Rule 143 Standard of Proof.

This rule explains how much proof is needed to win a case in family court. For most cases, the person making the claims only needs to show that their version of events is more likely true than not. This is called "preponderance of the evidence," and you can think of it as anything over a 50% chance that the facts are true.

There is one big exception. If the case involves a law violation, like when a minor is accused of breaking the law, the proof needed is much higher. In these cases, the facts must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt." This is the same tough standard used in criminal court, and it means the evidence must be strong enough that there is no reasonable doubt about what happened.

The difference matters because it affects how hard it is to prove a case. Regular family court matters, like custody or support disputes, only need a basic tip of the scales in one direction. But when someone's freedom or record is at stake because of an alleged law violation, the court requires much stronger proof before making a decision against them.