When Allegations of Bias Become a Governance Issue
What Recent Findings Mean for the Future of Family Justice
By Samantha Avril-Andreassen, LLB (Hons), LLM, LPC, FRSA
Founder, SAFECHAIN™
For years, concerns about the treatment of domestic abuse survivors in the family courts have often been dismissed as individual experiences.
One difficult case.
One unusual judgment.
One disappointed litigant.
One isolated appeal.
But governance changes when individual experiences begin to reveal recurring institutional patterns.
That is why recent research examining published family court judgments deserves careful attention.
According to the report Scratching the Surface: Victim-Blaming and Bias in Family Court Judgments, commissioned by Right to Equality, researchers found evidence they classified as judicial victim-blaming in 72.5% of the 91 published judgments analysed, with mothers' behaviour frequently subjected to greater scrutiny while fathers' conduct was more often contextualised or minimised. The report argues that these patterns warrant further investigation and recommends greater transparency, judicial training and additional research. (The Guardian)
Whether every reader agrees with every aspect of the report's methodology is almost beside the point.
Because governance begins with a different question.
What should institutions do when credible evidence suggests recurring patterns of concern?
Governance Does Not Wait for Perfection
One of the greatest misunderstandings in public administration is that institutions should only act once every debate has been settled.
Good governance does the opposite.
It recognises potential systemic risks early.
It investigates.
It measures.
It tests assumptions.
It welcomes independent scrutiny.
It improves before failures become entrenched.
This is how aviation improves safety.
How healthcare improves clinical practice.
How financial services strengthen regulation.
Justice should be no different.
The Question Is Bigger Than Bias
Whether the issue is gender bias, victim-blaming, procedural inconsistency, or institutional culture, the governance challenge remains the same.
Can the system recognise recurring patterns?
Can it examine itself objectively?
Can it distinguish isolated error from institutional weakness?
Can it demonstrate that learning follows evidence?
These are governance questions.
Not ideological ones.
Transparency Has Changed the Conversation
For decades, family justice has operated with limited public visibility.
The expansion of transparency now creates a different opportunity.
Researchers.
Journalists.
Academics.
Parliamentarians.
Practitioners.
And the public can begin examining patterns that previously remained largely hidden.
This does not undermine judicial independence.
It strengthens institutional legitimacy.
Because confidence grows when institutions demonstrate that scrutiny is welcomed rather than resisted.
Accountability Must Be Evidence-Led
Equally, accountability requires intellectual discipline.
Reports should be examined carefully.
Methodologies should be scrutinised.
Evidence should be challenged where appropriate.
Counter-evidence should be considered.
Institutional learning should be driven by robust analysis rather than assumption.
That is how confidence is built.
Governance is not advocacy.
Governance is the disciplined examination of institutional performance.
From Individual Cases to Systemic Intelligence
Family courts decide individual cases.
Governance examines institutional systems.
That distinction matters.
The purpose is not to relitigate individual judgments.
Nor is it to question judicial independence.
It is to ask whether recurring themes emerge across multiple cases.
If patterns repeatedly identify concerns around participation, safeguarding, vulnerability, or the treatment of domestic abuse, then institutions have a responsibility to understand why.
Learning from patterns is not criticism.
It is institutional maturity.
The Future of Family Justice
The future of family justice will not be determined solely by legislation.
Nor solely by transparency.
Nor solely by procedural reform.
It will depend upon governance.
Governance that measures outcomes rather than intentions.
Governance that examines evidence rather than assumptions.
Governance that values institutional learning over institutional defensiveness.
Governance that understands public confidence is earned through openness, accountability and continuous improvement.
The SAFECHAIN™ Perspective
SAFECHAIN™ has consistently argued that safeguarding failures are rarely caused by a single individual.
They arise when institutions fail to recognise recurring patterns, integrate evidence and learn from experience.
Whether those patterns relate to coercive control, meaningful participation, procedural fairness or allegations of victim-blaming, the principle remains the same.
Strong institutions do not fear evidence.
They invite it.
They test it.
They learn from it.
And where improvement is needed, they act.
Conclusion
The recent report should not be viewed simply as another headline.
It should be viewed as an invitation.
An invitation to ask difficult questions.
To examine institutional performance honestly.
To strengthen governance rather than weaken confidence.
The family courts perform some of the most important work in our constitutional system.
That is precisely why they deserve the highest standards of accountability, transparency and institutional learning.
Justice is not diminished by scrutiny.
It is strengthened by the willingness to learn from it.
© 2026 Samantha Avril-Andreassen. All rights reserved.
SAFECHAINN Ltd (Company No. 12038453)
This publication forms part of the SAFECHAIN™ Global Governance Series™, examining institutional accountability, governance capability, safeguarding, transparency and continuous improvement in public institutions.