MG v SN
[2024] EWFC 202 (B)
A v K (Appeal: Fact Finding: PD12J)
31 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1981 (Fam)
High Court
Mom and Dad fought over who M should live with and whether the court should investigate their accusations of abuse against each other. The judge decided that investigating the abuse wasn't necessary because it wouldn't change what was best for M. He ordered that M lives with both parents. The appeal court agreed with the judge's decision.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against a Family Court Judge's decision not to hold a fact-finding hearing in private law proceedings concerning allegations of domestic abuse between the parents of an 8-year-old girl, M.
- •Cross-allegations of domestic abuse, including physical and emotional abuse, were made by both parents.
- •Mother was convicted of assault against the father, a conviction upheld on appeal.
- •M primarily lives with her mother, with regular overnight stays with her father.
- •The Family Court Judge determined that a fact-finding hearing was unnecessary as the allegations were not relevant to the welfare issues before the court.
- •Appeal focuses on the Judge's refusal to conduct a fact-finding hearing and the subsequent child arrangements order (joint lives with order).
Legal Principles
Necessity and proportionality of fact-finding hearings in domestic abuse cases involving children.
PD12J FPR 2010, K v K [2022] EWCA Civ 468, Re H-N and Others (Children) [2021] EWCA Civ 448
Relevance of domestic abuse allegations to child welfare decisions.
President's Guidance "Fact-finding hearing and domestic abuse in Private Law children proceedings" (5 May 2022)
Overriding objective of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 to deal with cases justly and proportionately.
Rule 1.2 FPR 2010
The court's role in determining only those factual matters relevant to child arrangements orders.
K v K [2022] EWCA Civ 468
Shared lives with orders can be appropriate even with parental antagonism.
AZ v BX [2024] EWHC 1528 (Fam)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Judge correctly applied PD12J and the overriding objective, focusing on the relevance of the allegations to the welfare issues. The Judge's decision not to hold a fact-finding hearing was deemed justified, and the joint lives with order was upheld.
Joint lives with order for M upheld.
The Judge considered M's best interests and found that a joint order would emphasize both parents' equal roles, despite their ongoing conflict.
Increase in overnight stays with father upheld.
The mother's prior agreement to overnight stays and the Family Court Adviser's support for a gradual increase were considered.