“Everyday Business” – the extent of domestic abuse in the family court
In the five years since the Harm Panel report (which reported on the problems in the Family Court’s response to domestic abuse) what has changed? According to the latest report from the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Dame Nicola Jacobs, not enough. The full report can be read here https://domesticabusecommissioner.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Everyday-Business-full-report-web.pdf
What are the issues?
The family courts frequently deal with private law children cases that involve domestic abuse – as many as 73% of hearings involve domestic abuse allegations. However, it appears that a culture continues to exist that remains in favour of contact between children and the parent accused of abuse. The report states that survivors of abuse are actively discouraged from raising allegations of domestic abuse, as they are advised that it will have little impact on whether the abusive parent will be granted contact. Outdated views on the impact of coercive control remain prevalent. Survivors of abuse do not feel heard or protected by the family justice system. There is evidence that victims are being retraumatised by the court process and, in some cases, that perpetrators use the court process to continue abusive behaviours.
What did this study look at?
The Family Court Review and Reporting Mechanism (FCRRM) pilot has produced valuable data. Data was collected from three court sites in England and Wales during 2024. This data was then analysed to see how child arrangements cases were dealt with. They also reviewed 298 files and observed a sample of live child arrangements hearings. Focus groups were set up with domestic abuse survivors in each court area. Interviews were also conducted with judges, magistrates, and Cafcass officers in each court.
Prevalence
The study has found domestic abuse was found in 87% of the closed case files examined and in 73% of the live hearings attended. This means that allegations of domestic abuse were either raised by one or the other party or by a professional involved in the case. These numbers are striking and demonstrate the scale of the issue. Most files referred to two or more types of domestic abuse, with psychological or emotional abuse and physical abuse being the most prevalent.
What is striking is that despite 73% of the observed cases involving allegations of domestic abuse, it was only considered to be a factor relevant to child arrangements in 42% of the hearings.
The problems with the court’s approach
The vast majority of abuse survivors said they were told that contact would go ahead irrespective of the abuse. They described having been told not to raise allegations of abuse and that the threshold for it being a relevant factor was extremely high. Those in the judiciary who were interviewed largely expressed the view that contact would occur in most cases, and an order for no contact would be rare.
Other issues expressed by victims were the court’s adversarial approach, a lack of legal representation for victims and fact-finding hearings only taking place in a small number of cases. Even in those cases where a fact hearing had taken place, survivors indicated that they did not feel they had been able to present their cases properly.
Lack of Funding/ resources
A lack of effective resources was cited as a major problem. There are not enough judges/ magistrates, a lack of available court time, and little judicial continuity. Cafcass are under pressure and there are delays in obtaining safeguarding reviews. There are insufficient QLRs able to accept appointments.
There are also too few contact centres available to facilitate supervised contact, leading judges to make decisions they would not otherwise make. This places survivors and children in potentially unsafe circumstances.
Where there are concerns about a perpetrator’s behaviour, they can be directed to Domestic Abuse Perpetrator Programmes (DAPPs). Again, there are simply too few programmes and places available to meet demand.
So what next?
The Domestic Abuse Commissioner is concerned that the reforms proposed by the Harm Panel report remain substantially unfulfilled. The FCRRM needs to be rolled out to more courts so that more evidence can be gathered. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner has made several recommendations which include:-
- Implementing adequate funding for further FCRRM.
- The study should be expanded to include Pathfinder courts as well as CAP courts.
- It should include financial remedy cases as well as children cases.
- Deep dives into areas of particular concern e.g. the role of lawyers in supporting victims.
- Children’s views should be canvassed.
- Proper and detailed data collection.
Vital work is needed – and quickly – to ensure that the family justice system remains fit for purpose and can adequately safeguard victims of abuse.
At Payne Hicks Beach, we are well-versed in supporting victims of domestic abuse with compassion and empathy.
