THE SAFEGUARDING CHAIN MUST NOT BREAK
Domestic Abuse, Financial Harm, Institutional Failure and the Cost of Fragmented Systems
SAFECHAIN™ Policy Brief
Author
Samantha Avril-Andreassen
SAFECHAINN Ltd
Executive Summary
The United Kingdom continues to respond to domestic abuse through fragmented institutional systems.
Police identify risk.
Courts determine disputes.
Banks manage debt.
Local authorities address homelessness.
Healthcare services respond to trauma.
Regulators monitor compliance.
Yet the harm experienced by victims rarely remains within one institution.
Domestic abuse is not simply a criminal justice issue.
It is a safeguarding issue.
It is a housing issue.
It is a financial inclusion issue.
It is a governance issue.
It is an economic issue.
The statistics increasingly demonstrate the scale of the challenge.
The question is no longer whether the problem exists.
The question is whether institutions are structurally capable of responding to it.
The Scale of the Challenge
The Office for National Statistics has consistently reported that millions of adults experience domestic abuse across England and Wales.
Domestic abuse now affects every major public service.
Every local authority.
Every regulator.
Every financial institution.
Every court jurisdiction.
Yet the evidence suggests that institutional responses remain fragmented.
The Domestic Abuse Commissioner reported in 2025 that evidence of domestic abuse was present in 73% of family court hearings observed and in 87% of case files reviewed. Despite this prevalence, abuse was frequently not treated as a central issue in decision-making.
This finding is extraordinary.
Domestic abuse is not appearing in a minority of cases.
It is appearing in the majority of cases.
The challenge therefore becomes one of institutional response rather than institutional awareness.
Domestic Abuse Is Also Financial Abuse
Financial abuse remains one of the least understood dimensions of domestic abuse.
Its consequences often outlast:
relationships;
litigation;
criminal proceedings;
family court proceedings.
The consequences can remain visible for decades.
Victims frequently experience:
coerced debt;
impaired credit records;
exclusion from mainstream lending;
housing insecurity;
employment disruption;
reduced pension security;
reduced economic participation.
The debt survives long after the relationship ends.
The credit file survives long after the litigation ends.
The financial consequences frequently survive longer than the abuse itself.
This is the challenge addressed by SAFECHAIN™ frameworks including:
The Shadow Ledger™
The Coercive Debt Lifecycle™
The Passport of Erasure™
The Financial Vulnerability Framework™
The Family Justice Gap
Family courts remain one of the most significant institutional points of contact for victims.
Yet concerns regarding:
participation;
disclosure;
economic abuse;
coercive control;
financial transparency;
strategic non-disclosure;
continue to emerge from practitioners, survivor groups, academics and policymakers.
The Domestic Abuse Commissioner's findings suggest that domestic abuse remains insufficiently integrated into decision-making processes despite its prevalence.
This creates a fundamental safeguarding challenge.
When domestic abuse is present but not fully integrated into decision-making, risk becomes normalised.
Why Reports Alone Are Not Enough
The United Kingdom has produced:
reviews;
consultations;
inquiries;
safeguarding reports;
regulatory reports;
thematic reviews.
Yet harm continues.
Reports identify problems.
Reports do not create accountability.
Reports do not create coordination.
Reports do not create safeguarding continuity.
Reports do not prevent institutional fragmentation.
Without implementation architecture, the same failures reappear under different names.
The Macpherson Question
The Macpherson Report transformed public understanding of institutional failure.
Its most enduring contribution was recognising that systemic outcomes matter.
Not merely individual intentions.
The same challenge now confronts domestic abuse policy.
The question is not only whether individual actors intended harm.
The question is whether institutional structures produce foreseeable harm despite warning signs already being visible.
This is the governance challenge of our time.
The SAFECHAIN™ Position
SAFECHAIN™ proposes that domestic abuse should be understood as a cross-institutional safeguarding issue requiring:
safeguarding continuity;
participation integrity;
financial vulnerability assessment;
documentation continuity;
institutional accountability;
governance oversight.
The safeguarding chain must not break when a victim moves between institutions.
Because harm does not respect organisational boundaries.
Neither should safeguarding.
Conclusion
Domestic abuse is not disappearing.
Financial harm is not disappearing.
Credit-file harm is not disappearing.
Housing insecurity is not disappearing.
The evidence increasingly demonstrates that institutions already possess much of the information required to identify risk.
The challenge is coordination.
The challenge is accountability.
The challenge is ensuring that systems respond to human beings rather than merely processing cases.
That is the challenge SAFECHAIN™ seeks to address.
© 2026 Samantha Avril-Andreassen. All rights reserved.
SAFECHAINN Ltd (Company No. 12038453).