Hello and welcome everybody. Thank you for joining me. My name's Safta Mahmood. This then is the session through data law, the developments in Children law cases where I'm taking you through alienating behaviors, the area of domestic abuse as it ties in, in that area and also enforcement. So this study session two. So as you know, I'm splitting this course up into three sessions each one and around 40 or so minutes in length, uh a little or less for, for the two late latter ones uh given, I've spent a little longer the first session, but in total a period of two hours to go through this area with you. And uh the aim really is to give you some useful gran insofar as looking at different ways of enforcement of child arrangements orders and then tying this in with particularly domestic abuse in terms of practice direction to j and also looking at alienating behaviors. So you remember in the previous session, I'll spend some time going through with you the different methods of enforcement of child arrangements orders. We looked at the position with applications for enforcement, whether it's say suspended orders, whether it's which of level arrangements. The use of section 11 of the Children Act, we looked at the use of rule 16.4 of the F pr Children being uh therefore joined as parties. We looked at uh judges meeting with Children and therefore, uh looking at all the options here as well as committal. I also spent some time looking at some of the aspects of any alienating behaviors with you, particularly the case of re H So what I'm gonna be doing today then is I'd like to develop the area of parental alienation or alienating behaviors in more detail with you. And also we'll be looking at practice direction 12 J as uh a very significant practice direction which helps us to navigate and deal with cases involving domestic abuse. And like I said, I'm looking at it specifically as it relates to areas of enforcement and uh in particular alienating behaviors. So I'll be going through some of those elements with you today and we're looking at the laws of August 2024. So parental alienation. Now this is where I wanted to start then with this case of A and B parental alienation number one. Now there are 45 of these cases and I'll be taking you through the first four to start off with. So this case came back like say five times in total. Uh So back in 2020 then this case was handed down by Mr Justice Key and sitting in the uh the f region of the high court. It involved two Children at that stage, aged 11 and 14, they were living with their mother and there were three applications before the court. One was by the father. We applied for a child arrangements order. Mother also applied for a child arrangements order and mother also applied for discharge of the passport order. And effectively at the final hearing, what was agreed was a shared care order being agreed for the Children to spend equal time with each parent. Uh But uh really just sadly, do work, mother made allegations against father which were investigated and uh those really were not founded. Some years later, there were further allegations made by mother gang's father. Uh and uh mother applied to va shared child arrangements. Order application was refused contact, then began to fail. One child in particular, refused to go to father's home, contact them began to fail. And um the the Children, both of them began to fail to engage with any form of contact with their father. So this is where the issue of enforcement of child arrangements became a live issue. And uh the parties did seek to instruct and in fact, were given permission to instruct jointly a psychologist at the field of parental alienation to prepare a report. Now, as you'll see later as we develop in this course, you'll see that there's been a lot of discussion surrounding the use of experts in cases of alienating behaviors. That'll take you through the more recent thinking on that uh later. But here, there was permission given pursuant to part 25 to instruct uh a psychologist like say in the field of parental alienation. And there were in fact several addendum reports prepared by, by the expert. And uh and then there was also a psychiatrist as well. So these experts, they were instruction and they gave an opinion both uh which relates to issue of prevental alienation. And essentially this is what the what the opinions were. So in relation to these allegations, relating behaviors, it was said that both Children would be at real risk of continuing to fail to uh develop a sense of self worth, self self development. There was a risk of them suffering depression, a lack of trust would be there uh a sense of shame and and inability to be able to secure healthy future relationships. So obviously, very serious issues that have been raised there. And it was said that these consequences were intergenerational so that both Children could suffer this and would suffer this not only during their lifetime, but indeed, if they did then have Children themselves, they could then pass on this behavior to their own Children. So obviously, there are Children suffering this form of uh alienating behaviors. There's a risk of physical emotional harm which would be dangerous for these Children. They may engage in self harming, they may be unable to