His Majesty the King v William McKeeva Bush - Judgment

Extracted by the canary pipeline from the PDF (PyMuPDF for born-digital pages, vision OCR for scanned ones). Page markers and other machine artifacts are scrubbed for reading; the stored text is never modified. Hover a paragraph for its ¶ permalink. Selectable — Cmd/Ctrl-C copies whatever you've highlighted.

In the Court of Appeal of the Cayman Islands

[2025] CICA (Crim) 3

Cause No. CICA (CRIM) APPEAL NO. 0005 OF 2024

Between

- v -

DD re A (a Child) - Ruling

Before
Carter J

Judgment delivered 2025-Jul-11

FAM2023-0150
2025-12-15
FAM2023-0150
2025-12-15
Digitally signed by Advance Performance Exponents
Inc.
Date: 2025.12.15 11:04:31 -05:00
Reason: Apex Certified
Location: Apex

FAM2023-0150
2025-12-15
FAM2023-0150
2025-12-15

9.
Counsel for Father noted the following propositions regarding paragraphs 16 and 17 of Practice
Direction 12 J taken from the Court of Appeal judgment in Re H-N and K v K [2022] EWCA Civ
468:
(a)
Not every case requires a fact-finding hearing even where domestic abuse is alleged. It is
of critical importance to identify the real issue in the case in particular with regard to the
welfare of the child before a court is able to assess if, a fact-finding hearing is necessary
and if so, what form it should take (Re H-N para 8).
(b)
Fact-finding is only needed if the alleged abuse is likely to be relevant to what the court is
being asked to decide relating to the children's welfare (K v K para 8).
( c)
The judge considering a fact-finding hearing must first identify the child welfare issue to
which the resolution of the dispute will be relevant (K v K paras 41-45).
( d)
While domestic abuse is pernicious and the courts have a greatly improved understanding
of the various forms of abuse and the impact upon victims and children, "that does not,
however, mean that in every case where there is an a/legation of, even very serious,
domestic abuse it will be either appropriate or necessary for there to be a finding of fact
hearing". So much is clear from the detailed guidance set out in paragraphs 16-20 of
PD12J and, in particular, at paragraph 17: "(g) whether the nature and extent of the
a/legations, if proved, would be relevant to the issue before the court" (Re H-N, para 139);
( e)
The correct approach is as follows (Re H-N, para 3 7)
i)
The first stage is to consider the nature of the allegations and the extent to
which they are likely to be relevant in deciding whether to make a [ contact /
residence order] and if so in what terms (PD12J.5). The applicant has
submitted that the allegations set out in the Scott Schedule are relevant in
the court's assessment of whether to modify or extend the contact order.
ii)
In deciding whether to have a finding of fact hearing the court should have
in mind its purpose (PD12J.16) which is, in broad terms, to provide a basis
of assessment of risk and therefore the impact of the alleged abuse on the
child or children.
iii)
Careful consideration must be given to PD12J.17 as to whether it is
'necessary' to have a finding of fact hearing, including whether there is other
evidence which provides a sufficient factual basis to proceed and
[2025} CIGC (Fam) 12 -BB v DD re A (a Child)

FAM2023-0150
2025-12-15
FAM2023-0150
2025-12-15

FAM2023-0150
2025-12-15
FAM2023-0150
2025-12-15

27.
Counsel submitted that the court should embark on the fact-finding exercise because dealing with
the allegations raised by M, are directly relevant when determining whether to make a ''.joint 50:50"
order as sought by F. _Counsel sub111_itted the follo_wing insuppo_rt:
"(i) Per paragraph 4 of PD12J, [A] may have suffered indirect harm by virtue of
F's actions as the domestic abuse alleged has had a significant impact on M
(ii)
There is a greater risk of [A] being exposed to F's actions as [A] grows older.
In particular, [A] will grow more aware of F's views of his Mand will be less
shielded from them, the more time he spends with F.
(iii) The alleged actions of F have occurred, predominantly, whilst the parties have
been in litigation. Ordinarily, such actions decrease during litigation due to
Court oversight. F's actions towards M have, on her case, escalated, which
increases the risk to [ A] and M when Court proceedings end.
(iv)
A shared, flexible order as sought by F, will only increase the risk of F
confronting M constantly about dates I times of contact, as on M's case F
continually seeks to push goal posts.
(v)
The welfare reports filed, thus far, which have informed the Courts approach
to contact between [A] and F, have, to a large extent failed to deal with M's
concerns about F's behaviour and how they impact Mand [A], both directly
and indirectly. Indeed, the most recent report fails to appropriately deal with
concerns of domestic violence raised by Min her fifth affidavit and that despite
F accepting that "harsh expressions were uttered by him" the incident is
downplayed by [the Social Worker] on the basis that "no one received any
physical injury. " Such an approach is clearly old-fashioned and outdated. As
such, it is clear to M that, for a proper assessment to be undertaken of the
appropriate amount óf time [A] is to spend with F, that a factual matrix needs
to be established by the court.
(vi)
Whilst F has made some admissions, F appears to have no comprehension as
to how abusive these are and the impact that the same have had on M and
[A]."
[2025} CIGC (Fam) 12 - BB v DD re A (a Child)

FAM2023-0150
2025-12-15
FAM2023-0150
2025-12-15

FAM2023-0150
2025-12-15
FAM2023-0150
2025-12-15

Neutral Citation	[2025] CICA (Crim) 3
Cause Number	CICA (CRIM) APPEAL NO. 0005 OF 2024
Court	Court of Appeal
Judge	Carter J
Parties	BB v DD re A (a Child) - Ruling
Judgment Date	2025-Jul-11
Subject	Court of Appeal judgment
Category	Criminal
Filename (current)	CICACRIM0005202407112025MCKEEVABUSH.pdf
File MD5	935e8c572aba0f54c77486a2793c1e88
Source pipeline	pdb
PDB record ID	3119
PDB URL	https://judicial.ky/n0c-storage/judgments-repository2/FAM0150202312152025BBDDACHILD.pdf

BB v DD re A (a Child) - Ruling

Processing-run history (1)