X v Y

In family fact-finding proceedings, schedules of allegations are signposts rather than a rigid map. The court must follow the evidence, assess conduct in context and focus only on findings necessary to determine the application and inform future welfare decisions. Procedural proportionality must be kept under continuous review. Investigation of unnecessary issues may waste resources and harm the prospects of cooperative parenting, with consequential emotional harm to the child. The substance of alleged conduct matters more than labels such as parental alienation. A parent’s relationship with a child is the child’s right, not the parent’s entitlement.

The father applied for a Specific Issue Order for the return of the parties’ seven-year-old daughter to Dubai. The mother opposed the application and made allegations concerning the father’s treatment of her and his conduct towards the children. At a pre-trial review, the court directed that the hearing proceed as a fact-finding hearing. The central issue was which allegations required determination to inform the later welfare analysis.

1. Scope and method of fact-finding. Schedules of allegations provide signposts to potentially relevant facts. They do not prescribe the precise boundaries of the evidence or require the court to determine every allegation. The judge must follow the evidence, evaluate behaviour in context and focus on the purpose for which findings are sought.
2. Procedural proportionality. The proportionality of continuing investigations must be monitored throughout the hearing. Issues should be determined only where necessary to dispose of the application or to inform the welfare decision. Pursuing unnecessary issues is wasteful and may actively damage the possibility of future parental cooperation and thereby harm the child. The approach reflected the principles highlighted from H-N And Others (Children) (Domestic Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearings) (Rev 2) [2021] EWCA Civ 448, including the emphasis on necessity and the overriding objective.
3. Substance over labels. The court declined to treat parental alienation as a controlling forensic category. The substance of the allegations, including alleged obstruction of the child’s relationship with a parent, had to be examined instead.
4. The court made findings concerning the father’s cruel, abusive and controlling behaviour towards the mother, his failure to obtain immediate medical assistance after her overdose and suspected attempted hanging, and his influence over the children’s attitudes towards her. It declined to determine allegations which were unnecessary to the welfare analysis.
5. The court emphasised that the child’s relationship with both parents is the child’s right. It is not a parental entitlement or parental gift. Further psychological or psychiatric assessment and welfare analysis were required.