regulate their, their emotions. And um so grave were those risks that the father was physically distressed as the expert gave this evidence. So you can see the impact that disseminating behavior was having uh on these Children and would continue to potentially have uh going forward. So the court ultimately, at this on hearing did decide to make a child arranged disorder specify uh that um the uh the Children were to spend time with their father and it was hoped that this would meet the needs of the Children and uh hopefully to enable them to overcome that emotional psychological harm that they had suffered at the hands of their mother. So you can see this case was in a way similar to the previous decision of VH that I mentioned in the previous session, the 2019 decision where getting that case, the court had been satisfied that there had been alienating behaviors. And it, I had hoped that this case also had very much marked similarities to that case. And this case would also then lend itself to one where uh making an order four child arrangements would serve to ensure that the children's emotional, psychological well being would be uh monitored and maintained. But sadly, uh that didn't happen when the judge a may disorder uh for the Children not only to spend time with, but indeed, then to live with their father, it didn't happen. Uh They, in fact, uh left their father's placement, they didn't go back to the mother, they went to their mother's home, a mother's friend's home rather. And, um, a tutor, if I understand, I used to tutor them at some stage. So they weren't really ready to live with their father at this stage. And as you can imagine, with a lot of these cases go, there's going to be a lot of work done with cafcass with other experts, counseling done, but the Children really were not ready at this stage. So the case did come back uh as IMB per nation number two in February 2021. And uh this is where the judge, like I say, had put together this potential roadmap of when conduct could restart in ideal circumstances and how that would increase over time. But sadly, it, like I say, it just wasn't working. The Children left their father's home, went to the home of a friend of the mother and really, they just weren't ready for, for that significant move at this stage. So the judge kind of abandoned that road map at this stage. Uh There was the issue of the Children being joined as parties, although no application had been made like you pursuant to 16.4. And uh the Children were only at this stage and have an indirect contact with their mother. And uh she had sent a letter to them. And um what was the position with the mother was she did not acknowledge or except that she had caused the Children any harm. In fact, she took the view that uh the Children didn't want to spend time with her father and therefore that shouldn't be forced upon them. And um, the position with the 16.4 is this, the judge took the view that even though the mother was asking for the Children to be joined as parties and for them to have their own guardian and potentially lawyer here. Uh The judge said it would be inappropriate in the circumstances because that would draw them into this litigation which the mother had used wrongfully uh to her own ends. It would take the focus away from working therapeutically with uh the expert and the Children and settling into the care of their father. It would be disastrous for these Children to join them at this stage where effectively their wishes and feelings would then be seen through the prism of their mother in terms of the coaching and the priming that they had been subjected to. So the judge took the view that it would be appropriate to do the 16.4. And um the judge did say that even though the father was seeking for the proceedings to be concluded. Um The, the court said that uh they did have confidence in the expert report and they would really need to monitor this to enable the Children to receive further work with the expert with a view to them, looking at the possibility of moving them with their father. Then it became A and B number three. And basically at this hearing, this is where the father had applied for an order for the mother to pay his legal costs for partial hearings and cost schedules were filed. And the question really was as to whether or not the mother should pay. Now, as you can imagine, various methods are employed when it comes to enforcement. And one of the other things we do need to think about is in these cases of enforcement and indeed orders. Generally in Children proceedings, there may well be an application by a party for costs. You'll be aware that in Children proceedings part 28 of the fund procedures which would come into play, the court may make such orders, the costs as they see fit and in Children proceedings, generally speaking, as you know, costs, orders are not ordinarily going to be granted. Having said that here, the father was relying upon the mother's uh reprehensible conduct and inappropriate conduct on her part. So he was seeking con con uh costs against the mother in these circumstances. And uh the mother's case was she simply could not afford to pay some or all of the costs that were being sought. But on the facts, the judge rejected that submission. The judge was satisfied