Fact-Finding Hearing
Plain‑English Briefing for a Litigant in Person Attending a Fact‑Finding Hearing (UK Family Court)
1. What a fact‑finding hearing is and why it is separate from the welfare hearing
A fact‑finding hearing is a court session whose only job is to decide what actually happened in the disputed parts of your case – for example, whether an incident of abuse, neglect or domestic violence took place, and if so, who did what. The judge does not decide anything about where the children should live, how much contact they should have, or any other welfare‑related matters at this stage. Those decisions are left for a later welfare hearing (sometimes called a “final hearing” or “dispute resolution hearing”). Keeping the two stages separate helps the court focus first on the truth of the allegations, without mixing that question up with the broader question of what is best for the child.
2. The burden and standard of proof (balance of probabilities — more likely than not)
- Burden of proof means who has to convince the judge that something happened. In family‑court fact‑finding hearings, the person making the allegation (the “applicant”) usually carries the burden. - Standard of proof is the level of certainty required. The family court uses the balance of probabilities, which simply means “more likely than not” – i.e., if the judge thinks there is a greater than 50 % chance that the allegation is true, it will be found proved. - This is a lower standard than the “beyond reasonable doubt” used in criminal courts, so the judge does not need to be absolutely certain, just that the evidence tips the scales in favour of one side.
3. The Scott Schedule — how it structures the hearing
A Scott Schedule is a table that the parties (or the court) prepare before the hearing. It lists each specific allegation in a separate row and breaks it down into: - Column — What it shows - Allegation — The exact claim being made (e.g., “On 12 March 2023, the respondent shouted at the child and threw a toy.”) - Particulars — Details – dates, times, location, what was said or done. - Evidence supporting — Documents, photos, messages, witness statements that back up the claim. - Evidence contradicting — Anything that suggests the claim did not happen or happened differently. - Finding (to be filled by judge) — After hearing the evidence, the judge will mark each row as Proved, Not proved, or sometimes Partially proved. The schedule keeps the hearing focused: the judge and parties go through each row one by one, so nothing gets missed or confused.
4. How the hearing runs: opening statements, evidence in chief, cross‑examination, closing submissions
1. Opening statements – Each side (or their representative) briefly tells the judge what they intend to prove and what evidence they will rely on. No arguments yet, just a roadmap.
2. Evidence in chief – The party who called a witness (often themselves) asks that witness to tell their story. The witness answers questions from the side that called them, usually in a narrative form.
3. Cross‑examination – The other side then gets to ask the witness questions. The goal is to test the witness’s memory, credibility, and consistency, and to highlight any contradictions or gaps.
4. Re‑examination (if needed) – The original side may ask a few follow‑up questions to clarify anything that came up in cross‑examination.
5. Closing submissions – After all witnesses have been heard, each side sums up what the evidence shows, pointing to the parts of the Scott Schedule they believe are proved or not proved. No new evidence is introduced at this point.
The judge may ask questions at any stage to clarify points.
5. How to give oral evidence effectively (speak to the judge, be calm, answer what's asked)
- Look at the judge when you speak; they are the person deciding the facts. - Keep your voice steady and speak at a moderate pace. If you feel nervous, pause, take a slow breath, then continue. - Answer only the question asked. If you don’t understand, say “Could you please repeat that?” or “I’m not sure I understand – could you rephrase?” - Stick to the facts you know personally. Avoid guessing, offering opinions, or commenting on the other side’s character unless the question directly asks for it. - If you don’t remember, say “I don’t recall” rather than guessing. It’s better to be honest than to risk giving inaccurate information. - Keep your answers short and to the point; long explanations can invite more cross‑examination.
6. How to cross‑examine the other party (use documents, highlight inconsistencies, ask short factual questions)
- Prepare beforehand: have a copy of the Scott Schedule, any relevant documents (texts, emails, photos, medical reports), and a list of points where the other side’s story seems vague or contradictory. - Start with easy, factual questions to lock down basic details (date, place, who was present). - Move to specifics: “You said you were at home at 7 p.m.; can you show me the phone‑call log that shows you received a call at 7:05?” - Highlight contradictions: if the other party gave a different date in a previous statement, show that document and ask, “Your earlier statement said the incident happened on 10 March; why is the date different now?” - Keep questions short and preferably answerable with “yes” or “no” or a simple fact. Long, compound questions can be objected to and may confuse the judge. - Stay polite and focused on the facts; avoid sounding accusatory or argumentative. The judge will note if you are being fair and reasonable.
7. What the judge produces at the end (a schedule of findings — found proved / not proved)
After hearing all evidence and submissions, the judge will complete the Scott Schedule by marking each allegation: - Proved – the judge believes, on the balance of probabilities, that the allegation is true. - Not proved – the judge does not think it is more likely than not true. - Occasionally, Partly proved – only some parts of the allegation are accepted. The judge may also give a brief oral explanation of the reasons for each finding, and a written copy of the completed schedule will be placed in the court file. This document becomes the factual foundation for any later welfare hearing.
8. What findings mean for the subsequent welfare hearing
- Found‑proved allegations are taken as established facts when the court later decides what arrangements are best for the child (contact, residence, safety measures, etc.). - Not‑proved allegations are treated as if they did not happen for the purpose of the welfare hearing, unless other evidence suggests a risk. - The judge will consider the proved facts alongside welfare considerations (the child’s wishes, needs, any risk of harm, the capability of each parent, etc.) to make a final order. - In short, the fact‑finding hearing clears the ground: it tells the court “what actually happened.” The welfare hearing then asks, “given what happened, what is best for the child?”
9. Three practical tips for staying calm under pressure
1. Prepare a simple “cue card” – Write down the key points you want to make (dates, events, documents you’ll refer to) on a small piece of paper. Glancing at it can remind you of what to say without needing to memorize a long script.
2. Use a breathing pause – Before you answer a question, take a slow breath in for three counts, hold for one, then breathe out for three. This tiny pause reduces adrenaline and gives you a moment to think.
3. Focus on the judge, not the other party – Imagine you are speaking directly to the judge, who is there to listen fairly. If you feel the other side’s tone is aggressive, remind yourself that your job is to answer the question truthfully, not to win an argument.
Remember: This briefing explains the process and terminology you may encounter. It is not legal advice. If you are unsure about anything — especially how to prepare your evidence, what to say, or how the findings might affect your case — please consult a solicitor, a family‑law adviser, or a support service such as Citizens Advice or a local law centre. Wishing you strength and clarity as you go through the hearing. Good luck.