Fact finding hearing - child access

prh47bridge · 22/02/2022 18:11

There are allegations of abuse which he is denying. The fact that a fact finding hearing has been arranged simply means that the allegations are relevant to the court's decision regarding a child arrangements order. It does not mean the allegations are true. The purpose of the hearing is to determine whether the alleged incidents took place.

So a fact finding hearing is only held when it is necessary, but that doesn't tell you anything about whether the allegations made by his ex are true.

Northernlurker · 22/02/2022 21:04

His split was acrimonious, he hasn't seen his child for months because the ex is so angry with him and it's a lot less than a year since they were supposed to marry!

Run, don't walk.

Unknown83 · 24/02/2022 16:03

@userclip

So I've been in a relationship for a few ninety's and things are going well but just wondering if I should take a step back or be a little careful

Basically this week he is going to court to get access to child (hasn't seen them for 8 months) but it turns out this week is a fact finding hearing because of allegations the ex has made, he claims all are untrue and no proof extra but I'm just wondering if a fact finding hearing is just usual practice or are these only done when absolutely necessary

He claims he's totally moved on from ex and things were bad for while before they split but he seems to be getting really worked up about having to see her in court (maybe this is normal to feel like that) Also just found out this weekend that they were in fact meant to of got married last august, everything booked and paid for

False allegations aren't uncommon unfortunately as accusing an ex of DV is the only way of getting legal aid (and once you've got it you can use it not just for child arrangements but everything including finances). Accusations of DV rose significantly after the legal aid rules were changed. If he's the higher earner and the accuser is a SAHP that wouldn't surprise me as often the objective of false accusations is threefold:

To have the children all the time as an excuse not to work;
To maximise the child maintenance they are entitled to as well as to get as large a share of the asset split as possible; and
To get legal aid to achieve all this.

It's also possible that the accuser was controlling in the relationship and is making false accusations as a way of trying to re-establish control. It's interesting that he's getting worked up about seeing her in court. Is it possible that she was abusing him in some way, such as through coercive control? If the accusations seem out of character for him then perhaps she is the real perpetrator? It's quite telling that he is not counter claiming against her actually, as this indicates some co-dependency. Most abusers would simply counter claim against their ex as a means to keep control.

If he hasn't done anything wrong, fact finding is in his interests because this is normally where the liars get outed, although they seldom face any substantial penalty for their behaviour because there's a difference between "no findings" and finding out someone has deliberately made false allegations (consequently, false accusations also tend to get underreported in the statistics). Hopefully he retains a barrister who will cross examine his accuser.

MrsBertBibby · 24/02/2022 17:30

I see the F4J rep has arrived.

OP the fact is that the ex has made allegations of abusive behaviour serious enough for the Court to decide that they will, if true, significantly impact whether he should see his children, and how.

This is not standard, and it's not done to get legal aid.

It's possible these allegations are complete fiction, but there's a significant chance they are true. He hasn't been open with you, I think. I would be extremely wary of this man.

Unknown83 · 24/02/2022 17:35

@MrsBertBibby

No decent lawyer would say "significant chance they are true" when in possession of no facts of the case whatsoever.

MrsBertBibby · 24/02/2022 17:50

Ah but for all that, I'm a cracking lawyer.

And OP's post has plenty of information to suggest this guy is a very bad risk, and she should get out now before she gets further entangled.

Sorry if that doesn't fit your sad narrative of evil harridans oppressing poor innocent men, but back in the real world, that's just not how it goes in the overwhelming majority of cases.

Unknown83 · 24/02/2022 18:39

@MrsBertBibby

Ah but for all that, I'm a cracking lawyer.

And OP's post has plenty of information to suggest this guy is a very bad risk, and she should get out now before she gets further entangled.

Sorry if that doesn't fit your sad narrative of evil harridans oppressing poor innocent men, but back in the real world, that's just not how it goes in the overwhelming majority of cases.

Sure you are and you take legal aid so it is little surprise you have a conflict of interest on the matter of false allegations.

Feel free to highlight risk indicators. All I can see is someone facing a fact finding which could be based on a spurious allegation that he hasn't had a chance to defend himself against yet.