that the mother in fact did have funds available. She had funds in the sum of in excess of 2 million pound. At the conclusion of the financial remedy proceedings, she had other investments in excess of 200,000 pound. Uh like I say, she had, uh she retained some in excess of 2 million. At the conclusion of the financial relief proceedings, she owned a luxury flat in Moscow. She had to rent a property in Mali Bone. Um She had been fully represented by council by leading council by solicitors. She had a wealthy family in Russia. So, you know, she had money here and therefore it wasn't the case that she could afford this. She could, she had the means to pay. Uh her conduct had been reprehensible and the court was satisfied that the uh the cost order should be made. So that was granted on the facts. The case then did come back in July 2021 and that was the final hearing at which case, there had been more work done with the Children uh with the experts. And uh this is where the court had listed matter for final hearing. And in fact, they made final orders of that hearing, irrespective care and contact arrangements. So the father had asked the court to make a child arrangements or to specify and live with, for the Children to live with him and his wife. Uh he had pr for the Children, his wife hadn't had this stage. And of course, if a child arrangements, liquid order was granted in her favor as well. She would also get pr for the Children. And um the court decided that in fact, he was in the children's welfare, best interests for them to live with their dad and his wife to be joint carer. And a liquid order was made to both of them in the circumstances in so far as contact between the Children and their mother is concerned. Uh, the court did say that this would continue to be on a supervised basis as recommended by the experts. So that was a position in July 2021. And this case has come back, it came back in 2023 and I'll come back to it a bit later when we really look further at the issues surrounding behaviors. But certainly as of July 2021 the uh the ultimate decision was that the Children would be living with their father and uh and the step muscle permanently. So let's now start looking at fact finding hearings in private Children law cases because as you can imagine, when we are looking at enforcement of child arrangements, then it may well be the case that one or other of the parties may be raising allegations of domestic abuse. And this is where alienating behaviors comes into play, which we've been discussing because as you'll see later, that is in itself a form of abuse. And therefore, we need to ask ourselves that when people raise allegations of abuse. Should, if those allegations are disputed, should the court be list in the matter for a finding of fact hearing? So let's have a look at that and see how the law on this has developed. So I'm going to start with going back really as far as the year 2000 where we had these four big cases that were decided, these were the cases of ELVM and H and uh in these particular cases handed down by the court of appeal, what the court was uh stipulating at this stage at that stage, uh was this that um as in this case, you had four appeals, the court had made findings against the respective fathers in this case that they had been domestically abusive to the mothers respectively. And uh therefore, the question was what impact would that then have on the proceedings? And the court decides that when you're hearing an application of contact, as in this case is where domestic abuse has been established, the court should consider passing present conduct of the parties towards each other and indeed towards the Children. You do need to consider the effect of this abuse upon the Children in these circumstances. And the court was assisted by a report prepared by the experts, Doctor Glass and Doctor Sturge. And in fact, there's a, there's a report that they prepared court conduct and domestic violence. The experts court report of September 2000, which is worth looking at when they get a chance. And one of the things the court of appeal decided in this in these four joint appeals was this even if there was a finding made of domestic abuse, as in this case, if it's found that the father has been domestically abusive towards a mother, even perhaps in the presence of the Children that in itself does not raise a presumption against conduct. So it doesn't mean that that's it won't be contact between the father and the Children because the problem with that of course, is he may then not apply to rebut that in which case is the Children potentially who miss out on that relationship. And he may not be able to abut the presumption. In which case again, the Children would potentially miss out on that relationship. So, rather than raising it as a presumption instead, what this case was providing is of course, those findings, if any will be taken into account will take them into account uh in deciding what type of risk assessment may be needed, what type of contact therefore should take place there after? Should it be supervised? Should it be supported? Should it be direct, for example and so forth? So that's we are very much the, the way in which we've continued to run the KF CS uh since. But really what we need to be