I noticed today the my initial SG report stated that
..no finding of fact is necessary..
Yet by the same token as allegations were suggested they also noted that:
..Allegations of Domestic Abuse have been raised, the court may need to consider Practice 12..
Subsequently the LA who ran the GK put out orders where they noted:
.. domestic abuse has been raised and the court should consider this when making its judgement..
Would I be correct in stating that if this is the Cafcass view, even though the GK orders are what they are, would the LA in the next hearing likely to order a FF or S7 if allegations were brought it would they see Cafcass weren't interested and just throw them out?
..no finding of fact is necessary..
Yet by the same token as allegations were suggested they also noted that:
..Allegations of Domestic Abuse have been raised, the court may need to consider Practice 12..
Subsequently the LA who ran the GK put out orders where they noted:
.. domestic abuse has been raised and the court should consider this when making its judgement..
Would I be correct in stating that if this is the Cafcass view, even though the GK orders are what they are, would the LA in the next hearing likely to order a FF or S7 if allegations were brought it would they see Cafcass weren't interested and just throw them out?