When Procedure Becomes the Punishment: Abuse of Process, Vexatious Labels and the Impact on Victims in Family Law Proceedings

Family law proceedings are meant to protect families, resolve disputes, safeguard children, and ensure fair outcomes. Yet for many victims of domestic abuse, coercive control, and financial abuse, the court process can become another arena of harm.

One of the most serious issues emerging within family justice is the way procedural language can shape perception. Terms such as “abuse of process” and “vexatious litigation” are important legal safeguards. Courts must be able to prevent improper applications, repeated meritless claims, and litigation used to harass or exhaust another party.

But those labels must be applied with care.

There is a significant difference between a person misusing litigation and a vulnerable person repeatedly seeking to be heard because evidence, safeguarding concerns, or participation barriers have not been properly addressed.

In family law, that distinction is vital.

Victims of abuse often enter proceedings already carrying trauma, fear, financial instability, housing insecurity, and emotional exhaustion. Many are litigants in person. They may not understand complex procedural rules, disclosure obligations, draft orders, appeal routes, or the legal significance of what is being placed before the court.

Where there is coercive control, the imbalance does not necessarily end when proceedings begin. It can continue through delay, financial pressure, document complexity, selective disclosure, intimidation, and procedural manoeuvring.

This is where procedure can become dangerous.

A victim may ask repeated questions because they do not understand what has happened. They may file further applications because they believe relevant evidence was not considered. They may challenge an order because it does not reflect their understanding of events. They may appear distressed, repetitive, or difficult because the system has not created conditions in which they can participate safely and effectively.

That is not automatically vexatious.

It may be evidence of a Participation Gap™.

The Participation Gap™ describes the space between formal access to court and meaningful participation in justice. A person may technically be allowed to attend a hearing, file evidence, and speak. But if trauma, fear, poverty, lack of representation, procedural complexity, or power imbalance prevents them from participating effectively, then access exists only on paper.

This matters profoundly in family law.

Family proceedings can determine where someone lives, whether they remain financially secure, how children are protected, whether abuse is recognised, and whether a vulnerable person leaves the process safer or further harmed.

When procedural labels are used too quickly, there is a risk that legitimate safeguarding concerns are reframed as misconduct. Persistence can be mistaken for harassment. Trauma can be mistaken for aggression. Confusion can be mistaken for defiance. Attempts to correct error can be treated as an attack on the process itself.

The result is not merely legal disadvantage. It can produce lasting harm.

Victims may lose confidence in the justice system. They may stop raising concerns. They may accept unsafe or unfair outcomes because they fear being labelled difficult. They may experience further financial hardship, housing instability, emotional injury, or isolation.

For children, the consequences can be equally serious. If the system fails to recognise the procedural impact of coercive control, financial abuse, or trauma, decisions may be made without a full understanding of risk, vulnerability, or family dynamics.

The issue is not whether courts should control improper litigation. They should.

The issue is whether systems are sufficiently equipped to distinguish between improper litigation and impaired participation.

That distinction requires evidence, training, safeguards, and institutional awareness.

This is why the SAFECHAIN™ Register has been established.

The SAFECHAIN™ Register exists to gather confidential evidence from survivors of domestic abuse, coercive control, financial abuse, and vulnerable litigants who believe they may have experienced safeguarding failures, procedural disadvantage, disclosure concerns, or barriers to meaningful participation.

The register does not assume wrongdoing.

It does not promise litigation.

It does not invite speculation.

It exists to document factual experiences, identify recurring patterns, preserve evidence, and support evidence-led reform.

Where patterns emerge, they may inform policy development, professional training, safeguarding frameworks, regulatory engagement, academic research, institutional reform, and, where appropriate, future legal assessment.

The question is not whether every difficult outcome is injustice.

The question is whether recurring procedural barriers are preventing vulnerable people from being properly heard.

Family justice must remain capable of protecting itself from misuse. But it must also remain capable of recognising vulnerability when it appears inside procedure.

A justice system is strongest when it can tell the difference between harassment and harm.

Between repetition and unresolved concern.

Between abuse of process and the desperate attempt to access justice.

Procedure should never become the punishment.

It should be the pathway through which fairness, evidence, safeguarding, and dignity are protected.

That is the standard victims deserve.

That is the standard children deserve.

And that is the standard modern family justice must be willing to meet.

SAFECHAIN™ Register: https://safe-chain.org/register-and-reform
Professional enquiries: enquiries@safe-chain.org

© 2026 Samantha Avril-Andreassen. All rights reserved. SAFECHAIN™ and associated frameworks remain protected intellectual property of Samantha Avril-Andreassen and SAFECHAINN Ltd.