Lying in family court: when his own messages told the truth

The legal issue

Separated parents had two children, who lived with their mother. When the father's messages turned threatening, the mother applied for a child arrangements order. On her C1A form she alleged that he had once pushed her so hard that she fell against the television and cracked its screen, that he had told her she would never see the children again if she left, and that since the separation he had sent her abusive messages late at night. He asked for shared care. The judge fixed a fact-finding hearing and ordered a schedule of the allegations, with his reply to each. His witness statement, signed with a statement of truth, then denied all three: one of the children had knocked the television over, he said, and he had never sent her an abusive message. Her question was whether lying in a signed statement counted for anything.

The law this rests on

• Family Procedure Rules r.17.2(1)(b): a witness statement must be verified by a statement of truth.
• FPR r.17.6(1): proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against a person who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
• FPR r.17.6(2): those proceedings may be brought only by the Attorney General or with the permission of the court.
• Practice Direction 17A para 2.2: the statement of truth in a witness statement says the maker understands that contempt proceedings may be brought for such a false statement, and believes the facts stated are true.
• Perjury Act 1911 s.1(1): a person lawfully sworn as a witness in a judicial proceeding who wilfully makes a statement material in that proceeding, which they know to be false or do not believe to be true, is guilty of perjury. s.15(2): "oath" includes affirmation.
• Practice Direction 12J para 19(c), as substituted from 5 January 2026 by Practice Direction Update No. 6 of 2025: the court considers whether the key facts in dispute can be set out in a schedule or table setting out what the applicant alleges, focused on the issues to be tried, and what the respondent says in reply.
• PD12J para 28A (formerly part of para 28, made a separate paragraph from 5 January 2026 by Practice Direction Update No. 6 of 2025): at the fact-finding hearing, each party can be asked to identify the questions they wish to ask of the other party, and to set out or confirm in sworn evidence their version of the disputed key facts.
• PD12J para 29: the court should, wherever practicable, make findings of fact as to the nature and degree of any domestic abuse established and its effect, and must record its findings in writing in a schedule to the order; a copy goes to any officer preparing a section 7 report.
• PD12J para 36(1): in the light of any findings, the court applies the welfare checklist with reference to the domestic abuse which has occurred. Para 36(3): the court should make an order for contact only if satisfied that the physical and emotional safety of the child and the parent the child lives with can, as far as possible, be secured before, during and after contact, and that the parent the child lives with will not be subjected to further domestic abuse by the other parent.
• PD12J para 37(e): the court should consider the capacity of the parents to appreciate the effect of past domestic abuse and the potential for future domestic abuse.
• PD12J para 38 (last sentence): where a risk assessment has concluded that a parent poses a risk to a child or to the other parent, contact via a supported contact centre, or contact supervised by a parent or relative, is not appropriate. Contact under this order is unsupervised, and the mother's sister only hosts the handovers.
• PD12J para 40: where the court has found domestic abuse proved but makes an order for contact with the perpetrator, it must explain why the order will not expose the child to the risk of harm and is beneficial for the child.
• Children Act 1989 s.1(1): the child's welfare is the court's paramount consideration.
• Children Act 1989 s.8(1): a child arrangements order regulates with whom, and when, a child is to live, spend time or otherwise have contact.
• Children Act 1989 s.11(7)(a) and (b): a section 8 order may contain directions about how it is to be carried into effect and may impose conditions on a parent; the handover and messaging terms in this order are of that kind.
• FPR r.3A.2A(1): where it is stated that a party is, or is at risk of being, a victim of domestic abuse by another party, the court must assume that the quality of their evidence and their participation are diminished. FPR r.3A.4(1) and r.3A.5(1): the court must consider whether participation directions are necessary. FPR r.3A.8(1)(b): the measures include giving evidence by live link.
• Form C100 (GOV.UK): used to apply for a child arrangements order. Form C1A (GOV.UK): used to tell the court about harm suffered or at risk of being suffered, or to respond to allegations.
• Standard of proof (Cafcass guidance for parents): the judge weighs all the evidence and decides on the balance of probabilities, that is, whether each event was more likely than not to have happened. In this case it was for the mother to prove each allegation she made.

How we approached it

We advised her not to fill her statement with accusations that he was lying, because accusations can read as anger and the judge decides on evidence. We helped her prepare a witness statement that answered each denial with his own words, quoted exactly, giving the date and the bundle page where each message could be found.

The evidence came from him: a text that night apologising and promising to replace the television, a delivery note for a new television ordered in his name the next day, a voice note containing the threat, and the late-night messages still on her phone. We advised her to keep the phone untouched, to delete and edit nothing, to export each chat in full with dates and times, and to keep the voice note as the original audio file rather than a copy recorded on another device, so its date and length could be checked.

We prepared her for the explanations he was likely to give, and helped her list the questions she wanted put to him, as Practice Direction 12J allows the court to ask each party to do. At the first hearing she asked for special measures, and the court allowed her to give evidence by video link. When she later feared that he would be prosecuted, or that the children would lose their father, we explained that any question of perjury or contempt was separate from the children's case, and that the court's next question was what was best for the children.

The outcome

In the witness box, the father first said he could not remember sending the apology, then that he had apologised only to keep the peace. When the voice note was played, he said it had been edited, although neither his statement nor his reply to the schedule had said so. The judge found all three allegations proved on his own messages, the voice note and the delivery note, and found his denials untrue, because the documents contradicted them and his explanations shifted each time a message was put to him. The judge noted that people can lie out of panic or shame, so his lies were not, on their own, proof of the allegations. The written findings went to Cafcass for its welfare report.

The court then made a child arrangements order. The children live with their mother and see their father every Sunday from 10am to 4pm, with a video call on Wednesday evenings. Handovers take place at the home of the mother's sister: the mother leaves the children there before their father arrives and collects them after he has gone, so the parents do not meet, and messages between the parents about the children go only through a parenting app. There are no overnight stays. The judge explained why the order would not expose the children to a risk of harm and was good for them: the risk was of further abuse of their mother when the parents met or messaged, the handover and messaging terms guarded against it, and the children kept a weekly relationship with their father. Every case turns on its own evidence, and nothing here is a promise about any other family.

What to take from this

• A witness statement in family proceedings carries a statement of truth. Under FPR r.17.6, contempt of court proceedings may be brought for a false statement made without an honest belief in its truth, but only by the Attorney General or with the court's permission.
• Lying on oath or affirmation about something material to the case can be perjury under the Perjury Act 1911 s.1. Any question of perjury or contempt is separate from the family court's decisions about the children.
• Be ready to prove each allegation you make: the judge weighs the evidence and decides whether each one is more likely than not to have happened. Let the documents do the work: put the other parent's own messages, quoted exactly with dates and page numbers, beside each allegation.
• Keep original messages, voice notes, phones and devices. Edit or delete nothing, and export whole chats with dates and times. Look for papers that fix a date, such as receipts, invoices or delivery notes.
• Check what the court order directs and when your statement and your schedule or reply are due. Ask early for special measures, such as giving evidence by video link, if you fear seeing the other parent. List the questions you want put to the other parent; the court can ask each party for them.
• Do not discuss the case with the other parent or post about it online.
• A finding that a parent lied does not decide the children's arrangements by itself. The child's welfare is the court's paramount consideration under the Children Act 1989 s.1(1).