GLOBAL GOVERNANCE SERIES™
GGS-001
GLOBAL GOVERNANCE SERIES™
Domestic Abuse and Family Justice Systems:
A Comparative Governance Analysis of Recognition, Safeguarding and Institutional Capability
Author
Samantha Avril-Andreassen, LLB (Hons), LLM, LPC, FRSA
Founder, SAFECHAIN™
Governance Analyst | Systems Reform Specialist | Safeguarding Framework Developer
Abstract
Domestic abuse remains one of the most significant safeguarding challenges worldwide despite substantial legislative reform, increasing public awareness, specialist domestic abuse services, and expanding recognition of coercive control. Across jurisdictions—including common law, civil law, federal, and hybrid legal systems—families continue to report remarkably similar concerns regarding family justice, child welfare, safeguarding, participation, and institutional accountability.
This paper argues that these recurring concerns should not be understood solely as failures of law. Rather, they reveal common governance challenges relating to institutional capability, recognition, implementation, coordination, and vulnerability assessment. Through a comparative governance lens, this paper examines why diverse legal systems frequently generate similar patterns of complaint and proposes a shift from legislative reform alone towards strengthening institutional recognition, participation, verification, and safeguarding capability.
1. Introduction
Domestic abuse legislation has expanded considerably during the past three decades.
Numerous jurisdictions now recognise:
• coercive control
• economic abuse
• psychological abuse
• post-separation abuse
• child safeguarding
• trauma-informed practice
Yet complaints regarding family justice continue to emerge internationally.
This paper asks a central governance question:
Why do legal systems with different laws continue producing similar safeguarding concerns?
2. Research Question
The principal research question is:
Why do family justice systems operating under different constitutional and legal traditions continue to generate similar complaints concerning domestic abuse recognition, child welfare, participation, and safeguarding?
Secondary questions include:
Are these primarily legal problems?
Are they implementation problems?
Are they governance failures?
Can common institutional patterns be identified?
3. Comparative Jurisdictions
The study considers publicly documented developments from jurisdictions including:
• United Kingdom
• Australia
• Canada
• United States
• Brazil
• South Africa
• Kenya
• Zimbabwe
• Nigeria
• selected European jurisdictions
The objective is not to rank systems.
The objective is to identify recurring governance themes.
4. Emerging Common Themes
The comparative review identifies recurring issues including:
4.1 Recognition of Coercive Control
Many jurisdictions have introduced legislative recognition.
Implementation remains inconsistent.
4.2 Child Welfare Assessment
Assessment methodologies differ significantly.
Questions remain regarding consistency, behavioural analysis, and cumulative harm.
4.3 Information Fragmentation
Relevant information frequently remains dispersed across:
police
healthcare
education
housing
financial institutions
welfare agencies
family courts
Institutional fragmentation limits holistic safeguarding.
4.4 Participation
Many vulnerable parties experience barriers including:
trauma
anxiety
PTSD
communication difficulties
procedural complexity
These factors influence participation quality.
4.5 Institutional Capability
The recurring issue is not necessarily absence of law.
It is institutional capacity to implement existing law consistently.
5. Recognition Rather Than Incident Analysis
Modern domestic abuse increasingly requires institutions to recognise:
behavioural patterns
escalation
coercive control
economic abuse
cumulative harm
Traditional incident-based systems often struggle to identify these dynamics.
6. Governance Rather Than Jurisdiction
The research suggests family justice should increasingly be viewed as a governance challenge.
Countries differ.
The institutional questions remain remarkably similar.
How is vulnerability recognised?
How is information verified?
How are patterns assessed?
How are agencies coordinated?
How is meaningful participation achieved?
7. The SAFECHAIN™ Comparative Model
This paper proposes strengthening institutional capability through:
• Recognition Intelligence™
• Participation Integrity™
• Vulnerability Intelligence™
• Continuity Intelligence™
• Disclosure Integrity™
• Cross-sector verification
These concepts complement rather than replace existing legal frameworks.
8. Implications for Future Reform
Future reform should increasingly evaluate:
• implementation capability
• institutional learning
• safeguarding quality
• recognition accuracy
• coordination effectiveness
rather than legislative development alone.
9. Conclusion
The remarkable consistency of family justice concerns emerging across multiple jurisdictions suggests that domestic abuse and safeguarding should increasingly be examined through a governance lens.
The challenge facing modern institutions is no longer simply writing better laws.
It is ensuring systems possess the capability to recognise vulnerability, understand coercive control, connect fragmented information, support meaningful participation, and translate legal principles into consistent protection.
The future of family justice may therefore depend less upon legislative innovation than upon institutional capability.
Domestic abuse; coercive control; family justice; safeguarding; governance; institutional capability; vulnerability; participation; comparative law; child welfare; recognition; implementation; SAFECHAIN™.
© 2026 Samantha Avril-Andreassen. All rights reserved.
SAFECHAINN Ltd (Company No. 12038453).
Version 1.0