McKenzie Friend Gloucester Bristol Area Advanced Experience Non Molestations and finding Of fact

McKenzie Friend Gloucester Bristol Area Advanced Experience Non-Molestation and Finding of Fact

🔴High-Conflict Complex Child Custody & None Molestation cases that need Expertise.

With over 30 years of successful experience in some of the most demanding cases
Highly Experienced Professional McKenzie Friend – Family Court Support

🔴Defending a Non-molestation order. In most cases, you should not accept a non-molestation due to false allegations 🔴 especially when the court or the opposing legal team offers an undertaking, as this puts you in an unfair position.

🔴- I offer practical, affordable support for parents who can't afford expensive solicitor fees. If you're on a tight budget and need help, I'm here to support you.

I am regarded as one of the most knowledgeable and experienced McKenzie Friends in the UK, with over 30 years' experience. in more than 5,000 children's cases.

"I have maintained a strong record of success in highly complex cases, most notably securing a landmark Supreme Court ruling in 2012 known as the voice of the child " Judges' Comments as someone with life experience, and an Expert in his own right, his knowledge to present a legal argument is inspirational.

Non Molestation cases and help before attending a hearing

✅ What you can do:

• 🔴 Go through the allegations with the person and help them understand each point.

• 🔴 Plan questions they want to ask the other party.

• 🔴 outline inconsistencies or gaps in statements/evidence.

• 🔴 their answers in a mock "cross-examination" style so they feel confident.

• 🔴 Organise their evidence to support their responses.

• 🔴 Court procedure and what the judge expects.

  matters of police disclosure and statements from witnesses

  Significant allegations of Rape will need dedicated time

  Allegations of child abuse and who this was reported to are significant also, the testing of evidence is vital to your success

🔴There is, therefore, a great deal of discretion afforded to the court in determining what constitutes molestation and, consequently, whether an application should succeed.

This should not be troublesome in a case involving clear acts or threats of violence. However, where the molestation complained of is more indirect in its effect on the applicant, success could prove more problematic. For example, if a respondent is handing out leaflets containing marital secrets, then there is a real question as to what extent this qualifies as molestation (C v C above). It would normally be argued as molestation in the form of harassment, but there is clearly potential for this to fail.

A good rule to bear in mind as part of the drafting is that the less actual violence or direct fettering with the applicant's person, there has been, the more detail will be needed to explain exactly why the order should be granted. The behaviour of the respondent should be clearly defined, causally linked to the applicant's reaction, which should, of course, be given as much detail as possible too.

🔴The importance of the affidavit in such a situation is that if one is making an application before the 'district judge of the day', as is likely, it will be almost impossible to enter into much by way of oral argument and persuasion. The hard work must be done before the hearing, with a suitably drafted affidavit that can address these potential concerns.

🔴Reasons for making the application ex parte
It is a requirement of rule 3.8 (5) of the FPR 1991 that a reason must be expressly stated for why the application is being made ex parte rather than inter partes. The language of the test set out at s.45 (2), FLA 1996 should be closely used when drafting this paragraph:

"In determining whether to exercise its powers under subsection (1), the court shall have regard to all the circumstances, including-
(a) any risk of significant harm to the applicant or a relevant child, attributable to the conduct of the respondent, if the order is not made immediately;
(b) whether the applicant will likely be deterred or prevented from pursuing the application if an order is not made immediately; and
(c) whether there is reason to believe that the respondent is aware of the proceedings but is deliberately evading service, and that the applicant or a relevant child will be seriously prejudiced by the delay involved-
(i) where the court is a magistrates' court, in effecting service of proceedings; or
(ii) in any other case, in effecting substituted service."

🔴 Therefore, if your application cannot be based upon significant harm, then it must be clearly stated that either the respondent is likely to evade service if aware of the proceedings, or more likely, that the applicant will be deterred from making the application if it is not done so immediately. The extent to which this is true will depend upon the applicant, but a clear reference must be made under at least one of these heads.

Terms of the non-molestation order
A further part of the affidavit that should be given due consideration in terms of the injunction being sort which can be dealt with in both the FL401 application form and in the body of the affidavit. The provisions of an injunction can be generally put or drafted specifically to cover any act of molestation. See FLA 1996, s 42(6):

"A non-molestation order may be expressed to refer to molestation in general, to particular acts of molestation, or to both".

Given the changes to the FLA 1996 made by the Domestic Violence and Criminal Victims Act 2004 ("DVCVA 2004"), it is to be actively encouraged for terms to be drafted in a specific form. This is largely to help with enforcement, and the fact that most non-molestation orders are now likely to be enforced in a criminal court, where the certainty provided by specific drafting could be crucial to a conviction. It is therefore to be encouraged for an injunction to contain provisions protecting chattels, dwellings (independent of occupation orders) and against the thousand different ways in which molestation may manifest.

Duration
🔴A non-molestation order may be made for a specified period or until a further order is made (FLA 1996, s 42(7)). The length of the order will largely depend upon the extent to which the terms of the order affect the respondent. If the order can be broken unwittingly by the respondent in the course of his day-to-day life then the court will be extremely keen to bring the order back to court as soon as possible. If the order only has an impact upon the respondent if he actively seeks to break it, then the court will be more minded to grant it for a longer, or indefinite, period of time.

Further information and details can be discussed, as this is a broad topic.