The Transparency Project is proud to launch its latest guidance note on the topic of domestic abuse today.
The guidance note will be launched formally at tonight’s Panel discussion : Allegations of domestic abuse : are family courts working for children & families?
Whether you are a parent in private law proceedings, or public law (care) proceedings,an allegation of domestic abuse can complicate the navigation of an already complex legal system. The alleged abuse may be current, or it may be historic. There may be evidence of the alleged abuse in police reports and hospital admissions, or it may be a case of “his word against hers”. The alleged abuser may be female or male. The arrangements made for children are often a central aspect of the dispute.
As Lucy Reed, Chair of the Transparency Project explains: “domestic abuse and how it is and should be handled by family courts is a complex and contentious issue. Our guidance note is aimed at helping those who may find themselves having to deal with these issues in a family court to know what to expect and what is expected of them. Although it is very familiar to the various professionals working within the family justice system, this process is not self-explanatory to the general public, and a basic understanding of that legal process is a core component of making it fair and of ensuring public confidence in how matters are resolved.”
The new Guidance note takes parents and professionals through the main aspects of how domestic abuse is dealt with in the family court, answering key questions and describing what may happen during a case. It is not legal advice and effort has been made to avoid jargon and to explain technical terms.
,Download the guidance note here.
Feature pic : Finger by Geoffrey Fairchild on Flickr (thanks)
Which family court does any of this ever happen in please?
The Guidance is designed to help families, and those who work with families, to navigate the complexities of the court process where domestic abuse is a factor.
Thank you Transparency Project, this is a very clear, well written document and I’m sure it will make a very positive contribution.
Thank you, very kind of you to say and we certainly hope so.
None of this happens. Court do absolutely nothing in fact go out of their way to add to the abuse, by not acknowledging its presence. Which is actually abusive in itself. No fact finding, no separate rooms, no separate entrances or exits – all asked for – more than once.
I am really sorry that this was your experience. Part of the reason behind the Guidance is to empower families with the knowledge and tools to help make this process less distressing. I accept and acknowledge the court process is unhelpful at times, but this is partly why we have written this; to help.
I’m sorry I only got to page 20 then couldn’t read anymore. In a perfect court that so far I haven’t heard anyone tell me they have been to maybe these guidance notes are put in place. The reality is very different. PD12J is not followed, victims of domestic abuse are blamed. Contact is at all costs and if the victim does not encourage the terrified child to go to the abusive parent, residence is changed. This is the reality. Sorry, I can’t sugarcoat it.
I appreciate that this has been your experience and I’m really sorry you’ve been through this. We are trying, however, with the Guidance to help make this process easier and less distressing for all parties. The system is not perfect which is why we’ve written the Guidance.
I really appreciate all the hard work the transparancy project does. Keep going.
Thank you – that’s really appreciated.
The arrangements made for children are usually to push unsafe contact and threaten the victim with loss of residence, to disbelieve or minimise abuse and further traumatise the victims, including children. Most cases that end up in court will be about abuse but courts seems to only see this as a relationship problem, not a perpetrator problem. It doesn’t seem to be known knowledge that two thirds of domestic abusers will alos abuse the children. So far all the ‘reforms’ have made no difference to attitudes of professionals, parent victims are treated badly and children are left to deal with abuse in silence because those who have the power to protect them didn’t believe them.
Sadly I can’t see any guidance note changing the attitudes of professionals
We agree that the system needs reform and we know some families to have had poor experiences within the court process. I take on board your point about changing attitudes, but if we don’t at least try – which we have done by writing the Guidance – then certainly nothing will ever change.
Hi Erica – I’m sorry to hear that this is your experience. For me this highlights that we are all seeing different aspects of the Family Justice ‘system’ in isolation and from different perspectives. What is needed I believe is a much clearer proposition for parents & children about what ‘normal’ or perhaps more appropriately ‘ good enough’ arrangements should be. The threshold for what constitutes domestic violence and abuse is also impossibly wide – ranging from serious physical assault by one parent in front of the children – through to an individual making an allegation that they are being harassed by the other parent seeking child contact and the psychological abuse of the child through Parental Alienation to ‘get revenge’ over the other parent. I hear every single day the phrase ‘She’s told me I’ll never see the kids again’. I’m confident that Women’s Aid staff will hear ‘He’s taking me to Court to continue his abuse of me’. What is needed is a plan – a routemap that enables parents to better understand what arrangements are empirically shown to benefit children and a clear idea of thresholds and what Courts will almost certainly order UNLESS sufficient evidence is brought forward to prove that one parent should be excluded because their involvement would harm the child. I would suggest that we already know that threshold – which should be the same as the threshold to remove children from their parents.
This is a very thoughtful and helpful document, thank you warmly
But four points points, the last one of which I hope to raise this evening, if called.
It is very much a document about what should happen, and indeed it does sometimes, especially in higher courts and when both parties are either equipped or helped to deal with things ‘professionally’. Frankly it often does not happen, especially probably in front of magistrates.
Secondly, a minor point. You refer to fathers groups. There may be some such, but they are minor and mostly fading memories. The charity with some presence, in which I am an activist, is Families Need Fathers. This is actually a child welfare group whose niche is helping children get the relationship with BOTH their parents which will promote their welfare, unless there is a reason otherwise. And that, obviously, can be domestic violence and abuse.
