SAFECHAIN™ Research Initiative

Executive Summary for Academic and Policy Collaboration

SAFECHAIN™ Research Initiative

Executive Summary for Academic and Policy Collaboration

Author: Samantha Avril-Andreassen
Founder, SAFECHAIN™
© 2026 Samantha Avril-Andreassen. All rights reserved.

Overview

SAFECHAIN™ is a socio-legal research and policy initiative examining structural weaknesses within safeguarding systems that respond to domestic abuse, economic coercion, and complex family litigation.

While legal reforms have strengthened recognition of coercive control and economic abuse—particularly through the Domestic Abuse Act 2021—institutional processes often struggle to detect sophisticated patterns of financial manipulation and procedural abuse within litigation environments.

SAFECHAIN™ explores how inter-agency fragmentation and limited forensic transparency can allow patterns of coercive financial behaviour to remain hidden across multiple legal proceedings.

The initiative proposes a data-informed safeguarding architecture designed to support transparency, regulatory accountability, and fair participation within legal systems.

The Structural Gap

Domestic abuse cases frequently intersect with multiple institutional environments, including:

  • police and criminal justice agencies

  • family courts and civil proceedings

  • housing authorities

  • healthcare services

  • financial institutions.

These systems often operate independently, meaning crucial safeguarding context may be lost when individuals move between institutions.

In complex financial remedy proceedings—particularly those involving corporate ownership structures or international assets—this fragmentation can make it difficult for decision-makers to identify patterns of economic coercion or disclosure manipulation.

SAFECHAIN™ investigates how these systemic gaps may affect the integrity of safeguarding responses.

The SAFECHAIN™ Framework

The SAFECHAIN™ model introduces several policy concepts intended to strengthen safeguarding transparency and procedural fairness.

1. Litigation Pattern Analysis

SAFECHAIN™ proposes a research framework for identifying behavioural indicators associated with strategic litigation abuse, such as:

  • procedural attrition tactics

  • asymmetrical litigation funding

  • disclosure opacity in financial remedy proceedings.

The aim is to distinguish legitimate advocacy from litigation behaviour that may undermine fairness or transparency.

2. The National Litigant Ledger Concept

The SAFECHAIN™ research programme explores the feasibility of a Litigation Pattern Registry, sometimes referred to conceptually as a “National Litigant Ledger.”

This model would allow courts to observe contextual information relating to repeated financial remedy litigation, helping identify potential patterns of financial coercion or repeated disclosure disputes.

The intention is not to stigmatise litigants but to provide greater forensic context within judicial decision-making.

3. Financial Transparency Indicators

SAFECHAIN™ also examines enhanced forensic indicators for financial disclosure in complex matrimonial finance cases involving:

  • corporate ownership structures

  • trust arrangements

  • sudden asset dissipation

  • lifestyle-income discrepancies.

These indicators would operate alongside the existing duty of full and frank disclosure.

4. Safeguarding System Integration

A central component of SAFECHAIN™ is the development of a safeguarding continuity model linking institutions responsible for protecting vulnerable individuals.

This includes coordination between:

  • courts

  • regulators

  • law enforcement

  • housing authorities

  • healthcare providers.

The objective is to ensure that safeguarding information is not lost between institutional boundaries.

Legal and Regulatory Context

SAFECHAIN™ aligns with existing statutory and regulatory frameworks, including:

  • Human Rights Act 1998

  • Fraud Act 2006

  • Legal Services Act 2007

and professional oversight provided by:

  • Solicitors Regulation Authority

  • Bar Standards Board.

The initiative seeks to complement—not replace—these frameworks by strengthening institutional coordination and evidential transparency.

Academic Contribution

SAFECHAIN™ contributes to interdisciplinary scholarship across:

  • socio-legal studies

  • domestic abuse policy

  • financial crime and asset transparency

  • regulatory governance.

The research programme examines how legal procedures interact with behavioural patterns and institutional structures, providing insight into systemic safeguards for vulnerable litigants.

Research Development

Current SAFECHAIN™ research outputs include:

  • policy white papers on safeguarding fragmentation

  • regulatory analyses of disclosure transparency

  • safeguarding governance proposals.

Future work aims to develop empirical research on litigation patterns and financial transparency within family law proceedings.

Institutional Collaboration

SAFECHAIN™ seeks collaboration with universities and research centres specialising in:

  • socio-legal studies

  • gender-based violence policy

  • financial transparency and regulation

  • institutional governance.

Potential collaboration pathways include:

  • PhD by Publication programmes

  • visiting research fellowships

  • joint policy research projects.

Conclusion

Domestic abuse legislation has advanced significantly in recognising coercive control and economic abuse.

However, safeguarding institutions must also evolve to address the procedural and financial complexities that accompany such abuse within litigation environments.

SAFECHAIN™ provides a research-based framework designed to strengthen transparency, institutional coordination, and fairness within these systems.

Contact

Samantha Avril-Andreassen
Founder – SAFECHAIN™
SAFECHAIN™ Research Initiative

Emerging Systemic Concerns

Through analysis of high-conflict financial remedy cases and survivor reports, several recurring patterns appear:

1. Strategic Asset Dissipation

Complex corporate structures, trusts, or layered ownership arrangements are sometimes used in ways that obscure the beneficial reality of assets relevant to the financial remedy exercise.

2. Procedural Attrition

Repeated procedural applications, late-stage document delivery, and litigation funding asymmetry can create environments in which the financially weaker spouse becomes effectively unrepresented.

3. Disclosure Distortion

In some cases, the financial narrative presented in proceedings appears materially inconsistent with:

The litigant’s lifestyle

Corporate filings

or tax documentation.

Where such inconsistencies exist, questions arise as to whether legal representatives have discharged their professional duties to the court.