Rising Demand, Limited Capacity: Why Family Justice Needs Governance Reform, Not Just More Cases
THE DIRECTIVE™
Rising Demand, Limited Capacity: Why Family Justice Needs Governance Reform, Not Just More Cases
By Samantha Avril-Andreassen, LLB (Hons), LLM, LPC, FRSA
Founder, SAFECHAIN™
Governance Analyst | Systems Reform Specialist | Safeguarding Framework Developer
The Numbers Tell a Story
The latest family justice statistics reveal a system under increasing pressure.
During Q3 2025, 67,844 new family court cases were initiated across England and Wales.
Within those figures:
Domestic abuse applications increased by 11% year-on-year.
Private law children cases also increased by 11%.
Approximately 80% of private family law proceedings involved at least one party without legal representation.
Individually, these statistics are significant.
Collectively, they reveal something far more important.
Demand is increasing faster than institutional capability.
More Cases Do Not Simply Mean More Work
The instinctive response is often to view rising case numbers as a resource issue.
More judges.
More hearings.
More staff.
More funding.
Those are undoubtedly important.
But volume alone does not explain the governance challenge facing family justice.
Domestic abuse cases are rarely linear.
They frequently involve multiple agencies, complex behavioural patterns, safeguarding concerns, children, financial issues, housing instability, trauma, mental health considerations, disclosure disputes, and post-separation abuse.
As complexity increases, institutional capability becomes as important as institutional capacity.
The question is no longer simply:
"Can the system process more cases?"
It is:
"Can the system recognise and manage increasingly complex forms of harm?"
The Representation Gap
Perhaps one of the most striking figures is that around 80% of private family law proceedings now involve at least one litigant in person.
This changes the dynamics of family justice.
Litigants in person are often required to navigate:
complex procedural rules;
disclosure obligations;
evidential requirements;
safeguarding processes;
cross-examination rules;
financial remedy procedures; and
multiple hearings.
Where domestic abuse is alleged, these challenges may be compounded by trauma, fear, financial disadvantage, and unequal access to legal advice.
Participation therefore becomes more than a procedural issue.
It becomes a safeguarding issue.
The Everyday Business Findings
The debate taking place in Parliament reflects concerns already identified elsewhere.
The Everyday Business report found that domestic abuse featured in 87% of reviewed family court cases, yet was frequently not treated as an active safeguarding issue.
That finding shifts the conversation.
The question is no longer whether domestic abuse exists within family proceedings.
The evidence suggests it frequently does.
The question becomes whether institutions consistently recognise its relevance to decision-making.
Recognition is fundamentally different from awareness.
Institutions may know domestic abuse is present.
The greater challenge is determining how that knowledge influences safeguarding assessments, participation measures, disclosure scrutiny, and ultimately judicial outcomes.
From Capacity to Capability
Policy discussions often focus on increasing capacity.
Capacity matters.
But capability matters equally.
Capability asks different questions:
Can professionals identify coercive control?
Can they distinguish conflict from abuse?
Can they recognise cumulative patterns rather than isolated incidents?
Can information held across agencies be connected meaningfully?
Can vulnerable parties participate effectively?
Can safeguarding responses adapt to modern understandings of domestic abuse?
These questions move beyond workload.
They concern institutional competence.
The SAFECHAIN™ Perspective
SAFECHAIN™ approaches family justice as a governance system rather than a collection of individual cases.
Effective governance requires institutions capable of:
recognising vulnerability;
verifying disclosure;
supporting meaningful participation;
understanding behavioural patterns;
integrating information;
responding proportionately to risk.
As demand continues to increase, systems cannot rely solely upon greater procedural efficiency.
Efficiency without recognition risks processing cases more quickly while overlooking the very vulnerabilities safeguarding systems exist to identify.
A Window for Reform
Parliamentary debate, increasing case volumes, growing recognition of coercive control, and continued concern regarding safeguarding all point towards a common conclusion.
The family justice conversation is evolving.
The current policy environment presents an opportunity not simply to increase resources, but to strengthen governance.
The challenge is not whether reform is necessary.
The challenge is ensuring reform addresses institutional capability as well as institutional capacity.
Because rising demand without corresponding improvements in recognition, participation, safeguarding, and implementation risks widening the gap between legal process and lived reality.
That is where governance reform becomes essential.
About the Author
Samantha Avril-Andreassen, LLB (Hons), LLM, LPC, FRSA
Founder, SAFECHAIN™
Governance Analyst | Systems Reform Specialist | Safeguarding Framework Developer
© 2026 Samantha Avril-Andreassen. All rights reserved.
SAFECHAINN Ltd (Company No. 12038453)
This publication forms part of The Directive™ and the SAFECHAIN™ Global Governance Series™. No part of this publication may be reproduced, adapted, distributed, or incorporated into governance frameworks, software, educational programmes, artificial intelligence systems, institutional policies, or commercial products without the prior written permission of the copyright holder, except where permitted by applicable copyright law for criticism, review, or academic research.
Version 1.0