Proudmans secures successful appeal against unsafe fact-finding judgment

Proudmans has successfully represented a vulnerable and traumatised mother, whom we will refer to as “Nikita”, in an appeal against a fact-finding judgment made by lay magistrates in private children proceedings.

Nikita instructed Proudmans only one day before the deadline for filing her appeal. Given the urgency of the case and the potentially serious consequences of the judgment for Nikita and her young child, our team acted immediately. We reviewed the judgment, prepared the Appellant’s Notice and drafted detailed Grounds of Appeal, ensuring that the appeal was filed within the required time.

The appeal was subsequently heard on 8 July 2026 by a Circuit Judge at Manchester Family Court and was allowed on all grounds.

Following the successful conclusion of the appeal, Nikita said:

I reached out to Proudmans after receiving a judgment, following a finding of fact, which I can only describe as leaving me devastated, re-traumatised and unsafe. Manveet was understanding and warm from the beginning, and I found comfort knowing that she could spot the failings without me having to re-explain myself. She understood that I was navigating a system that can make judgments based on dangerous, outdated beliefs on how victims should act and I was still in a state of trauma that meant I couldn’t advocate effectively for myself.

I had previously felt silenced by other barristers, so it really meant the world that Proudmans heard me. They made me feel like I wasn’t alone and I could trust them to advocate for myself and daughter by navigating the complexities of family court. 

The appeal was put forward in a clear and concise way which made it easy for the judge to clearly see the errors. They also held my hand along way with other parts of the case, so that I could put forward the risks and harm already caused in a way that the courts would hear. The appeal was successful and I was validated that the magistrates had made unsafe findings. I can now move forward on the correct grounds to be able to keep my daughter safe. 

My daughter would have been in an unsafe situation, and so I am eternally grateful for the advocacy from Proudmans in securing her safety. 

The Original Fact-Finding Judgment

The original fact-finding hearing took place over three days before lay magistrates in December 2025.

The magistrates found that none of the father’s allegations against Nikita had been proved. Of Nikita’s allegations, one was found proved and another partially proved.

However, the magistrates concluded that the father had not perpetrated domestic abuse or coercive and controlling behaviour, instead describing the parties’ relationship as volatile, toxic and marked by mutual conflict.

Nikita’s appeal challenged the internal inconsistency between the conduct which the magistrates accepted had occurred and their overall conclusion that domestic abuse had not been established.

The Grounds of Appeal

Proudmans advanced ten Grounds of Appeal.

The appeal argued that the magistrates had failed properly to apply the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and Practice Direction 12J. Rather than determining whether the father’s behaviour was violent, threatening, coercive, controlling, psychological or emotionally abusive, the judgment repeatedly referred to “toxicity”, “mutual immaturity” and ordinary relationship difficulties.

It was also argued that the magistrates had wrongly imported criminal law concepts into a civil fact-finding hearing. Allegations had been rejected by reference to whether the father intended to cause harm, whether threats were genuine or credible, and whether his conduct was malicious. Intention to cause harm is not a prerequisite to a finding of domestic abuse in the Family Court.

A central ground was that the magistrates had accepted that conduct occurred, including physical contact and threatening behaviour, but nevertheless recorded the relevant allegations as not proved. The appeal argued that the court should have made clear partial findings reflecting the conduct it accepted, rather than treating each allegation as an all-or-nothing exercise.

The appeal further challenged the magistrates’ failure to consider the evidence cumulatively. Individual incidents had been examined separately and neutralised by explanations such as frustration, lack of injury, lack of intent or Nikita’s subsequent behaviour. The evidence should instead have been considered as a possible pattern of escalation, intimidation, threats, physical conduct and fear.

Further grounds concerned the treatment of Nikita’s fear, the failure properly to engage with contemporaneous police, midwifery and IDVA evidence, reliance upon the parties’ demeanour when assessing credibility and the direction that Cafcass should assess alleged “parental alienation”.

The Appeal Judgment

The Circuit Judge allowed the appeal, finding that the magistrates’ decision was wrong and unjust because of significant errors in the reasoning process. The Judge concluded that the fact-finding judgment could not safely stand.

The Judge identified several examples where the magistrates had accepted that conduct had occurred but had nevertheless recorded the allegation as not proved. This included an incident supported by police evidence involving a reported threat to kill and a handbag being thrown, together with findings that the father had thrown an item which made contact with Nikita, pushed her and grabbed her wrist.

The Judge confirmed that a fact-finding court is not confined to proving or rejecting an allegation exactly as pleaded. Where an allegation is established in part, the court should clearly identify the finding made and explain its reasoning so that it can properly inform the later assessment of welfare and risk.

The Judge was also critical of the use of terms such as “toxic”, “passionate” and “volatile”. Those descriptions did not answer the question of whether the father’s behaviour amounted to domestic abuse. The Judge recognised that language suggesting mutual conflict can obscure an imbalance of power, minimise fear and wrongly reframe abusive behaviour as ordinary relationship dysfunction.

Importantly, the Judge found that the magistrates had adopted an overly narrow understanding of how a victim of coercive control may behave. Access to professional or family support, returning to a relationship, facilitating contact or presenting as assertive are not inconsistent with being a victim of abuse. A victim’s behaviour may be affected by fear, ambivalence, hope for change and attempts to maintain a workable relationship for the benefit of a child.

The Judge further found that the evidence had been compartmentalised rather than considered as a whole. The magistrates were required to examine whether the police evidence, medical and midwifery records, messages and other third-party material disclosed a wider pattern when considered cumulatively. Their failure to do so was a plain and material error.

The appeal judgment also confirmed that the absence of physical injury, criminal intent or a “genuine” threat was not determinative. The relevant question was what had occurred on the balance of probabilities and what the conduct meant for the child’s welfare, future risk and the safety of any arrangements.

The Judge also expressed concern about the reliance placed upon the father’s calm presentation when giving evidence. Demeanour is an unsafe guide to truthfulness and must be considered alongside the evidence, admissions, contemporaneous records and surrounding circumstances.

Finally, the Judge held that it had not been open to the magistrates to direct Cafcass to assess “parental alienation”. The court itself was required to determine whether a parent was acting protectively in response to risk or engaging in alienating behaviour, based upon a properly established factual matrix.

The Outcome

The Judge concluded that the errors went to the heart of the fact-finding exercise. The original judgment was set aside.

This case demonstrates the importance of urgent specialist representation, careful application of the domestic abuse framework and a trauma-informed understanding of how victims may present.

Proudmans is proud to have acted swiftly to preserve Nikita’s right of appeal and to have secured the setting aside of a judgment which the appeal court found could not safely stand.