Court-Ordered Trauma: Why the Family Justice System Is Failing the Very Families It Is Meant to Protect
The family justice system is facing renewed scrutiny following new evidence that outdated attitudes toward domestic abuse and a “contact at all costs” culture continue to endanger children and re-traumatise survivors.
Recent findings from the Domestic Abuse Commissioner for England and Wales, Dame Nicole Jacobs, have exposed what she described as “antiquated views” in family court proceedings, views that routinely place children in unsafe situations despite clear evidence of abuse.
The research, conducted by Loughborough University for the Commissioner’s office, reviewed nearly 300 child arrangement cases across three family court sites. It found evidence of domestic abuse in 87% of case files and in 73% of live hearings observed. Yet in many instances, this evidence was not properly considered when courts made decisions about child contact.
A Culture of Presumption
The findings underline a long-standing concern among practitioners and advocates: that the family courts’ entrenched presumption of parental contact too often overrides the need for safety and accountability.
Even in cases where there was documented evidence of coercive control or other forms of domestic abuse, courts frequently ordered unsupervised overnight contact with the alleged perpetrator. Survivors reported being discouraged from raising concerns about abuse, with some warned that doing so could harm their case or risk them losing access to their children.
Dame Nicole Jacobs said the findings demonstrate the urgent need for reform:
“For too long now the Family Court has failed to adequately rise to the challenge of recognising domestic abuse within its proceedings. No child should be forced to spend time with an abusive parent or caregiver if the circumstances aren’t safe. But time and time again, the pro-contact culture and antiquated views on domestic abuse are contributing to decisions that put children in harm’s way. This must stop.”
The report, Everyday Business, concludes that domestic abuse is not a marginal or exceptional issue within the family courts, but rather “an everyday reality” requiring a systematic and informed response.
The Misuse of ‘Parental Alienation’
At the heart of the debate lies the increasingly controversial concept of parental alienation, a theory often invoked in custody disputes. While genuine alienation exists, the concept has, in many cases, been weaponised to discredit survivors of abuse, particularly mothers.
When mothers raise concerns about coercive or controlling behaviour, they are frequently accused of fabricating allegations to turn children against their fathers. Courts then interpret their protective actions as “alienating,” sometimes resulting in the mother losing custody.
Conversely, when fathers claim alienation, such allegations tend to attract stronger institutional sympathy and intervention. This gendered double standard, experts warn, exposes the systemic bias that persists in how family courts interpret and respond to abuse dynamics.
‘Contact at All Costs’ vs. Child Safety
The persistence of a “contact at all costs” approach has been criticised by domestic abuse specialists, who argue that it places adult rights above child welfare.
Professor Mandy Burton of Loughborough University, who co-led the research, explained:
“Responding appropriately to domestic abuse, particularly coercive and controlling behaviour, continues to be challenging for the family justice system, exposing victims to risk of continuing harm.”
Professor Rosemary Hunter, also from Loughborough University, added that sustained oversight and accountability are essential:
“It is imperative that the review mechanism piloted in this study be continued, in order to maintain accountability, track progress, and disseminate good practices so that professionals in the family justice system can better protect children and adult survivors through safer processes.”
The research confirms that many survivors are pressured into accepting unsafe arrangements and that systemic disbelief continues to silence victims, undermining the very principle of safeguarding that family courts are meant to uphold.
Steps Toward Reform
Some progress has been made. The Pathfinder Courts pilot, introduced in 2022 to promote a more investigative and problem-solving approach seeks to reduce the adversarial nature of family proceedings and better support victims of abuse. The initiative has since been expanded to other areas.
However, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner insists that these efforts must go much further. She has called for a fully funded national rollout of Pathfinder Courts and for the removal of the presumption of parental contact where abuse is evident.
A Call for Systemic Change
The research’s conclusions are clear: domestic abuse is not an incidental factor in family court proceedings, it is their central reality. Yet the courts continue to operate as though allegations of abuse are peripheral, secondary to the presumed importance of maintaining parental contact.
Experts agree that meaningful reform will require a cultural shift, one that recognises coercive control as a defining feature of many family law cases, ensures consistent judicial understanding of abuse dynamics, and restores safety as the overriding principle in all child arrangement decisions.