My advice to the OP would be to find out two things. First, what is the allegation/s. Second, how close in proximity were the allegations to when he started dating her.

Also, I'm not the one pursuing a narrative, you are. I'm well aware family law is messed up for men and women alike, not least because of the conflicted interests of their solicitors. I know parents at my children's school who have been the subject of false allegations (proven untrue) and unfortunately I know someone I strongly suspect was a domestic abuser who won custody of his kids.

fortunenookie · 24/02/2022 19:59

Changed your username then Skepta?
More chips on your shoulder than a McCain factory

Yawn

fortunenookie · 24/02/2022 20:02

@userclip
Get the hell out of dodge
He is likely spinning you a massive yarn and you will end up pregnant and his next victim

But the - ahem - voice of reason on this page will doubtless tell you it’s all that bloody woman’s fault and a pack of lies

Original poster

userclip · 24/02/2022 20:09

Update he won't the case 100%, she admitted in court a lot of the allegations weren't true and he has been given immediate access to the child (1st meeting within 7 days) Judge asked her to give address where child is, she initially refused and judge told her he would hold her in contempt of court if she didn't immediately

OP posts:

fortunenookie · 24/02/2022 20:20

Hmm that’s a remarkably quick turnaround for a finding of fact judgment

MrsBertBibby · 24/02/2022 20:34

Unusually fast, certainly. And the Court didn't need to threaten her with contempt as she will have given her address on C8 at the outset.

SausagePourHomme · 24/02/2022 20:35

A lot of the allegations weren't true... so some were? But he won 100%? Make it make sense

Original poster

userclip · 24/02/2022 20:46

I'm just relaying what I've been told, it's been two full days in courts by lunchtime today all cross examination or whatever it is they do had been done and judge gave his findings this arvo. First contact with child is next week

Obviously I'm still watching everything and not going to 100% believe anyone.

All I can relay is what I'm getting told

OP posts:

Original poster

userclip · 24/02/2022 20:47

Apparently he's not known where the child has lived since the spilt

OP posts:

Unknown83 · 24/02/2022 21:20

@userclip

Update he won't the case 100%, she admitted in court a lot of the allegations weren't true and he has been given immediate access to the child (1st meeting within 7 days) Judge asked her to give address where child is, she initially refused and judge told her he would hold her in contempt of court if she didn't immediately

Well, I'm not remotely surprised at the outcome that the fact finding found nothing, although the fact that she actually admitted some of the allegations were false was quite a result.

But when you look at responses like those from @fortunenookie, @MrsBertBibby and @SausagePourHomme just shows why these people do it. Far from now facing the consequences of their actions, there are others (including a lawyer) determined to disagree with the outcome of a court of law and willing this man to be a monster. I don't think I will be getting an apology for their attacks on me either.

Unknown83 · 24/02/2022 21:34

@userclip

Apparently he's not known where the child has lived since the spilt

The more you tell me, the more I think she might be the one guilty of coercive control. Obviously I know very, very little but it might be worth him talking through things with a counsellor experienced in these matters.

Women who are abused are generally quite well served by various charities but for men I know from experience it was very hard to find guidance (I'd generally not endorse F4J or FNF but accept men have to seek them out because they're often left with no other choice). This may partly be because risk factors for women from domestic abuse are far higher (it's more likely to be more sustained, more violent and more likely to result in serious injury and death) but it still leaves around a quarter of domestic abuse sufferers unserved. In my case, I just wanted to know if I was experiencing abuse or not based on the anxiety she created but on balance I concluded it was the latter. However, my STBXW has never made false allegations or denied me contact, at least not yet.

fortunenookie · 24/02/2022 22:35

@Unknown83
“ The more you tell me, the more I think she might be the one guilty of coercive control. Obviously I know very, very little ”

The desperate over reaching and projecting from you that’s now resulted in a diagnosis of coercive control is phenomenal. And not in a good way.