asking ourselves is, you know, when, when will the court list matters for finding a fact hearing and should really all matters which are pleaded lead to a fact finding and this implants that is not necessarily, of course. So you got this case of a contact risk of violence, this 2005 high court decision. And uh one of the key things that this case highlighted in terms of the practical point is this, it's very important that time estimates are sufficient, are accurate. So if you are in advice the court to list a matter for finding a fact hearing, it's important to make sure that uh like I said, a time estimate that your advice the court to uh utilize is one that is indeed accurate. Um So, you know, if there's going to be say five or six allegations, is there enough time, you know, in terms of opening speeches, live evidence, the closing speeches for the court then to be able to make an informed decision, what about uh court reading time judgment, writing time judgment and the down time you gotta build that in as well? Of course, we're finding a fact is sort the court expects the best possible evidence on which to make a decision. So even though hearsay, as you know, under the Children, admissibility of hearsay order is admissible in family proceedings, uh the best possible evidence nonetheless is still first hand if you can. So it's best to get that if you can. And the other thing this case highlights is this case management does not transfer the responsibility for the preparation of a case to judge. So it's not enough to for the parties to simply turn up at court and say to the judge, look, these are the issues. Yes, we want you to sort it, you know, it's more going to court to say, look, these are the issues. This is what we propose. This is how judge we propose, you deal with this. This is the order we suggest you make or you don't make in the circumstances. So you come up with proposals, of course, a draft order, draft suggestion, draft options and then obviously it's for the court to decide which way they, they go with that type. Also, this case emphasized that when you are preparing your schedules of allegations, what's typically referred to as a Scots schedule, you're setting out your allegations and cross reference to the evidence, then uh putting these in the form of a pleading effectively in a tabular format will assist in achieving clarity. So of course, that's what we've been doing for many, many years. Although as you'll see when I take you through that HN case later, you'll see that HL case of the Court of Appeal in March 2021 you'll see that when you're looking at the patterns of behavior, shes of allegations don't really work properly. And instead we need to be looking at perhaps uh narrative statements in those cases where first hand evidence is available. You should be relying upon that, that should be presented, attention should be given on the issue of evidence that may corroborate evidence. So, you know, if allegations are being made, what corroborator evidence have you got to back up those allegations, it doesn't necessarily mean that you need very detailed police disclosure. It doesn't mean that you need very detailed reports from schools or otherwise, sometimes a letter may suffice but corroboration may well be required unnecessary uh in that in somebody's cases, as you can imagine. So over the years, then we've had various practice directions which have looked specifically at the interrelationship between domestic abuse and child arrangements. So it's far back as uh 2009, we've had the private law program, for example, we had practice direction 12 J. This was provided for as of the 22nd of April 2014 alongside a lot of the other updates on the practice directions. So this was at that stage, the practice direction on child arrangements and contact domestic violence and harm as it was referred to. And one of the things that this practice direction specifically looked at is emphasizing coercive and controlling behavior. Now, those are two very, very important terms as you can imagine that we use in this area. So controlling behavior, as you can see refers to any act or pattern of acts designed than to make a person subordinate or dependent by isolating them from say sources of support. We're exploiting their resources and capacities for personal gain. You may be depriving them of the means needed for independence, resistance and escape and re regulating the everyday behavior. So you've got uh controlling behavior and then you've got coercive behavior, which is where it could be an act. It could be a passion of behavior where it takes a form of assault and somebody's threatening, humiliating, intimidating or other form of abuse may be done to punish them, harm them, frighten them. So as you can imagine, this is a pattern sometimes of behavior sometimes where somebody may, for example, may make somebody else feel very subordinate. You know, somebody may for example, manipulate somebody to uh make them have a different sense of what reality is, you know, making them feel that they're to blame for the behavior. You know, the idea that we commonly refer to as gas lighting, for example, would, sadly, uh you know, there could be many examples of. So this is a type of behavior which as you can imagine, it often takes the