The finding of fact hearing — allegations on trial before the children case
Where serious allegations (violence, abuse, coercive control) sit inside a children case, the court often splits them out into a separate finding of fact hearing: a mini-trial where the judge decides which allegations are proved, before deciding arrangements. It is the highest-stakes arena a self-representing father faces.
The standard of proof
Civil standard: balance of probabilities — more likely than not. No "beyond reasonable doubt". But the more serious the allegation, the more cogent the evidence needs to be before a court finds it proved (the Re B-B line of authority). Practical translation: her allegations don't need to be criminal-grade to succeed — but they do need documents or consistent, uncontested detail.
How the hearing runs
- The Scott Schedule is finalised Allegations in rows, responses beside them (the method). The schedule defines the battlefield — nothing outside it gets tried.
- Witness statements stand as evidence-in-chief You rarely give a fresh account; your statement IS your account. It must already be exhibit-wired (PD 27A discipline).
- Cross-examination Her representative (or a s.31R QLR if she's unrepresented) tests your account. Then you may cross-examine her — prepare short, factual questions: dates, contradictions, exhibits.
- Judgment The judge delivers findings: proved, not proved, or "I cannot say" (an allegation can fail on evidence without being found false — a distinction that matters).
What findings change
- Proved allegations reframe the whole children case: risk assessments, contact structure, possibly the case path (issuing, reviewing, even public-law attention).
- Failed allegations restore credibility — and a pattern of failed allegations is powerful material against future tactical ones.
- Costs and time: a fact-finding day typically adds months and (if represented) thousands. This is where the direct-access barrister decision earns its keep.
Honest strategy note: contesting is not automatically brave and undertaking is not automatically weak (see the matrix). Contest when the findings genuinely block contact and your exhibits are strong; settle the injunction when the real fight is the children case. Fight the case that decides your child, not the one that wounds your pride.
Before your hearing
Turning scattered messages, notes and dates into evidence takes structure. apply this guide to your own documents — EvidenceCanvas is a guided toolkit that helps you draft a child-focused witness statement, answer a Scott Schedule point by point, and assemble a paginated court bundle. It is not a law firm and does not give legal advice.