- Can a father against whom findings of domestic abuse have been made by a family court plead ‘Not Guilty’ to those offences in the criminal court?
- Yes, if he denies the charges and rejects the family court findings. The standard of proof in the criminal court is higher, so in theory, that might not be reached.
However, where there have been admissions or findings of domestic abuse, the family court is obliged to consider the extent to which the perpetrator has accepted their responsibility for what they did, and their motivation to change their behaviour to ensure that future contact is safe, under Family Procedure Rules PD 12J. It would be illogical to not go on to accept responsibility in the Crown Court, where the family court findings could be presented.
When there are parallel sets of proceedings this can be ‘rather confusing’ for the parties, as described by the judge in Re C (Born August 2022) [2026] EWFC 74 (B)
In that case, the judge found some of the serious allegations of physical and emotional abuse proved to be true, although he didn’t make a finding of an overall allegation of coercive control. The father’s behaviour had an adverse effect on their child, and only indirect interim contact was ordered. The father had denied all the allegations apart from one that he had grabbed and smashed the mother’s phone. The father had elected for a Crown Court trial in respect of two charges of causing actual bodily harm. There was going to be considerable delay before that trial was listed. We don’t know what impact the family court findings would have had on the father. The judge was hopeful that he would accept them, and work with professionals toward achieving safe contact in the future. It’s implied that the father would need to drop his Not Guilty plea to comply with this way forward, because he would need to demonstrate he knows what needs to change about his behaviour for him to be allowed direct contact in the future.
FH v MH (PD12J: Parallel Criminal Proceedings) [2026] EWFC 195 (B)
In this recently published judgment, the father is pleading Not Guilty in a forthcoming trial on charges of causing actual bodily harm and criminal damage. The judge said these charges arose from the same incidents that the mother had described in her allegations of abuse that he had considered in the family court. However the judge only refers generically to the allegations in this judgment. Although he said this judgment should be read alongside two earlier ones, he hasn’t published those.
What is strange in this case is that the findings have been made and the father has told the family court that he accepts responsibility for the abuse and the effect on the mother and their children, while at the same time, saying he is going to deny the criminal charges.
The judge said he wanted to publish this judgment because:
… it raises an issue of wider importance concerning the approach to be adopted where private law children proceedings run in parallel with criminal proceedings arising from substantially the same allegations of domestic abuse. [4]
In particular, this case required the Court to consider the extent to which a parent’s maintenance of a not guilty plea in criminal proceedings, following findings of fact made by the Family Court, should influence the assessment of current and future risk to the children. It also required consideration of the weight to be attached to evidence of meaningful behavioural change and therapeutic intervention where criminal liability remains in issue. Those are matters capable of arising in other cases and, in my judgement, publication of this decision in anonymised form may assist judges and practitioners considering similar issues in the future. [5]
We don’t know what allegations the judge had found proved against the father, but he quotes the mother as referring to findings made against him back in April 2025. The mother says that the father is pleading Not Guilty to offences that he is telling the family court he takes responsibility for. She is distraught at the thought of having to wait for a criminal trial (listed for May 2028) and says that the father is ‘making a mockery pf the family court decision’.
In a statement to the police, made in March this year, the father has denied all the mother’s allegations and said she had invented them to use in the family court proceedings. From the statement, it appears that the charges relate to coercive control, financial abuse, and kicking, slapping and punching the mother when she was pregnant.
The judgment includes evidence given by the Cafcass family court adviser (who, unusually, is named) and a therapist who has been working with the father.
The mother said that if the father unequivocally accepted the allegations, she wanted a ‘lives with’ order stating the children reside with her, with alternate weekend contact starting at one overnight, increasing to two; and one weekly session after school. However, if the father does not accept the findings, then contact should be alternate weekends, daytime only. She also sought a prohibited steps order (PSO) to prevent the father attending school events at the same time as her, or removal of the children from her care. In other words, she thinks overnight stays would be safe if the father has responded appropriately to the family court findings.
The father asked for contact to progress to overnight, fortnightly from Friday to Monday, and then further overnight weekly from Wednesday evening to Thursday morning.
The family court adviser had recommended that the children should live with their mother, and contact should return to supervised, weekly or fortnightly, with the father, ‘until he demonstrates stable, consistent insight across all settings (including criminal proceedings)’. However she shifted her position on this during the proceedings toward agreeing that overnight contact could be considered.
The judge commented:
Father is assessed by Ms Kaur [the therapist] as having taken a very painful look at himself. He expresses considerable remorse for his actions during the relationship with mother, and very much recognises he was abusive.
Father has not presented in an aggressive manner to mother, or the children, for two years. He has filed, within the family law proceedings, a statement in which he accepts everything I have found him to have done.
He is now faced with criminal proceedings, relating to the same issues as have already been determined by me. Such proceedings are a much higher standard of proof, and father pleads not guilty. He tells me this is upon professional advice, and he has a defence. This is a different position to one which was put to me at an earlier hearing, in that father was simply asking the state to prove its case. [We’re not sure what ‘the state’ refers to here, as it was the mother who had to prove her case.]
Both Ms Shaw [the family court adviser] and Ms Kaur took the view father is entitled to defend himself in criminal proceedings. Ms Kaur advises this would fit with the Resolution model in any event, as it is not the admission or acceptance, but the change in behaviour that is important.
Mother wonders whether father can have any level of acceptance, as he is putting her through the ordeal of giving evidence in a criminal trial. I can well understand the amount of stress this will put her through. It may affect her ability to care for the children in the two years leading up to the criminal fixture. However, I do take the view that father is entitled to put a case in his defence when, ultimately, his liberty may be at issue in the criminal court. [106-109]
We find all this surprising, because if the father says he has a defence to the charges, we can’t see how he has accepted responsibility for them. The family court findings were made in April 2025, which the father says he accepts, yet in March 2026 he is denying them to the police. This doesn’t reflect the opinion of the therapist that he has taken on full responsibility for his past actions and the effect on the mother and the children.
Outcome
It’s difficult to work out what the final orders were, as the contact arrangements aren’t specified in the judgment, but the judge concluded that the father didn’t currently pose a risk to the children and that contact with him could gradually increase. There’s no mention of the PSO the mother asked for. This hearing took place in July, so the mother is facing nearly two years of having to manage child arrangements with this continuing uncertainty about the father’s attitude, and the prospect of having to relive her experience of abuse in the trial.
Unfortunately, in the absence of the fact finding judgments, nor the details of the final orders, we don’t think this publication has contributed to clarity in situations of parallel proceedings, as the judge had intended.
Image: Parallel pepperomia plant – Jerzy Opioła on Wikimedia
We have a small favour to ask!
TEN YEARS A CHARITY
The Transparency Project is a registered charity in England and Wales run by volunteers who mostly also have full-time jobs. Although we’ve now been going for a decade, we’re always working to secure extra funding so that we can keep making family justice clearer for all who use the court and work in it.
We can’t do what we do without help from you!
We’d be really grateful if you were able to help us by making a small one-off (or regular!) donation through our Just Giving page