form of a pattern of behavior and therefore that needs to be looked at and determined and dealt with. So practice direct 12 J was updated, it was updated on the second of October 2017 and the then president of Family Division, Sir James Munby, he took the opportunity when he provided this update to really get us rethinking about the areas surrounding domestic abuse and really the the full breadth of it. Uh So in particular, the president did say that it's very important for us as practitioners to ensure that we are referring to this as the term domestic abuse and not domestic violence. Because of course, the words domestic violence uh in common usage tend to be limited to physical abuse, but of course, domestic abuse is much wider, it incorporates various forms of abuse often which may not even be physical. So therefore, it's more appropriate to use that term. The president also said that we need to bear in mind that there are various culturally specific forms of abuse such as but not limited to, for example, forced marriage on abate violence. For example, diary related abuse when certain communities gives given on occasion of getting married and if the couple later separate, one of them may put pressure on the other person insisting that those gifts are given back, for example. And that could be a form of abuse in itself. Transnational marriage abandonment as as the president referred to it, the idea that if say you've got say a husband from England or Wales, he may go overseas, he may get married, but then he deliberately strands his wife overseas. He doesn't make arrangements for her to get the visa, for her to join him here. Uh And he's effectively exploited her in those circumstances, he may abandon her, he may separate her from the Children if they had Children. So you can see this form of marriage abandonment, for example. So uh you can see these are types of abuse as well as well as, as we said, the controlling and coercive behavior that I mentioned. Now over the last few years, we've also of course, had the Domestic Abuse Act of 2021. This came in at the end of April 2021. And because of that, a lot of the other legislation of course, has had to be amended and updated in, in line with the new definition of domestic abuse. So many of you will be aware of, of course, the revised definition that came in of domestic abuse, which is basically behavior of uh behavior of A towards B where as long as they are 60 or over and as long as they are personally connected and if their behavior is abusive, then this amounts to domestic abuse. So they need to be switched over to be personally connected. As you can imagine, this is going to incorporate a number of different types of situations such as if they're married or were married, civil partners or were they were engaged or are engaged, they were on an intimate personal relationship, uh their relatives, for example. So you got various forms of persons who come within this definition, but the behavior itself needs to be abusive. And you can see here on this slide that there's various forms of examples of uh abusive behavior. So this could incorporate, for example, physical or sexual abuse, violent or threatening behavior, for example, controlling or coercive behavior, economic abuse, psychological, emotional or other forms of abuse. And it can be a single incident. So it could be identified specific instance of say maybe a particular incident of physical abuse or it could be a course of conduct. And that is again where you've got your pattern of behavior, that's where you've got your coercive and controlling behavior as we've been discussing uh in that regard and also bear in mind it's economic abuse, of course. So this is where one's affecting the other's ability to use, acquire, maintain money or property or goods or services, Children could be affected as well. Of course, in this way as well, and what we need to bear in mind is this external definition of domestic abuse still does, of course, also include the culturally specific forms of, of abuse that are mentioned such as the forced marriage, honor based violence. Uh for example, that Children can and will be victims of domestic abuse as per the act. And in particular, what section three of the Act, the Domestic Abuse Act of 2021 stipulates is that any reference to a victim of domestic abuse does of course incorporate and include a child who may not only see or hear the abuse but also really experience the effects of it. So as you can imagine, this could be where say the child may be at school, child may not have seen or heard the abuse by one parent or the other in the family home. But then they come home and they experience the effects of it because they see the injuries on their parent's face. For example, when they come home or the parents subdued or withdrawn, the child can obviously experience the effects of it or it could be done in other ways economically, say the one parent is uh controlling the other parent by giving them very minimum amounts of money. For example, giving them say 10 pounds or so a week to live on effectively, to say, you know, you don't need any more money than that because I'm paying for everything. So to give them say 10 pounds a week, that's nowhere near enough to meet their needs of that of the Children. So