Who may commission an investigation of facts in a family case, and to whom may that commission be sent?
General information · Not legal advice
Material to check
In a practice file, we read the note of the presiding judge, mediation chair, mediation-dedicated judge or family case investigator recording the commission, the request sent out naming the police, administrative agency, organisation or individual asked to act, and the report received back.
These are types of material to look for, not evidence already verified by PRO SE.
Where readings differ
One reading takes the actors at their word: the presiding judge, the mediation chair, the mediation-dedicated judge or the family case investigator may, where necessary for fact-finding, commission an investigation and require a report on necessary matters, the recipient being the police or another administrative agency, or any body or individual that actor recognises as appropriate.
Another reading marks the provision's limits: it lets those actors commission a fact-finding investigation and demand a report, but says nothing about who selects among the possible recipients, what means a recipient may use, or whether a recipient must accept, so the report required is only of necessary matters.
Your judgment
What in the file shows that the investigation was necessary for the fact-finding, as distinct from merely useful to one side?
PRO SE does not make this decision or keep a case record on this public site.When to reconsider
We look at this again if the provision is amended to add a category of recipient or to make a commission obligatory, or if a court decision explains what makes an investigation necessary.