Domestic Abuse Allegations, Cafcass and Fact-Finding: What the Court of Appeal Has Just Said
A new Court of Appeal judgment provides important guidance for parents involved in private family-law proceedings where domestic abuse is alleged, particularly as the Child Focused Court model expands across England and Wales.
On 29 September 2026, the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in Re C (Child Arrangements Orders; Domestic Abuse; Child Focused Court) [2026] EWCA Civ 1216. The case was heard by Sir Stephen Cobb, President of the Family Division, Lord Justice Moylan and Lord Justice Zacaroli. It concerns proceedings under the Child Focused Court (CFC) model, formerly known as Pathfinder.
An allegation does not automatically require a fact-finding hearing
One of the most important points from Re C is that domestic abuse allegations do not, by themselves, mean that the Family Court must conduct a fact-finding hearing. Even serious allegations do not automatically require a separate hearing. The court must ask whether deciding a disputed allegation is necessary to assess future risk and determine the child's welfare.
Family proceedings should not become an attempt to determine every argument, accusation or incident that occurred during a relationship. The court must concentrate on factual disputes that could materially affect its decisions about the child. This includes considering patterns of behaviour, rather than looking only at isolated incidents.
For a parent accused of abuse, seeking a hearing simply to clear their name may miss the legal issue. The more useful questions are: which allegations remain disputed, why do they matter to the child's arrangements, and what would change if they were proved or disproved? Re C reinforces the need for focused litigation. See paragraphs 23–30.
Domestic abuse remains central to the court's assessment
Practice Direction 12J continues to apply under the Child Focused Court model. The court must consider domestic abuse when assessing welfare and whether arrangements can safely take place. A more investigative process does not remove the safeguards protecting children and the parent with whom they live.
Taking an allegation seriously and requiring every allegation to be tried are different questions. Where admissions do not adequately address an alleged pattern of abuse, disputed matters may still need determination. The court must have a sufficient factual foundation for its risk assessment.
Cafcass does not decide your case
A Cafcass or Cafcass Cymru Family Court Adviser can have considerable influence on proceedings. Receiving a negative recommendation can understandably be distressing. But the recommendation is not the court's decision: the judge remains responsible for deciding what arrangements serve the child's welfare.
In Re C, the judge departed from the Family Court Adviser's recommendation, and the Court of Appeal upheld the substantive contact arrangements. An unfavourable report should therefore be examined carefully, with attention to whether its conclusions are supported by evidence and analysis.
Where is the welfare analysis?
The statutory welfare checklist includes the child's wishes and feelings, physical, emotional and educational needs, the likely effect of changes in circumstances, age and background, harm suffered or risk of harm, parental capability and the court's available powers.
The Court of Appeal criticised aspects of the FCA's analysis. A statement that the welfare checklist has been applied is of limited assistance if the report does not demonstrate how the relevant factors informed the recommendation. See paragraph 126(i).
When reviewing a report, ask how its conclusions were reached. What evidence supports them? How have competing risks been assessed? Have the children's wishes been evaluated in context? What consideration has been given to the consequences of the proposed arrangements?
What information has Cafcass relied upon?
Re C also raised questions about communications between the FCA and the mother that were not openly reflected in the reports. The Court of Appeal identified a discrepancy between the extent of those discussions described in oral evidence and what the written reports revealed. See paragraph 126(ii).
This does not establish a general claim of bias against mothers or fathers. It demonstrates the importance of transparency: the court and parties need to understand the material underpinning a recommendation that may substantially affect a child's relationship with a parent.
A negative recommendation is not necessarily the end
The FCA's oral evidence disclosed that she would have recommended professionally supervised contact with clear parameters for dates and times. That materially different position was not apparent from her written report. See paragraphs 109 and 126(iii).
Where appropriate, testing the reasoning can reveal alternatives that have not been fully explored. Identifying inconsistencies, unsupported assumptions and workable safeguards is more useful than simply saying that Cafcass is against you.
The consequences of losing an established parental relationship
The court must assess the potential harm associated with contact. Depending on the circumstances, it must also examine the welfare consequences of substantially reducing or ending an established relationship with a parent.
In this case, the Court of Appeal criticised the lack of analysis of the emotional, psychological and developmental consequences for the children of effectively losing their father. The judge had considered those consequences and concluded that, with the safeguards ordered, not seeing him would be more emotionally harmful for these particular children. See paragraphs 124–125.
This is not a rule that contact must continue despite abuse. The assessment remains individual to the child, and arrangements must protect the safety and wellbeing of the child and the parent with whom they live.
This was not a case in which the father was cleared of false allegations
The father had admitted significant abusive behaviour, and the court recognised its damaging effects on the mother and children. His subsequent conduct had also undermined the mother and pushed the boundaries of supervision.
Nevertheless, the court had to assess whether safe future arrangements could be made. Limited contact supervised by named family friends, briefed by Cafcass Cymru about risk, was upheld. The order included restrictions, including ending court-ordered telephone contact. The mother's appeal succeeded only against the section 91(14) restriction imposed on her; it was dismissed in all other respects. See paragraphs 4–7 and 115–128.
Neither a slogan that abuse always means no contact nor one that children must always see both parents accurately describes the court's task. It must undertake a careful welfare and risk assessment.
Children's wishes and feelings still matter
A child's views must be considered in the context of their age, understanding and experiences. In Re C, the Court of Appeal recognised that abuse may have shaped the children's wishes, while explaining that this did not deprive those wishes of significance. Their views required evaluation within that history. See paragraphs 122–124.
Child Focused Courts change how cases should be prepared
The CFC model places emphasis on early information gathering and understanding the child's lived experience. A Child Impact Report can help frame the issues before the Decision Hearing. The judgment describes the model and its key stages at paragraphs 9–16.
For parents, a practical implication is to prepare early. Establish the stage of the case and review the application, allegations and responses, previous orders, safeguarding material and Child Impact Report. Focus on the child's needs, the relevant evidence and workable arrangements rather than waiting until the final hearing to explain everything.
Disputed allegations must not silently become established facts
Re C discusses Re D (Change of Circumstances: Domestic Abuse) [2026] EWCA Civ 969. It identifies a potential procedural unfairness where a welfare decision relies on a section 7 recommendation materially based on disputed abuse allegations that have not been determined. See paragraph 25.
Safeguarding concerns cannot be ignored, and Cafcass can record and analyse allegations. But where disputed allegations materially underpin the recommendation, the court must address whether findings are needed for a fair and reliable welfare decision.
Six questions for parents facing allegations
1. Which allegations are actually disputed? 2. Which could materially affect future risk or the child's welfare? 3. Does the court need to determine them before deciding arrangements? 4. Is the recommendation materially relying on allegations that have not been established? 5. Does the analysis demonstrate how the relevant welfare factors informed its conclusions? 6. Has it considered all relevant welfare consequences, including the possible effects of losing an established parental relationship?
What Re C means for accused parents
The judgment reinforces the distinction between allegations, findings and welfare decisions. Not every allegation requires fact-finding; recommendations can be scrutinised; and the court must decide arrangements by examining the individual child's welfare and relevant risks. Understanding these distinctions can help parents prepare a clearer, more focused case.
Need help understanding your family court case?
The Falsely Accused Network supports people dealing with false or disputed allegations in family proceedings in England and Wales. We can help you understand where your case stands and discuss the professional support available.
Telephone: 020 4538 8788 Email: support@falselyaccusednetwork.co.uk
This article provides general information and does not constitute legal advice. Every case depends on its individual facts.
Comments