cooparenting arrangements that benefits the children. There are no reasons at all why the children can't have a perfectly normal, loving and supportive relationship with me as their father, guiding them towards adulthood in order to help them become the best they can be.

When my ex's initial allegation of alcoholism against me began to unravel, she started spouting all sorts during the remote second hearing, where the objective was to decide if a FFH was necessary. I used to beat her! I used to beat my son!! Threw him against a wall in a drunken rage!!! She did me a massive favour in that moment because it was all rather desperate.

And that's exactly how you should view this sort of behaviour. Desperate. This is where switching into professional father mode comes into its own.

Don't get dragged into the toxicity. Just keep enforcing your position that you're trying to establish an arrangement that benefits the children at the centre of this so they can grow up with both parents guiding them trough life. Be seen to be the rational, conscientious one. Women like this almost do the work for you.

Don't be critical or vengeful in anyway. Let her carry on being hostile. The court has seen it all before.

but how long does it take? do you need to disprove it all? does the court err on the side of caution?

 

[Kyle]

but how long does it take? do you need to disprove it all? does the court err on the side of caution?

How long does the Child Arrangements Family Court process take? 12 months on average, depending on the issues creating the parenting dispute and the region.

Welfare risks are what the Family Court are concerned about. The decisions they make are in the interests of the children caught up in the dispute.

But allegations that constitute welfare risks to children from their parents, such as domestic violence, abuses of all sorts, substance misuse, criminal activity are either historically evident from records of past indicents, completely new and/or undiscovered or they never happened at all.

There are numerous ways in which the Family Court is different from, say, the Criminal Court. But the Family Court still needs to decide if something is fact or has actually happened?

In Child Arrangements cases, there can often be factual elements in dispute. If a parent alleges that the other parent has been abusive or is neglegent, the other parent may deny it. When that occurs, the Fact Finding Hearing needs to be held and the court will make a decision about the events on which the parties disagree. After those facts have been established, the court then has a clearer picture to make its Child Arrangements decision.

There's probably a simpler way to explain this, but Family Law, like Civil Law, differs from Criminal Law when it comes to the procedure and also establishing the necessary standard of proof. Instead of putting a case before a jury of the public to determine if the defendant did the act “beyond all reasonable doubt”, each party must make their case directly to a judge who will apply what's called the “probability” test.

The burden of proving a fact rests on the person who asserts it, i.e. makes the allegation. So, if an ex makes an allegation against her childrens father to justify obsructing contact, it is not the father's responsibility to prove the accusation false. This is a fundamental part of the legal system as a whole. But the standard applied is not the criminal standard. What counts as evidence in Family Law cases can include, live, written, direct, hearsay, electronic, photographic, circumstantial, factual, or by way of expert opinion. Using available evidence, the judge then makes a decision about what has occurred and applies the probability test.

The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. Is it more likely than not that the event occurred?

Any fact in a dispute has to be proved on the balance of probabilities. This means that, to be treated as having happened, any fact in a dispute has to be proved to be more likely than not. It’s also referred to as the civil standard of proof - to distinguish it from the criminal standard of proof, in which a jury must be 'sure' (or be 'beyond reasonable doubt') to convict someone.

To use an extreme example, say that somebody has killed their child, even if a separate criminal trial for murder has resulted in an acquittal following a jury not being 'sure' the accused commited the killing based on the available evidence. If there were other children in that family, the Family Court may need to make a decision on what happens to them, and to do so would decide on the balance of probabilities whether the parent was responsible for the death.

So in short, the answer is no. You do not need to disprove anything. The person making the assertion against you needs to prove it.