Cambridge Family Law Practice

If a family court makes adverse findings about a party involved in a child arrangements dispute, that party may be required to pay the other party’s legal costs.

This is demonstrated by a recent case concerning a girl referred to as ‘C’, who was aged six at the time of the proceedings. Her parents have been engaged in a prolonged and bitter parenting dispute.

The girl made allegations about her father, saying he had done “bad stuff” to her during a visit to his home. Time with him had been specified in a child arrangements order which had been issued following earlier, equally fractious family court proceedings.

These previous proceedings had revolved around claims made by the mother that the father had been abusive to both her and C. The court issued a non-molestation, forbidding the father from engaging in any contact, but ultimately, the Police took no action against the father, and a judge subsequently rescinded the non-molestation order, dismissing the mother’s various claims about her former partner as “without merit”. A ‘prohibited steps order’ was also issued forbidding the mother from taking her daughter out of the country.

C was gradually reintroduced to her father and eventually began staying overnight at his house. Under the child arrangements order, she spent three days a week at his home.

But this situation quickly and dramatically changed following C’s allegation, which she made a year after the child arrangements order had been made. The mother went to the police and the father was arrested.

He applied to the family court for a resumption of contact with his daughter and this triggered a ‘fact-finding hearing’. In these, judges analyse the evidence pertaining to claims and counter-claims in order to establish which are likely to be true in a particular case. Family court judge Dexter Dias explained the result:

“[The father] was found to have sexually abused his daughter on repeated occasions and sought to deny and cover it up by attacking [the mother]’s character and questioning his daughter’s account. He made false denials to the court over a prolonged period under oath and then unsuccessfully applied for permission to appeal to the High Court.”

He added:

“C’s mother; proved on the entirety of the evidence, so [the claims made about the father are] more probable than not.”

At a further hearing, Judge Dias ruled that the father should pay the mother’s costs for the fact-finding hearing in full. His judgement set out the legal principles that apply to costs awards following fact-finding hearings. He noted that awarding costs a was matter for the discretion of each court and depended on the circumstances of the case, but the ‘litigation conduct’ of the party (their behaviour during the case) was an important factor, as was their overall conduct:

“…putting all the [legal] authorities together, I conclude that some form of unreasonable conduct by the party subject to adverse findings is generally necessary.”

The party’s overall success in the fact-finding provided further guidance, he continued:

“The court must have regard to the extent to which party has been successful [when deciding whether or not to awards costs]. As a first approximation, the court should look at the number of allegations proved and not proved.”

Jeremy Ford, one of the partners here at Cambridge Family Law Practice, notes “whilst costs orders in Children Act proceedings are rare, this case shows that they are sometimes made, and more likely so following a fact-finding hearing, in favour of a party whose allegations have been proven. Equally, we are seeing more costs orders being made against a party who has not only failed to prove allegations that they’ve made, but has also been found to have lied.”

Read the full ruling here.