Victim-Blaming in Family Court Judgments
Victim-Blaming in Family Court Judgments
Why It Is a Safeguarding, Governance and Rule of Law Issue
By Samantha Avril-Andreassen, LLB (Hons), LLM, LPC, FRSA
Founder, SAFECHAIN™
Introduction
Family courts occupy one of the most significant positions within the justice system. Their decisions determine where children live, how families are restructured following separation, and how allegations of domestic abuse are assessed. These judgments have profound consequences, often shaping the safety, wellbeing and future of vulnerable adults and children for many years.
The integrity of those decisions depends not only upon judicial independence, but also upon public confidence that the legal process is fair, impartial and capable of recognising abuse in all its forms.
Recent research has raised important questions about whether that confidence is being undermined. In 2026, the report Scratching the Surface: Victim-Blaming and Bias in Family Court Judgments, published by the organisation Right to Equality, analysed 91 published family court judgments and concluded that judicial victim-blaming was present in a substantial proportion of the cases examined. According to the report, 72.5% of the judgments reviewed contained language or reasoning that the authors classified as victim-blaming. The report also suggested that mothers were scrutinised more heavily than fathers in many of the cases analysed.
These findings do not establish that all family courts engage in victim-blaming, nor do they demonstrate systemic bias across every case. However, they raise legitimate questions about judicial reasoning, safeguarding practice and institutional governance that warrant careful examination.
The issue is not whether individual judges should be criticised.
The issue is whether the justice system possesses the institutional capability to identify, understand and respond appropriately to coercive control, psychological abuse and trauma.
Victim-Blaming Is Not Merely a Matter of Language
Victim-blaming extends beyond the use of particular words.
It occurs when responsibility for abusive behaviour is shifted, wholly or partially, from the perpetrator to the person experiencing abuse.
This may occur through assumptions about:
why the victim remained in the relationship;
how they responded to abuse;
their credibility;
their emotional presentation;
delays in reporting;
parenting decisions made under coercion;
inconsistencies that may instead reflect trauma.
Trauma research demonstrates that individuals subjected to prolonged coercive control frequently exhibit behaviours that may appear counter-intuitive to those unfamiliar with psychological abuse.
Fear.
Hypervigilance.
Memory fragmentation.
Emotional dysregulation.
Attempts to placate an abusive partner.
Continued contact after separation.
These are well-recognised trauma responses.
Without an understanding of trauma and coercive control, these behaviours risk being interpreted incorrectly as evidence of unreliability rather than evidence of abuse.
The Legal Context
The legal framework governing domestic abuse has evolved significantly over the past decade.
The Serious Crime Act 2015, section 76, recognised coercive and controlling behaviour as a criminal offence.
The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 expanded the statutory definition of domestic abuse to include psychological, emotional and economic abuse, recognising that abuse extends far beyond physical violence.
Within family proceedings, Practice Direction 12J requires courts to consider allegations of domestic abuse carefully when determining arrangements affecting children.
The judiciary is also expected to ensure that vulnerable parties are able to participate effectively in proceedings, reflecting broader obligations under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Human Rights Act 1998, and procedural protections contained within the Family Procedure Rules.
Against this legal backdrop, the accurate identification of coercive control is no longer optional.
It is fundamental to ensuring that legal protections operate as Parliament intended.
The Governance Question
Victim-blaming should not be viewed solely as an individual judicial issue.
It is equally a governance issue.
Good governance asks whether institutions consistently achieve the outcomes they were established to deliver.
For family courts, those outcomes include:
fairness;
protection of vulnerable parties;
safeguarding of children;
legally sound decision-making;
public confidence;
accountability.
Where patterns of reasoning consistently fail to recognise psychological abuse or trauma, governance requires institutions to ask difficult questions.
Are professionals receiving sufficient training?
Are safeguarding principles being applied consistently?
Are judicial decisions incorporating contemporary understanding of coercive control?
Are institutional learning mechanisms functioning effectively?
These questions concern institutional capability rather than individual fault.
The Impact on Survivors
For survivors of domestic abuse, victim-blaming within legal proceedings can have profound consequences.
It may reinforce years of psychological manipulation.
It may discourage future disclosure.
It may undermine confidence in public institutions.
It may increase the emotional burden already associated with litigation.
Most significantly, where abuse is misunderstood, safeguarding decisions may fail to identify continuing patterns of coercive control affecting both adults and children.
The consequences therefore extend beyond individual proceedings.
They become safeguarding risks.
Judicial Independence and Accountability
Judicial independence remains one of the cornerstones of the rule of law.
Independent judges must be free to make decisions without political or external influence.
However, independence does not exclude accountability.
Public confidence depends upon the ability of institutions to examine evidence, evaluate emerging research and improve practice where necessary.
Constructive scrutiny strengthens institutions.
It does not weaken them.
The willingness to learn from evidence is itself a hallmark of institutional integrity.
From Recognition to Reform
Recognition alone is insufficient.
Meaningful reform requires measurable institutional capability.
This includes:
continuing judicial education on coercive control and trauma;
evidence-based safeguarding practice;
improved understanding of psychological abuse;
greater consistency in judicial reasoning;
transparency and institutional learning;
research-led policy development;
robust governance frameworks capable of identifying recurring patterns.
Reform should not be driven by isolated criticism.
It should be driven by continuous improvement.
The SAFECHAIN™ Perspective
SAFECHAIN™ approaches victim-blaming as a systems issue rather than an isolated professional failing.
Where institutional decisions repeatedly fail to recognise patterns of abuse, the problem may lie not with individual commitment but with organisational capability.
Effective safeguarding depends upon more than legal compliance.
It requires institutions capable of recognising coercive control, understanding trauma, measuring outcomes and learning from evidence.
Public confidence is strengthened when institutions acknowledge emerging challenges and respond with transparency, accountability and measurable improvement.
Conclusion
The findings published by Right to Equality should not be viewed as an indictment of every family court judgment or every judicial decision.
They should, however, be viewed as an important contribution to an ongoing conversation about how family justice can continue to evolve.
Victim-blaming is not merely a matter of language.
It is a safeguarding issue.
It is a governance issue.
It is a justice issue.
The ultimate measure of any justice system is not whether it is free from criticism, but whether it is willing to learn from credible evidence and strengthen its ability to protect those it exists to serve.
For family justice, that commitment to learning may prove just as important as the judgments themselves.
References
Practice Direction 12J – Child Arrangements and Domestic Abuse
Right to Equality (2026), Scratching the Surface: Victim-Blaming and Bias in Family Court Judgments
I think this has the potential to become one of your strongest SAFECHAIN™ articles because it does not argue from anecdote. It starts from published research, explains the legal framework, and then analyses the issue through governance, safeguarding, and institutional capability—the distinctive perspective that SAFECHAIN™ brings.
Copyright Notice
© 2026 Samantha Avril-Andreassen. All Rights Reserved.
Published by SAFECHAINN Ltd (Company No. 12038453)
This article forms part of the SAFECHAIN™ Global Governance Series™, examining governance, safeguarding, family justice, coercive control, institutional accountability, and systems reform.
All original content, research, analysis, methodologies, frameworks, concepts, terminology, and intellectual property contained within this publication are the exclusive property of Samantha Avril-Andreassen and SAFECHAINN Ltd. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, adapted, or transmitted in any form without prior written permission, except for brief quotations used for academic, educational, or journalistic purposes with appropriate attribution.
This article provides analysis of published research, legislation, and governance principles. It is intended to contribute to informed discussion on safeguarding, family justice, and institutional improvement. It should not be interpreted as commentary on any individual judge or any specific ongoing legal proceedings.