clearly, the Children are then suffering abuse in that way. And that's a form of economic abuse. So you can see how Children can and will be victims of abuse in various ways in this regard. Now, one of the other things which we need to bear in mind is when we're dealing with these abuse cases is we need to also uh bear in mind that uh we need to ensure that people can appropriately participate in family proceedings. So this is where the practice direction of October 2017 A graph 10 specifically referred to special measures. So you can see here it provided for the fact that any party in the proceedings uh is such that the court needs to ensure that if necessary, there are adequate special arrangements to protect them or child attending any hearing. Uh and therefore placing arrangements in place such as for example, waiting arrangements uh prior to the hearing, entering and leaving the court building, for example, so effectively making provision for special measures as it used to be referred to then. And um this is where in particular, the court should inquire at that time with the alleged victim as to how best to participate in that regard. Uh So as to see what provisions need to be put in place, of course, now, as you know, we have a lot more uh remote hearings still. And therefore, if you've got hearings where the camera is being put on by the party, the party may ask permission for their camera to be switched off because they may fear that the other person is going to be intimidating them by looking at them staring at them whilst their camera is on. So even in those kind of situations, now this is where this area has of course developed over the last few years. So we've got practice direction three A A. Uh And uh this was the uh reference to the participation directions, practice direction, which came into effect in November uh 2000 and uh 19 in particular. And this provides for the fact that we in family proceedings, there is evidence that a person is a victim of abuse or is at risk of being a victim of abuse. Then one is to assume that by virtue of that they are vulnerable. So they don't need to have a finding made of abuse by raising this and there being sufficient reference to it that then raises the assumption that they are vulnerable, which then entitles them to be able to say to the judge. Well, look, these are the participation directions. Therefore, I'm asking for effectively the special measures. And this is where there was a case. Just a few months ago, there was a case of X and Y domestic abuse participation directions, obligations to consider uh had it done by Mr Justice Williams. And this really looks at the issue of participation directions. It was one whereby it was a care case, but it's one whereby at the previous hearing, uh the mother who was the victim of domestic abuse uh did not raise the fact uh that uh it was a father who was a part of these persons who had subjected to the abuse. And the court said that um the court has an independent duty to concert issues of a diminished ability of vulnerability. This is contained within part three fund procedure rules back direction, three A A uh and parties can of course raise it also and the duty lies not just upon the court, of course, but also upon the legal team. So what was the court's under an obligation in the case to provide a fair hearing and really think about participation directions and what might be needed to take account of a party's uh diminished ability to participate in proceedings if the person is legally represented, and the lawyers are also responsible to consider participation and look to see what should be sought in those circumstances. And it's good practice in accordance with professional duties. There's the advocates too quick, for example, to have regard to participation directions in this regard. And the court is therefore entitled to assume. The judge said that representing parties, lawyers are going to be satisfied that their client can participate fairly if the issue is not formally been raised in that we've got. So let's assume, then you've got a situation where uh say you've got a matter where, say the father, for example, seeks to spend time with his Children. The mother is opposing on a basis that she's alleging domestic abuse perpetrated. She says to her by him in the presence of the Children. So she's raising allegations. Let's say the court has decided to list a matter for a finding of fact hearing. So they have decided to do so. They've applied practice direction 12 J and those allegations therefore are undetermined. Uh and uh they will be determined in at a forthcoming fact finding hearing, say listed in say six weeks time they issued. And of course, at the moment, then until then, until that hearing is what happens in the meantime, that in so far as uh interim contact basically, so the father may be saying, well, until that hearing, I I want to see my Children, they want to see me and that relationship should be allowed to be maintained. So he's effectively inviting the court to make an order that he be permitted to spend time with the Children in those circumstances. Well, this is where paragraph 25 of practice section 12 J uh comes into effect. Paragraph 25 provides that where the court does give directions for fact finding