Nearly nine out of ten family court cases in England and Wales are mired in domestic abuse, exposing a justice system repeatedly failing vulnerable children and survivors.
The domestic abuse commissioner’s review revealed 87 percent of cases involved physical, psychological, or sexual violence. Nicole Jacobs condemned courts for treating abuse as secondary, downplaying life-threatening risks.
“The reality is brutal,” Jacobs declared. “No child should ever be forced into contact with an abusive parent. Yet unsafe decisions are still being made daily.”
Loughborough University academics examined 298 case files and witnessed nearly 100 hearings. Evidence of abuse emerged repeatedly, yet judges often prioritised “contact at all costs” over protection.
In 73 percent of hearings, survivors raised claims of abuse. Despite this, more than half of court orders allowed unsupervised overnight contact with abusive parents, disregarding obvious dangers.
Survivors described feeling silenced. Many were warned reporting abuse would “make no difference” to contact rulings. Others feared retaliation through even worse court-imposed arrangements.
“I was told by my solicitor not to press the abuse allegations, because it wouldn’t help my case,” said one mother. “I felt utterly powerless.”
The watchdog’s review accused the courts of being entrenched in outdated culture. Physical violence gained recognition, but coercive control and psychological abuse were brushed aside, undermining victim safety.
Jacobs argued: “Domestic abuse can no longer be treated as a side issue in family justice. It must become everyday business demanding serious and systematic intervention.”
The report urged government investment to expand Pathfinder pilot courts, designed to improve early intervention, prioritise children’s voices, and integrate support services. But progress remains piecemeal and slow.
“Tinkering around the edges will no longer suffice,” Jacobs warned. “We need structural reform, strong oversight, and accountability embedded across every family court in England and Wales.”
The study’s findings echo longstanding concerns raised by charities and survivors. A Women’s Aid report earlier this year revealed 19 children murdered by abusive parents allowed contact by courts.
Claire Throssell, whose sons Jack and Paul were murdered during court-ordered visits, told MPs: “The system failed my children. Contact should never trump safety. Ever.”
Throssell’s testimony continues to haunt debates on parental involvement. Yet judges persist in granting access to violent fathers, often citing the outdated principle of a child’s “right to contact.”
Survivors say such rhetoric masks coercion. “What about the child’s right to be safe?” asked another survivor. “The courts seem blind to that fundamental truth.”
The watchdog’s review highlighted systemic failures: lack of legal representation for survivors, inconsistent handling of evidence, and a refusal to recognise abuse patterns beyond physical assaults.
Jacobs pressed the Ministry of Justice to expand reforms, insisting that without strong political will, “the courts will remain complicit in enabling cycles of abuse and harm.”
Critics accuse the judiciary of prioritising expedience over justice. Fast-tracking cases leaves little time for nuanced consideration, often silencing children’s voices and dismissing mothers’ desperate warnings.
One father’s history of violent assaults was overlooked, and he was granted unsupervised contact. Months later, his daughter required hospital treatment after a brutal attack.
Campaigners argue this culture amounts to institutional betrayal. “The family courts are not neutral,” said a domestic violence advocate. “They are actively perpetuating abuse through their decisions.”
Recent scandals have reinforced mistrust. Wiltshire police chief Catherine Roper apologised after failures under Clare’s law left women at risk, including one nearly murdered by her partner.
The watchdog insists reforms must focus on accountability. “We need judges properly trained in coercive control, and social workers empowered to challenge unsafe rulings,” said Jacobs bluntly.
But survivors doubt whether rhetoric will translate into meaningful change. “We’ve heard promises before,” said one mother. “Meanwhile, children are still being handed to abusers.”
Lawyers acknowledge a toxic “pro-contact” culture dominating judicial thinking. “The presumption of contact is outdated,” said one barrister. “It puts ideology before reality. The results are catastrophic.”
Pressure is mounting on ministers. Campaign groups demand removal of the presumption of parental involvement, arguing it directly endangers children where abuse has been documented.
The government remains hesitant. Officials speak of “balancing rights” between parents, but survivors argue such balance is a fiction when one parent poses violent threats.
A survivor from Manchester described years of courtroom battles: “I was forced to co-parent with a man who strangled me. The court called it compromise.”
Academics warn the problem is structural. Judges, lawyers, and guardians often underestimate coercive abuse because it leaves no bruises, yet it corrodes safety and freedom over years.
“Coercive control is the foundation of much physical violence,” said one researcher. “If courts ignore it, they fail to understand the very nature of abuse itself.”
Children’s voices are often silenced. Few are directly consulted about their experiences, leaving dangerous orders made without recognising children’s fear, trauma, or wishes to avoid abusers.
One teenager told researchers: “The judge never asked me what I wanted. I said I didn’t feel safe, but they still forced me to see him.”
Such stories highlight a justice system detached from the realities of domestic abuse. The cost is borne by children growing up in fear, and survivors retraumatised.
The commissioner’s report is scathing: the family court is “an unsafe place for children in abusive households” and reform is “urgent, unavoidable, and overdue.”
But survivors warn time is running out. “How many more children must be killed?” asked Throssell. “How many more mothers must bury their children before change comes?”
The courts are accused not only of failing to protect but of actively endangering. Every unsafe contact order risks another child’s death, another headline, another inquest.
Campaigners demand radical overhaul: mandatory domestic abuse training for all judges, removal of automatic contact assumptions, independent oversight, and survivor representation guaranteed across all hearings.
Legal reformers say the evidence is overwhelming. “If this were any other system failing children so consistently, it would be called a national scandal,” said one senior campaigner.
Survivors and advocates argue the family court crisis is no longer a hidden issue. The watchdog’s findings drag the truth into daylight: abuse defines the majority of cases.
Jacobs has demanded the government extend pilot reforms nationally, warning that incremental change leaves children at lethal risk. “This crisis requires urgency. Delay is deadly,” she said.
The report insists abuse must be central to every decision. Yet without political courage, campaigners believe history will repeat, leaving courts complicit in fresh tragedies.
As another survivor put it: “We do not need more reports, more pilots, more promises. We need action. We need safety. And we need it now.”
About The Author
