The key points covered in Practice Direction 12J may include:

• Identification of Domestic Abuse: It provides guidance on recognizing the different forms of domestic abuse, which may include physical, sexual, emotional, verbal, financial, psychological abuse and coercive control.

• Assessing the Impact on Children: The practice direction emphasises the need to assess how domestic abuse affects children involved in family court proceedings. It recognises that witnessing domestic abuse can have a profound and lasting impact on children's emotional and psychological well-being.

• Factors to Consider in Child Arrangements: PD12J highlights factors the court should consider when making child arrangements, particularly in cases involving domestic abuse. These considerations aim to prioritise the safety and welfare of the child and any parent or family member who has experienced abuse.

• Relevant Information and Evidence: It addresses the types of evidence and information that the court should consider when assessing domestic abuse allegations, including the credibility and relevance of such evidence.

• Protective Measures: PD12J suggests the use of protective measures, such as non-molestation orders and occupation orders, to safeguard victims of domestic abuse and their children during the court proceedings.

• Child Contact Arrangements: It provides guidance on how the court should approach child contact arrangements when there are allegations or evidence of domestic abuse.

• The burden of proving any fact lies on the party asserting that fact. The standard of proof required is the civil standard of proof, that is that the fact be proved on the balance of probabilities. The analysis is a binary analysis – each allegation is either found to be “proved” or “not proved.

• The Definition of Domestic Abuse and Coercive Control
• The Burden of Proof and Evidence
• How the Court Approaches and Consideres Coercive Control
• What is Gaslighting?
• The Impact of Domestic Abuse on Children

' --- the standard of proof in finding the facts necessary to establish the threshold under section 31(2) or the welfare considerations in section 1 of the 1989 Act is the simple balance of probabilities, neither more nor less. Neither the seriousness of the allegation nor the seriousness of the consequences should make any difference to the standard of proof to be applied in determining the facts. The inherent probabilities are simply something to be taken into account, where relevant, in deciding where the truth lies. '

Findings of fact must be based on evidence, including inferences that can properly be drawn from the evidence, and not on suspicion or speculation.

' The court is not bound by the cases put forward by the parties, but may adopt an alternative solution of its own. The court is not bound by the choice of evidence put forward by the parties, but can decide for itself what evidence it wishes to hear. '

"It is an elementary feature of a fair hearing that an adverse finding can only be made where the person in question knows of the allegation and the substance of the supporting evidence and has had a reasonable opportunity to respond.  With effective case-management, the definition of the issues will make clear what findings are being sought and the opportunity to respond will arise in the course of the evidence, both written and oral."

" Where, during the course of a hearing, it becomes clear to the parties and/or the judge that adverse findings of significance outside the known parameters of the case may be made against a party or a witness consideration should be given to the following:

• Ensuring that the case in support of such adverse findings is adequately 'put' to the relevant witness(es), if necessary by recalling them to give further evidence;
• Prior to the case being put in cross examination, providing disclosure of relevant court documents or other material to the witness and allowing sufficient time for the witness to reflect on the material;
• Investigating the need for, and if there is a need the provision of, adequate legal advice, support in court and/or representation for the witness."

A Judge is not required to 'slavishly adhere' to a schedule of proposed allegations placed before them.

“Few relationships lack instances of bad behaviour on the part of one or both parties at some time and it is a rare family case that does not contain complaints by one party against the other, and often complaints are made by both. Yet not all such behaviour will amount to ‘domestic abuse’, where ‘coercive behaviour’ is defined as behaviour that is ‘used to harm, punish, or frighten the victim…’ and ‘controlling behaviour’ as behaviour ‘designed to make a person subordinate…’ In cases where the alleged behaviour does not have this character it is likely to be unnecessary and disproportionate for detailed findings of fact to be made about the complaints; indeed, in such cases it will not be in the interests of the child or of justice for the court to allow itself to become another battleground for adult conflict.”

A and B (No 3)(domestic abuse – no direct contact – s91(14)), Re [2023] EWFC 192

A Family Court judge has rejected a mother’s “speculative and hopeful” application to reopen findings of fact made in 2016, which found her to be the perpetrator of injuries inflicted on her child when he was a small baby.