hearing, where uh there are these disputed allegations of domestic abuse which are not determined. So the example that I've just mentioned, then it provides that the court should not be making an interim child arrangements order unless it's satisfied that its interests of the child to do so and that the order would not expose a child or the other to an unmanageable risk of harm. Now, what I want to emphasize is this does not raise a presumption against contacts on lawyers misread this and thinking. Well, that means that if the matter is listed for a fact final hearing, there can't be any contact in the meantime, that's not what this says as you can see. And in fact, I would go further and say that in fact, the Corps has a positive duty to consider conduct uh in the interim in these circumstances. So, in fact, if you look at paragraphs 26 and 27 of practice direction 12 J, you can see here that this specifically provides that uh the court may allow interim conduct, but in a fact, final hearing and in deciding whether to do so, they'll take into account the welfare checklist on the Children Act or section one for the AC A the Adoption Children Act, if its case involving adoption or related proceedings, and they need to give regard to the effect on a child of uh any of these allegations that are being raised and whether it may amount to any physical emotion or other risk in those circumstances. And specifically, paragraphs 27 provides that when the court is considering whether to make any inter contact in these circumstances, they need to look at the arrangements required to ensure it's as far as possible. The risk of harm is, is minimized. Uh whether the contact, if it is to take place, whether it could be supported, whether it should be supervised. And if so by whom what facilities are available and if say direct contact, face to face is not appropriate, then at the very least, the court needs to consider whether in the circumstances, the contact should be indirect. So you can see, you know, there is that requirement to investigate and therefore look at the possibility of of this contact being uh maintained and therefore set up uh in these circumstances, so very, very important therefore, to bear that in mind. Now, the big question of course is, and what kind of circumstances should then the court be deciding whether or not to list a matter for a finding of fact hearing. And this is where Paru 12 J comes in particularly paragraph 1617, in particular, uh what a court will take those factors into account in deciding whether to list a matter for a finding, asked for a fact hearing and um directions will be made accordingly. So in particular, you can see the court would therefore need to determine as early as possible whether to conduct a factual hearing in relation to disputed allegations of domestic abuse. Uh And if so to then really look at what other programs may be needed we used to have and still do to a limited extent the domestic violence perpetrator programs. But many of these, sadly, the funding for these is now gone. And in deciding whether to conduct a fact finding hearing or not, the court needs to take into account the views of the parties and of Cafcass or Cafcass cry and the admissions that are made because it may be that there's admissions that are made and those may be enough dolls may be enough to enable the court to think. Well, we've got a sufficient factual matrix. So therefore, we don't need a fact finding if a party is in receipt of public funding, as you know, uh in order to satisfy the lasar requirements, the legal aid sentencing and punishment of offenders Act of 2012, there needs to be evidence obtained of child abuse or domestic abuse. So maybe you've already got evidence of abuse and is that sufficient as a factual basis upon which to proceed? So you again, you may not need a fact finding. The court also needs to consider whether there is any other evidence available, which may provide a sufficient factual matrix. Uh So again, it doesn't mean that just because allegations are being raised, that one, they sit for finding a fact hearing. Can the issues be determined without a fact finding hearing? Uh and specifically subparagraph ge would suggest whether the nature and the extent of the allegations if proven would be relevant to the issue. So that's a key issue. So some of the allegations are raised that may be historical, that may have taken place some time even after those allegations uh relate to the person that still allowed the other to continue to have contact with the Children that you need to ask yourself. Really? Do we need to really consider these? Are they relevant or they can have a bearing on the issue before the court? And if she answers that it, no, and therefore it's not necessary and it's not proportionate. The court should not be listed yet for a fact on a hearing. OK. So that brings us to the end of this session. And what I'm gonna do then in the next session is we'll be developing the areas surrounding domestic abuse specifically back to section 12 J and see how it links in particularly with areas surrounding alienating behaviors. OK. So I'll speak to you very soon then. Thank you very much.
Recorded Webinar - Part 1
Release Date: Tuesday 3rd September 2024
3089 Users
170 Courses
156 Reviews