Fact-Finding Hearings in Family Court
Where Evidence Meets the Reality of Domestic Abuse
By Samantha Avril-Andreassen, LLB (Hons), LLM, LPC, FRSA
Founder, SAFECHAIN™
Introduction
Few moments in family court proceedings carry as much weight as a fact-finding hearing.
For many families, this is the stage where allegations of domestic abuse are examined, evidence is tested, and the court determines which disputed events are more likely than not to have occurred.
The findings made at this stage can influence decisions about children, contact, safeguarding arrangements and the future relationship between family members.
A fact-finding hearing is therefore not simply another procedural step.
It is a moment where the justice system attempts to answer one of its most difficult questions:
What happened, and what does that mean for safety going forward?
What Is a Fact-Finding Hearing?
A fact-finding hearing is designed to allow the court to determine disputed allegations of fact.
In domestic abuse cases, this may involve allegations relating to:
physical violence;
coercive and controlling behaviour;
emotional abuse;
sexual abuse;
threats or intimidation;
financial abuse;
behaviour affecting the welfare of children.
The court considers the evidence and decides whether allegations are established on the balance of probabilities.
The purpose is not to punish.
It is to provide a factual foundation upon which future decisions can be made.
Why Fact-Finding Matters
Family court decisions are often made in circumstances where there are competing accounts.
One person may describe years of control and fear.
Another may describe ordinary relationship conflict.
The court's role is to examine evidence carefully and determine what findings, if any, can properly be made.
These findings matter because the court must understand risk.
Where domestic abuse is established, the court must consider its impact—not only on the adults involved but also on children.
Practice Direction 12J specifically addresses cases where domestic abuse is alleged or established and requires courts to consider the nature, seriousness and consequences of abuse when making child arrangements decisions.
The Challenge of Coercive Control
One of the greatest challenges facing fact-finding hearings is that coercive control does not always appear as one dramatic event.
It is often cumulative.
It may involve:
controlling finances;
restricting friendships;
monitoring communications;
undermining confidence;
creating dependency;
manipulating reality through gaslighting;
using fear and intimidation.
The difficulty is that individual incidents may appear insignificant when separated from the wider context.
A single comment.
A single restriction.
A single argument.
But abuse is often about the pattern.
The question is not always:
"What was the worst individual incident?"
The question may be:
"What does the overall pattern reveal about power and control?"
Evidence Is Essential—But Context Matters
A fair justice system must always be evidence-based.
Evidence protects everyone involved.
However, evidence must also be understood within the correct context.
Domestic abuse does not always produce traditional evidence.
There may be no photographs.
No medical records.
No witnesses.
Instead, evidence may exist through:
messages;
financial information;
timelines;
witness accounts;
behavioural patterns;
professional records.
The challenge is ensuring that evidence is assessed as a whole rather than only as isolated fragments.
The Survivor Experience
For many survivors, entering a fact-finding hearing can be deeply challenging.
They may be required to recount traumatic experiences.
They may face questioning about decisions they made while living under fear, dependency or control.
They may struggle to explain behaviour that only makes sense when viewed through the lens of abuse.
This is why trauma-informed understanding is so important.
A survivor's presentation is not always a direct measure of the truth of their experience.
People respond to trauma differently.
Some become highly emotional.
Some appear calm.
Some remember details clearly.
Others struggle with chronology.
Understanding these responses is essential for fair participation.
The Governance Question
Fact-finding hearings are not only a legal process.
They are also a safeguarding process.
This raises broader governance questions:
Are institutions equipped to recognise coercive control?
Are patterns of abuse being identified?
Are decision-makers supported by current research?
Are vulnerable parties able to participate effectively?
Are lessons learned from emerging evidence?
Strong systems do not only create procedures.
They ensure those procedures achieve their intended purpose.
The SAFECHAIN™ Perspective
SAFECHAIN™ views evidence integrity as central to safeguarding.
Evidence must not only exist.
It must be:
accurately gathered;
properly considered;
placed within context;
assessed fairly;
connected to risk.
The challenge for modern justice systems is moving beyond incident-based thinking towards recognising cumulative harm.
Because coercive control is rarely one moment.
It is a pattern.
Conclusion
Fact-finding hearings perform a vital role within family justice.
They provide a structured process for examining disputed allegations and establishing the facts upon which future decisions depend.
But as our understanding of domestic abuse continues to develop, institutions must continue to evolve.
The challenge is not choosing between fairness and safeguarding.
A strong justice system requires both.
Evidence.
Fairness.
Context.
Understanding.
Because justice cannot respond effectively to what it does not recognise.
Copyright Notice
© 2026 Samantha Avril-Andreassen. All Rights Reserved.
Published by SAFECHAINN Ltd (Company No. 12038453)
This article forms part of The Directive™, the SAFECHAIN™ thought leadership series examining family justice, safeguarding, evidence integrity, institutional accountability, governance and systems reform.
All original written content, research analysis, frameworks, concepts, methodologies, terminology and intellectual property contained within this publication remain the exclusive property of Samantha Avril-Andreassen and SAFECHAINN Ltd.
This includes, but is not limited to, SAFECHAIN™ frameworks including Evidence Integrity™, Cumulative Harm Model™, Participation Integrity™, Institutional Fragmentation™, and associated governance methodologies.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, adapted, distributed, stored, or transmitted in any form without prior written permission, except for brief quotations used for academic, educational, professional review, or journalistic purposes with full attribution.
This publication is intended for educational and policy discussion regarding family justice, safeguarding and institutional improvement. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be interpreted as commentary on any individual judge, legal representative, party, or specific proceedings.