Thread by @CCChatMagazine

Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Children Cases - Final Report.

A summary - THREAD

#familycourt
#domesticabuse

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…

This report reflects findings from 1,200 responses from individuals/organisations across England/Wales, together with roundtables/ focus groups held with professionals, parents and children with experience of family courts. Most of the evidence received focused on domestic abuse.

It provides an unprecedented of how effectively #familycourts identify and respond to allegations of domestic abuse and other serious offences, in cases involving disputes between parents about the arrangements for their children, known as ‘private law children proceedings’.

It makes findings in relation to both processes and outcomes of both parties and children involved in such proceedings, drawing conclusions from individual submissions from those with personal experience in private law children proceedings, including victims of domestic abuse.

While the panel was unable to review individual case files, evidence from the call for evidence, roundtables and focus groups has been supplemented with a literature review and a review of relevant case law.

Why change is needed

Every day, some of the most vulnerable people in our society come before the #familycourts, where difficult decisions are made in often highly emotive cases, and so it is crucial that the system is able to protect them from further harm and the risk of harm.

The Children’s Act 1989 requires the court to give paramount consideration to the welfare of the child.

Despite this, evidence demonstrates continuing concerns around how family court recognises/responds to allegations of/proven harm to children & victim parents in private law.

Whilst there is good practice and good intentions from those working under increasing pressure within the family justice system, it has also unveiled deep-seated and systematic issues that were found to affect how risk to both children and adults is identified and managed.

Concerns include children’s voices not being heard, allegations being ignored, dismissed or disbelieved, inadequate assessment of risk, traumatic court processes, perceived unsafe child arrangements, abusers exercising continued control via repeat litigation or threat of it.

The panel found these issues were underpinned by the following key themes in the evidence that was reviewed:

1. Inadequate resources available to keep up with increasing demand in private law children proceedings, and more parties are coming to court unrepresented.

2. Respondents felt that courts placed undue priority on ensuring contact with the non-resident parent, which resulted in systemic minimisation of allegations of domestic abuse.

3. Working in silos.
Different approaches/culture between criminal justice, child protection (public law) and private law children proceedings, and lack of communication and coordination between family courts/other courts/agencies leading to contradictory decisions and confusion

4. An adversarial system.
Parents placed in opposition on what is often not a level playing field in cases involving domestic abuse, child sexual abuse and self- representation, with little or no involvement of the child.

Victims faced a number of barriers to raising domestic abuse:

The pro-contact culture highlighted a resulting lack of understanding of the different forms that domestic abuse takes, and of the ongoing impacts of abuse on children and victim parent.

- systematic minimisation or disbelief of abuse, and the acceptance of counter-allegations without robust scrutiny

Evidencing abuse;

victims reported difficulties evidencing abuse, particularly where there was a focus on single incidents or recent physical abuse, and where they encountered stereotypical views of how an ‘ideal victim’ should behave.

Silo working

can result in evidence of abuse accepted in one system, for example the criminal courts, not being acknowledged or effectively engaged with in the family court.

There are particular barriers for victims of Black, Asian and other minority backgrounds in raising domestic abuse; victims and the professionals supporting them perceived these barriers as involving racism, in addition to sexism and class prejudice.

Male victims also face particular barriers, with some respondents highlighting that stereotypes about ‘real’ victims present an obstacle to being believed.

Children’s Voices-
The evidence from both research and submissions suggests that too often the voices of children go unheard or are muted in various ways where domestic abuse was raised.

Large proportion of children have no direct involvement in the family court process, with parents or carers being relied upon to represent their views. There were a number of barriers to children being able to effectively communicate their views.

Submissions noted that maximising time spent with children
is important to developing relationships of trust, it was reported that professionals have limited time, and where consultation does take place, this is usually brief.

Children rarely consulted once an order has made.

Inadequate resources can inhibit the extent to which children are involved in proceedings.
SELECTIVE LISTENING-
children who wish to have contact with non-resident parent heard but those who do not wish to have contact are not heard or pressured to change their views.

- Failure to engage effectively with organisations that had established strong relationships with child and may have a more in-depth knowledge of their individual circumstances.

- Complexity of case requires both time and skill.

Evidence suggested significant negative impacts to children being unheard during proceedings.

Children can be left feeling let down or suspicious of authorities, and trust in the court system can be eroded due to a child’s negative experiences.

How allegations are dealt with:

Practice Direction 12J (PD12J) of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 provides detailed guidelines on the actions a court is required to take following allegations of domestic abuse in a child arrangements case.

Evidence raised concerns that PD12J is not operating as intended and is being implemented inconsistently.

🚩🚩Safety and experiences at court 🚩🚩

Regardless of the outcome of the case, victims generally reported not feeling safe at court and the evidence submitted suggested that they often found that the court proceedings themselves had been re-traumatising.

Each stage of the journey through private law children proceedings (getting to court, court building itself, in courtroom and returning to court to respond to repeat applications) brought with it specific safety issues, which involved:

Physical security

- with many proceedings in the family court
often not accompanied by the adequate provision of special measures, leaving victims vulnerable to intimidation and physical attack.

Psychological wellbeing

- participating in proceedings/ giving evidence can be re-traumatising. This is currently not properly addressed.

Litigants in person.

The impact on litigants in person has been identified as
PARTICULARLY ACUTE with regard to safety and security, as they lack knowledge of what’s available and the rules.

Direct cross-examination

- A victim may face the prospect of being cross-examined by their abuser, in cases where an abuser is representing themselves, or of having to cross-examine their abuser where they are themselves a litigant in person.

Barring Orders-

Evidence suggested orders made under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 ineffective in protecting victims from further abuse through repeated applications for child arrangements orders.

🚩🚩🚩Co-parenting is promoted.🚩🚩🚩

- Many respondents reported that regardless of the particular circumstances, even where the most serious allegations of domestic abuse were raised, courts expected that parents would work together to facilitate contact arrangements.

Victims of abuse may feel pressured to agree to orders even when they do not consider them to be safe.

Review hearings, which might provide a check on the workability and safety of orders, are discouraged and rarely take place.

Despite PD12J, respondents felt there was little difference in the orders made between cases that did and did not feature domestic abuse. The courts almost always ordered some form of contact, frequently unrestricted, without requiring an alleged abuser to address their behaviour

Respondents felt orders made by court enabled continued control of children/adult victims by alleged abusers, as well as continuing abuse of victims and children.

Many detailed long-term impacts manifesting in physical, emotional, psychological, financial and educational harm.

Many felt the level of abuse they and their children experienced worsened following proceedings in the family court.
Concerns that efforts to report continuing abuse treated dismissively by criminal justice/child welfare agencies because of the family court orders.

Many highlighted negative impacts felt by children compelled to have contact with abusive parents, and the burden placed on mothers and children to comply with contact orders compared to MINIMAL EXPECTATIONS ON PERPETRATORS OF ABUSE TO CHANGE THEIR BEHAVIOUR minimal expectations.

Many felt that negative long-term impacts to children’s wellbeing from continued contact with an abusive parent vastly outweighed the value of an ongoing relationship with that parent.

Recommendations range from legislative amendments to improved training.

MoJ will work with partners across the family justice system to take forward these recommendations, with initial work set out in the accompanying implementation plan.

Link: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…

To include piloting investigative approach in child arrangements cases, seeking to improve coordination between jurisdictions/agencies, enhancing voice of the child, better training, and the introduction of new design principles for private law children proceedings.

END