Father gets contact despite pleading not guilty to abuse charge

An incident of domestic abuse can, of course, also be a criminal act. It is therefore not unusual for the same incident to be the subject of both family court and criminal proceedings.

If this is the case, then the two courts will consider the incident separately, with the family court most often doing so first, due to the current delays being experienced by the criminal courts.

And when deciding whether an alleged incident is proved, the two courts will use a quite different standard of proof. The family court will decide whether the incident is proved on ‘the balance of probabilities’, whereas the criminal court uses the higher standard of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

It is therefore quite possible for the family court to find an allegation proved, but the criminal court to find the same allegation not proved.

In a recent case in the family court in Birmingham a father seeking contact with his children was found by the court to have violently assaulted the mother. The father indicated that he accepted the court’s findings. He also expressed genuine remorse, and attended a therapeutic programme aimed at rehabilitating domestic abusers.

Notwithstanding this, the father subsequently pleaded not guilty to criminal charges of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and damaging property, arising out of the same incidents. The criminal case is not due to go to court until May 2028.

The family court judge had to consider the extent to which the father’s not guilty plea, following findings of fact made by the family court, should influence the assessment of current and future risk to the children. He also had to consider the weight to be attached to evidence from the abuse programme of meaningful behavioural change by the father, where criminal liability remained in issue.

Before the father entered his not guilty plea the family court had ordered that he should have contact with the children, initially at a contact centre, and then progressing to unsupervised overnight contact.

The mother initially agreed to the father having contact, but when she found out that he was pleading not guilty to the criminal charges she felt that the father had manipulated the family court into believing that he had insight into his violent conduct towards her and was showing remorse, but by pleading not guilty, he had in fact shown no remorse.

In the circumstances the mother sought an immediate end to contact.

At the final hearing the court was told that the father had attended over 40 sessions of therapy. The therapist felt that he had changed over those sessions, and the judge accepted this.

Having considered all of the evidence, the judge reached two conclusions:

1. That the work undertaken by the father substantially reduced the risk to the children, and to mother; and

2. That the criminal proceedings, in which the father had the right to defend himself and put forward a defence on a much higher standard of proof, did not impact upon the issues being considered by the family court.

Accordingly, he ordered that contact should progress, starting with one overnight stay with the father, and eventually three nights.

You can read the full judgment in the case here.

*          *          *

Family Law Cafe gives you the best strategy to achieve the right outcome for you and your family and keeps them informed and in control 24/7 through a unique and secure online portal. Family Law Cafe is your start-point for getting matters sorted with strategy, support and security.

Image: PeopleImages / Shutterstock.com