DOMESTIC ABUSE AND FORUM SHOPPING: WHEN PROCEDURE BECOMES A WEAPON
Domestic abuse is often understood through the lens of physical violence. Increasingly, however, policymakers, researchers, courts, and safeguarding professionals recognise that abuse can also operate through systems, processes, institutions, and procedural mechanisms.
One area that deserves greater scrutiny is the intersection between domestic abuse and forum shopping.
Forum shopping traditionally refers to attempts to pursue litigation or legal advantage in a forum perceived to be more favourable to one party. While the concept is commonly discussed in commercial and international litigation, its impact within family proceedings and domestic abuse contexts is rarely examined.
Yet for vulnerable parties, the consequences can be profound.
The Hidden Power Imbalance
Domestic abuse is fundamentally about power and control.
The abuse may begin within a relationship, but its effects frequently continue long after separation.
Where one party possesses greater financial resources, greater legal representation, greater procedural knowledge, or greater institutional access, legal processes themselves can become part of the ongoing power dynamic.
This is not necessarily because rules have been broken.
Rather, it is because procedural advantages can accumulate in ways that create practical disadvantages for the other party.
A vulnerable litigant may find themselves navigating multiple jurisdictions, unfamiliar procedures, repeated applications, complex disclosure obligations, and significant financial pressures while attempting to recover from trauma, housing instability, economic abuse, or safeguarding concerns.
The result can be a process that feels inaccessible even when it is technically available.
The Difference Between Access and Participation
One of the recurring challenges within modern justice systems is the assumption that access equals fairness.
If a hearing takes place, the assumption may be that participation occurred.
If documents were filed, the assumption may be that the party was able to engage.
If directions were complied with, the assumption may be that the process was fair.
Yet meaningful participation requires more than procedural attendance.
It requires the ability to understand, engage, respond, organise evidence, process information, and advocate effectively.
Domestic abuse survivors often face significant barriers to these activities.
Trauma affects memory.
Stress affects concentration.
Housing instability affects practical capacity.
Financial hardship affects access to representation.
Repeated litigation can create exhaustion.
These factors may not be visible on the face of a court file.
However, they can profoundly influence outcomes.
When Procedure Becomes a Source of Harm
Most legal procedures exist for legitimate reasons.
They are intended to support fairness, consistency, and due process.
However, any system can create unintended consequences when vulnerability is not adequately recognised.
Where proceedings become prolonged, fragmented, highly technical, or disproportionately burdensome, vulnerable parties may experience what SAFECHAIN™ describes as procedural attrition.
Procedural attrition occurs when an individual's ability to participate gradually deteriorates due to the cumulative effects of the process itself.
The issue is not simply whether a party is present.
The issue is whether they remain capable of meaningful engagement.
This distinction matters.
Because a person may be physically present while participation has effectively collapsed.
Domestic Abuse Beyond the Relationship
Domestic abuse safeguarding must not stop at separation.
Research increasingly demonstrates that the consequences of abuse can continue through financial systems, housing systems, legal systems, and institutional processes.
Economic abuse may continue through debt.
Housing insecurity may continue through displacement.
Trauma may continue through repeated exposure to adversarial processes.
Participation barriers may continue through procedural complexity.
The challenge for institutions is recognising that vulnerability does not disappear simply because a relationship has ended.
A Safeguarding Question
The discussion about forum shopping should not be framed solely as a procedural question.
It is also a safeguarding question.
The relevant issue is not simply where proceedings occur.
The relevant issue is whether the process enables meaningful participation, protects vulnerable individuals, and preserves confidence in fairness.
When institutions focus exclusively on procedural compliance, they risk overlooking the practical realities experienced by those navigating the system.
A process can be technically correct and still generate significant disadvantage.
Recognising that distinction is essential to building justice systems that are not only lawful but genuinely accessible.
Looking Forward
The future of domestic abuse protection requires more than recognising abuse itself.
It requires recognition of how vulnerability interacts with institutions.
It requires understanding how power operates beyond the relationship.
It requires systems capable of identifying participation barriers before they become outcomes.
And it requires a commitment to ensuring that fairness is experienced in practice, not simply assumed in theory.
Because justice should never depend upon who can endure the process longest.
It should depend upon the fair and impartial application of the law to all.
About SAFECHAIN™
SAFECHAIN™ is a safeguarding, governance, vulnerability, and institutional accountability architecture developed by Samantha Avril-Andreassen.
Through frameworks such as The Participation Gap™, The Passport of Erasure™, Institutional Failure Taxonomy™, Safeguarding Intelligence Model™, and the Family Justice Participation Framework™, SAFECHAIN™ examines how vulnerability interacts with systems and how institutions can strengthen participation, fairness, safeguarding, and accountability.
🌐 www.safe-chain.org
📧 samantha@safe-chain.org
© 2026 Samantha Avril-Andreassen. All rights reserved.