Courts have been criticised for ‘linear’ reasoning, importing criminal law concepts, or failing to assess allegations holistically—particularly in cases involving domestic abuse. Several judgments underline that Practice Direction 12J must be applied substantively, not as a box-ticking exercise. Allegations cannot be brushed aside as historic or irrelevant without clear reasoning tied to welfare and risk.
One ruling also warned against over-reliance on neurodiversity diagnoses ‘absent direct relevance to welfare’, while another highlighted the misuse of AI-generated authorities.
The message is clear: careful analysis, proportionality and clarity are essential, because flawed fact-finding doesn’t just distort outcomes—it invites appeals and prolongs harm.