As you wrote yourself “I know very very little”

A two day finding of fact which involves examination in chief, cross examination re examination of requested and permitted and evidence from any agreed witnesses as well a presumably oral submissions from
Counsel is done and dusted and a judgment delivered against “lots of allegations” in two days?
I’m not convinced.

But you crack on

Unknown83 · 25/02/2022 00:23

[quote fortunenookie]@Unknown83
“ The more you tell me, the more I think she might be the one guilty of coercive control. Obviously I know very, very little ”

The desperate over reaching and projecting from you that’s now resulted in a diagnosis of coercive control is phenomenal. And not in a good way.

As you wrote yourself “I know very very little”

A two day finding of fact which involves examination in chief, cross examination re examination of requested and permitted and evidence from any agreed witnesses as well a presumably oral submissions from
Counsel is done and dusted and a judgment delivered against “lots of allegations” in two days?
I’m not convinced.

But you crack on[/quote]
You're the one disagreeing with the outcome of a fact finding you know diddly squat about, not me. Do you know allegations of abuse appear in around 25% of divorce cases which is an awful lot. How much time do you think the family courts are able to give to each one?

Fact finding hearings are normally arranged very quickly (I've even seen some complaints from fathers on other forums that they struggle to get legal representation in time) because until the matters are resolved a parent can often be separated from their children and barred from living in their own home. Typically before these hearings, NMOs will have been arranged that the accused won't even know about until they have been issued. So the fact finding hearing is actually the first time they get to defend themselves against the allegations.

Fact findings normally take a day. This one took two. I see nothing unusual about this.

You are choosing to see things that are not there because you're too proud to apologise for your earlier rudeness to me that was based on your own prejudices.

fortunenookie · 25/02/2022 04:42

@Unknown83
Fact finding hearings are not arranged quickly. I’m not dignifying the other “facts” you trot out - bar a surface level agreement regarding court capacity at present - as they are just jaundiced rantings. You mistake my assessment of you as rudeness because it’s hit a nerve and you don’t like it. On that basis you have the temerity to expect an apology and go so far as to explicitly unbraid me for not having been forthcoming with one.

I haven’t disagreed with an outcome I’ve questioned the OP’s update based on my own experience and knowledge in this particular area. I told the OP I’d run a mile from this relationship based on the details of this man’s past. The language deployed in her update are really a paraphrase of her boyfriends and they absolutely confirm for me that that extricating herself from this man is the right thing to do.

And as for accusing me of having views or issues on matters that according to you I know “diddly squat” about then might I suggest a cursory glance over your “ I think she is coercive controlling” gem of a post to see the irony in your advice to me.

Unknown83 · 25/02/2022 07:14

[quote fortunenookie]@Unknown83
Fact finding hearings are not arranged quickly. I’m not dignifying the other “facts” you trot out - bar a surface level agreement regarding court capacity at present - as they are just jaundiced rantings. You mistake my assessment of you as rudeness because it’s hit a nerve and you don’t like it. On that basis you have the temerity to expect an apology and go so far as to explicitly unbraid me for not having been forthcoming with one.

I haven’t disagreed with an outcome I’ve questioned the OP’s update based on my own experience and knowledge in this particular area. I told the OP I’d run a mile from this relationship based on the details of this man’s past. The language deployed in her update are really a paraphrase of her boyfriends and they absolutely confirm for me that that extricating herself from this man is the right thing to do.

And as for accusing me of having views or issues on matters that according to you I know “diddly squat” about then might I suggest a cursory glance over your “ I think she is coercive controlling” gem of a post to see the irony in your advice to me.[/quote]
She admitted to false allegations. Making false allegations is a pretty big red flag of a coercive controller to me. Have you even looked at what might constitute coercive control?

Also, what you're saying to me having been proved wrong yesterday says a lot about your character, not mine. You're saying a lot of the points I made were untrue without evidence and contrary to the very real example of the OP's ex; you're attempting to assassinate my character rather than deal with the debate and you're still encouraging the OP to leave a man who was married to a woman who admitted to making false allegations against him.

