FAMILY JUSTICE IS AT A CROSSROADS

Why the Future of Family Courts Depends Upon Intelligence-Led Safeguarding Rather Than Adversarial Litigation

For decades, family justice systems across multiple jurisdictions have faced sustained criticism for delays, underfunding, procedural complexity and inconsistent responses to domestic abuse. Although legal frameworks differ between countries, many commentators, researchers, oversight bodies and international organisations have identified recurring concerns relating to prolonged proceedings, the handling of domestic abuse allegations, the participation of vulnerable parties, and the impact of adversarial processes on children and families.

The challenge is no longer simply whether family courts are under pressure.

The challenge is whether they are equipped to recognise vulnerability, maintain safeguarding continuity and make decisions that adequately reflect the realities of domestic abuse, coercive control and child welfare.

A System Built for Dispute Resolution

Most family courts were designed to determine legal disputes.

They were not originally designed as trauma-informed safeguarding systems.

As a consequence, proceedings often become highly adversarial, with parents positioned as opposing parties seeking legal outcomes rather than participants within a coordinated safeguarding process.

Where domestic abuse is alleged, this creates particular difficulties.

The legal question of disputed facts may become intertwined with safeguarding questions concerning risk, coercive control, participation impairment and child welfare.

When these issues are treated primarily as litigation disputes rather than safeguarding concerns, important protective information can be overlooked or fragmented.

Domestic Abuse Cannot Be Treated as a Peripheral Issue

Over the past decade, increasing attention has been given to the way family justice systems respond to domestic abuse.

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 broadened statutory recognition of domestic abuse in England and Wales to include coercive and controlling behaviour, economic abuse and psychological abuse.

The Domestic Abuse Commissioner has also argued that domestic abuse should be treated as a central safeguarding issue throughout private family proceedings rather than as an ancillary consideration.

Similarly, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls has expressed concern about patterns in custody proceedings where allegations of domestic abuse may be minimised or misunderstood, particularly where concepts such as parental alienation are relied upon without adequate scientific foundation or without proper consideration of abuse evidence.

These concerns illustrate the growing international recognition that safeguarding and family justice cannot be treated as separate disciplines.

Post-Separation Abuse Through Litigation

Research increasingly recognises that abusive behaviour may continue after separation.

Litigation itself can become part of an ongoing pattern of coercive or controlling behaviour, requiring repeated court appearances, extensive disclosure exercises and prolonged legal engagement.

This phenomenon has been described by many practitioners and researchers as the weaponisation of legal processes, sometimes referred to as "lawfare", in which court proceedings become another mechanism through which conflict, intimidation or control may continue.

This does not mean that every contested application is abusive.

Rather, it highlights the need for courts to distinguish genuine welfare disputes from situations where legal processes themselves may contribute to ongoing harm.

Participation Matters

Many family proceedings involve individuals experiencing trauma, anxiety, coercive control or other vulnerabilities.

Trauma may affect memory, communication, concentration and confidence.

Without appropriate procedural adjustments, participation may become impaired.

This has significant implications for procedural fairness because effective participation is a fundamental component of a fair hearing.

Practice Direction 3AA and related procedural safeguards in England and Wales represent important steps towards recognising vulnerability, but consistent implementation remains an ongoing challenge identified by practitioners and oversight bodies.

Children Require More Than Adversarial Outcomes

The central principle of family justice remains the welfare of the child.

However, child welfare cannot always be reduced to binary legal outcomes.

Children experiencing domestic abuse may themselves be affected by coercive control, psychological harm and prolonged parental conflict.

Many commentators therefore advocate a more child-centred, trauma-informed approach in which safeguarding assessments, domestic abuse expertise and multidisciplinary collaboration play a greater role throughout proceedings.

The Continuing Debate Around Parental Alienation

Parental alienation remains one of the most contested subjects within family law internationally.

Some clinicians and courts have used the concept to describe situations where a child's rejection of one parent is believed to result from manipulation by the other parent.

At the same time, the United Nations Special Rapporteur has raised concerns about the misuse of parental alienation concepts, particularly where allegations of domestic abuse are present and where reliance on such concepts may disproportionately affect women bringing abuse allegations.

This does not resolve the debate.

Rather, it underlines the importance of evidence-based judicial assessment that carefully distinguishes between genuine abuse, protective parenting, coercive control and other explanations for a child's expressed wishes or behaviour.

Beyond Information Toward Intelligence

Family courts already receive substantial information.

Witness statements.

Medical records.

Police reports.

CAFCASS assessments.

Expert evidence.

The difficulty is not always information availability.

It is whether that information is integrated into a coherent safeguarding understanding.

SAFECHAIN™ describes this challenge as the movement from information to intelligence.

Recognition Intelligence™ asks whether vulnerability is recognised.

Continuity Intelligence™ asks whether safeguarding awareness survives institutional transitions.

Vulnerability Intelligence™ asks whether multiple vulnerabilities are understood dynamically rather than in isolation.

Accountability Intelligence™ asks whether safeguarding decisions and omissions remain traceable.

Predictive Safeguarding™ asks whether escalating vulnerability can be recognised before crisis occurs.

Together these capabilities propose a different model of family justice—one that complements legal decision-making with intelligence-led safeguarding.

Looking Forward

No single reform will resolve every challenge facing family justice.

Delays, funding pressures, judicial resources, legal aid, safeguarding practice and professional training all require continued attention.

However, a consistent theme emerges across many reports and reviews:

family justice performs most effectively when safeguarding is treated not as an additional consideration, but as the organising principle through which proceedings are understood.

The future development of family justice may therefore depend less upon creating additional procedures and more upon strengthening institutional capability to recognise vulnerability, maintain continuity, ensure accountability and protect children through evidence-informed, trauma-aware and intelligence-led governance.

Copyright Notice

© 2026 Samantha Avril-Andreassen. All rights reserved.

SAFECHAINN Ltd (Company No. 12038453).

SAFECHAIN™, Recognition Intelligence™, Continuity Intelligence™, Vulnerability Intelligence™, Accountability Intelligence™, Predictive Safeguarding™, The Vulnerability Intelligence Framework™, National Vulnerability Verification Infrastructure™, Specialist Safeguarding Architecture Portfolio™, Participation Integrity Framework™, Accountability Traceability Framework™ and all associated methodologies, governance architectures, safeguarding models, intelligence systems, implementation frameworks, terminology and intellectual constructs are proprietary intellectual property authored and developed by Samantha Avril-Andreassen.

No reproduction, implementation, adaptation, commercialisation, AI training, machine learning ingestion, framework replication, software implementation or institutional deployment of any component of the SAFECHAIN™ ecosystem may occur without the prior written permission of Samantha Avril-Andreassen and SAFECHAINN Ltd.