The third is that there is a lot said about the views of those who have suffered abuse. Absolutely legitimately. Less said about about the perspective and sometime experience of those accused. There should be no brief for those rightly accused. But there is an underdeveloped perspective, of those who feel that accusations are weaponised in what are often conflicts between the parents.
The last point is the most important one. It is that there are some routes to legal aid that require little more than allegations. This immediately skews the hearings in that the person accused is rarely not at a disadvantage and is sometimes frankly helpless. Trials are not fair and the losers are the children.
Evidence for your assertion about magistrates?
Thanks once more to the Transparency Project for bringing forward guidance in this complex area. Sadly I am not able to attend the launch event tonight.
I do feel that this guidance – like some of the others produced by the project – is too long for litigants to really take on board.
Not having read the full text in detail I think there are some issues I’d flag up
1. Coercive and controlling behaviour – I believe more explanation and understanding of the concept would be valuable. This is of course not the criminal offence (under s76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015) but a pattern of behaviour set out in UK Govt guidance and PD12J. Child contact denial – including threats such as ‘Mess me about and you’ll never see the children again’ would be a perfect example of coercive behaviour and I feel that should be stated explicitly
2. Inequality of arms –several times references are made to domestic violence agencies or services on the one hand and father’s or parent’s rights groups on the other as though there was an equality of arms between them. We know that the overwhelming majority of ‘DV organisations’ are feminist services set up to support women. I presume the ‘fathers rights groups’ you refer to is intended to encompass FNF / F4J etc. DV services are well funded and increasingly their staff are supporting mothers in the Family Court as professional McKenzie Friends.
3. Legal Aid – contrary to the impression you create Legal Aid is NOT restricted to individuals who have experienced genuine DV. The Regulations provide for access to funding for those ‘at risk’ of domestic violence and abuse. Our charity in Wales has established a service to assist men to access Legal Aid and we are in the process of rolling that out into England – hopefully initially in Bristol.
Good luck with the event tonight – I hope that it sparks renewed interest in this area and a discussion about the madness of a system designed by lawyers for lawyers continuing to operate in an environment which- to quote the last President Sir James Munby – has become a ‘lawyer free zone’.
I appreciate the opportunity to have open debate, yet many questions remain unanswered for me. The PD12J document was not followed in my case, had it been there may well have been a very different outcome. Following that document as intended would most likely have protected me and my children, but the judge used his discretion to not follow it. Guidelines on paper are great, but if they are not referred to or followed there is nothing you can do.
CAFCASS declined to follow the Domestic Abuse pathway. Again, if used, it may well have been a different outcome. Again, if they choose not to follow it at their own discretion, there is nothing you can do.
There is nothing you can do if these professionals perjure themselves in court. In my case, the CAFCASS officer said on oath she ‘must have’ followed the pathway, and the judge said because she said she had we had to take it that she had, despite their being no evidence of this, it was not referred to in the section 7, and they have been unable to produce the risk assessments that would have been done had this been the case.
No-one wanted to see the evidence. CAFCASS said they don’t look at evidence… but then they write an ‘evidence-based’ report… on what evidence it’s not clear.
We had a support worker from Children’s Services in our home every week for two years, yet CAFCASS’ two hour observation trumps sustained professional observations which were not even looked at.
If a party lies in court and you can prove it, you are not allowed to prove it and refer to your evidence.
With regards to legal aid, I had a legal aid certificate but was unable to access a legal aid solicitor so had to self-represent as a chronically ill person. How can that be justice?
in my case, the judge laughed at me for being on legal aid in the court room in front of my abuser. And there is nothing you can do about it.
In court, an oath is taken to tell the truth, but it seems telling the truth is not what the court wants. The abused are afraid to tell the truth because often times their voice is not heard, or diminished, or used against them. This is happening on a rampant scale across the country. Sometimes fear is used that you will lose your children if you tell the truth. Fear is not justice.
If you point out CAFCASS’ failings, it is used against you in the court system. You should have a right to complain without it being used against you. You should have a right to ask for a change of FCA for a second opinion.
This is a very helpful note.
One issue that I think is worth bringing out further is the brief summary of the consequences of False Allegations.
In my experience, and in that of those I know, making false allegations seems essentially to be a one way bet. There is no moral hazard to it.
Indeed if you look at the part of the note covering this, it’s pretty waffle-y and ill-defined compared to the rest of the document, which suggests that this is not an uncommon experience.
If you’re a parent and you’re trying to stop children seeing the other parent then making allegations can bring all contact to a screeching halt ( see for example https://twitter.com/SVPhillimore/status/1067021757377335297 or alternatively everything is moved to a contact centre, or in my cases no contact followed by contact in social service own offices ) as investigations and court hearings slowly, oh so slowly, proceed. If matters were progressed rapidly, then I guess it would be less painful, but of course they don’t and matters drag out.
Rather like enforcement of breaches Family Courts seem concerned for the future, not punishment for the past. In my case the Court made their displeasure about false allegations clear by simply saying “don’t do it again”. In the meantime however the children had to rebuild their relationship with me.
It’s looks like a a one way bet: if you get away with it, well done you – you’ve locked the other parent out of the children’s lives, if you don’t, well never mind. Where is the deterrent against making that bet? And inevitably people talk, people understand what others get away with.
Is there any research on what really happens when false allegations have been made? Or is my experience of “we’re all meant to get on and look to the future” normal?