That's what it boils down to. I said the allegations might be false, I got attacked for that by you and others and the outcome of the hearing was that the ex was making false allegations and admitted so. Perhaps in future, rather than attack people you don't agree with, you debate in good faith and have the integrity to admit when you were wrong?

fortunenookie · 25/02/2022 09:25

@Unknown83

From you

“False allegations aren't uncommon unfortunately as accusing an ex of DV is the only way of getting legal aid (and once you've got it you can use it not just for child arrangements but everything including finances). Accusations of DV rose significantly after the legal aid rules were changed. If he's the higher earner and the accuser is a SAHP that wouldn't surprise me as often the objective of false accusations is threefold:

To have the children all the time as an excuse not to work;
To maximise the child maintenance they are entitled to as well as to get as large a share of the asset split as possible; and
To get legal aid to achieve all this.

It's also possible that the accuser was controlling in the relationship and is making false accusations as a way of trying to re-establish control. It's interesting that he's getting worked up about seeing her in court. Is it possible that she was abusing him in some way, such as through coercive control? If the accusations seem out of character for him then perhaps she is the real perpetrator? It's quite telling that he is not counter claiming against her actually, as this indicates some co-dependency. Most abusers would simply counter claim against their ex as a means to keep control. “

………………………………………..

No wonder an experienced and rightly highly regarded family solicitor on these boards made the F4J rep comment. Your words are dripping in derision and bitterness.I suggested you had changed your username from the other individual I referred to, as I suspect like them you hunt down any posts in legal matters where there’s a chance to mock the changes to LAid, minimise anything a woman has dared to say and to project yourself and your own one sided recollection of your own experiences with a hefty dollop of virtue signalling thrown in.

Your above comments are as hackneyed as the very damaging asides that posters like you make whenever a woman raises issues of abuse on these boards.

The fact that you said hopefully he will get a barrister that will cross examine is laughable as that is - in this man’s case - their sole raisin d’etre. I don’t think you have any direct experience of the preparation for, execution of and implications of a finding of fact hearing. I have. On one hand you stated incorrectly they’re arranged quickly which is particularly not the case with family courts right now and secondly this man hasn’t seen his child for over eight months. Both of those factors are beyond the remit of a woman who is apparently a liar. They have involved previous court hearings and decisions made by professionals. On that basis alone I challenged the veracity of the story the OP has been told.

It is my sustained belief that the OP has been fed a lot of half truths by this man including the admitting of false allegations. I might be wrong. But I won’t be wrong about all of it.

You are flogging a dead horse with this repeatedly requesting an apology from me. To provide one of those I would need to feel the need for one which I don’t based on your rant / rhetoric I initially took exception to and secondly on some level I would have to conceive you are correct. I don’t. You and other posters of your ilk pick out what you want for a thread and use it in ways which contribute to the massive devaluing and ongoing abuse of women in family court. So don’t hold your breath.

RedToothBrush · 25/02/2022 09:37

@userclip

I'm just relaying what I've been told, it's been two full days in courts by lunchtime today all cross examination or whatever it is they do had been done and judge gave his findings this arvo. First contact with child is next week

Obviously I'm still watching everything and not going to 100% believe anyone.

All I can relay is what I'm getting told

What did everyone warn you about on the other thread and how you only have his word to go on and how he was already proven to be lying to you.

You said on the other thread, you would definitely ditch him as it was going to be messy either way. I said i didn't believe you and you were still clinging to the idea that he would be 'found innocent' and lo and behold he's 100% innocent (apart from the bits he's not) and it seems you've not ditched him.

You have a long difficult road ahead of you. I wish you well.

RedToothBrush · 25/02/2022 09:39

@userclip

Apparently he's not known where the child has lived since the spilt

Because the mother had gone to a refuge after he'd been arrested. Right?

For anyone else who hasn't read thebOPs other thread, you really should.

hauntedbillybass · 25/02/2022 09:49

I suspect like them you hunt down any posts in legal matters where there’s a chance to mock the changes to LAid, minimise anything a woman has dared to say and to project yourself and your own one sided recollection of your own experiences with a hefty dollop of virtue signalling thrown in.

That's exactly what Unknown does. I've seen it many times recently.