The Bureau of Investigative Journalism has just dropped a bombshell report that should have every parent: fathers and mothers alike: questioning how our family courts really operate. Their "Everyday Business" investigation reveals that domestic abuse evidence appears in a staggering 87% of private family law cases, yet the system's response raises more questions than answers.
But here's what we need to dig deeper into: Who exactly is being accused of abuse, and why are courts failing to distinguish between harm to a parent versus actual risk to children?
The Numbers Don't Tell the Whole Story
The TBIJ report, based on 300 family case files and nearly 100 live hearings across England and Wales, paints a picture that demands scrutiny. While 87% of cases contained evidence of domestic abuse, the report reveals something crucial that often gets overlooked in these discussions: counter-allegations were common, with 22% of cases featuring cross-allegations of domestic abuse.
This means both parents were accusing each other of abuse in nearly a quarter of cases. So when we hear that alarming 87% figure, we need to ask: Are we seeing genuine protection concerns, or are we witnessing the weaponisation of abuse allegations in bitter custody battles?
The Court's Confusing Response to Abuse Allegations
Here's where things get really troubling. Despite evidence of domestic abuse in the vast majority of cases, more than half still resulted in unsupervised overnight contact with the allegedly abusive parent. This contradiction should concern every parent navigating the family court system.
The research found that judges consistently treated no-contact orders as a "last resort," even in cases involving serious abuse allegations. But this raises a fundamental question that the report doesn't adequately address: If abuse allegations are so prevalent, why aren't courts conducting more thorough investigations to separate genuine safety concerns from tactical accusations?
The Missing Piece: Evidence vs. Allegation
One critical flaw in how we discuss these statistics is the failure to distinguish between evidence of abuse and proven abuse. The TBIJ report notes that evidence of domestic abuse was found in 87% of case files, but evidence can include witness statements, allegations, and claims: not necessarily proven facts.
Nicole Jacobs, the domestic abuse commissioner, states that "no child should be forced to spend time with an abusive parent." We absolutely agree. But equally, no safe parent should be denied meaningful time with their child based on unproven allegations.
The Pro-Contact Culture vs. Child Safety Balance
The report criticises what it calls a "pro-contact culture" in family courts, where judges prioritise maintaining parent-child relationships over safety concerns. But let's examine this more carefully.
Is prioritising contact inherently wrong, or is the problem how courts assess risk?
The research shows that physical violence is generally recognised by courts, while coercive and controlling behaviour: criminal since 2015: is often dismissed or misunderstood. This suggests the issue isn't that courts want children to maintain relationships with both parents, but that they're failing to properly evaluate complex abuse dynamics.
When Abuse Towards One Parent Doesn't Equal Risk to Children
Here's a crucial distinction that rarely gets discussed: abuse between adults in a relationship doesn't automatically translate to risk for children during contact. A parent might be abusive towards their ex-partner but pose no direct threat to their children during supervised or structured contact arrangements.
Yet our current system seems to operate on an all-or-nothing approach. Either a parent is completely safe and gets overnight contact, or they're dangerous and should be restricted. Where's the nuanced thinking that could protect children while preserving important parent-child relationships?
Consider this scenario: A father was emotionally abusive towards his ex-partner during their relationship but has never shown any concerning behaviour towards the children. Should he be denied overnight contact forever, or should courts focus on creating safe handover arrangements that protect the mother while maintaining his relationship with the children?
The Self-Representation Crisis
The report highlights a critical issue affecting both mothers and fathers: the exclusion from legal aid forcing many to represent themselves. Those without representation described feeling "like a rabbit in headlights."
This crisis hits fathers particularly hard. Men are statistically less likely to qualify for legal aid, more likely to be the non-resident parent fighting for contact, and often face an uphill battle in a system that many perceive as biased towards mothers' concerns.
When fathers represent themselves against legally-aided mothers supported by domestic violence organisations, how can we expect fair outcomes?
The Parental Alienation Red Herring
The research found explicit allegations of "parental alienation" in just 4% of live hearings, rising to 13% when including implicit allegations. These relatively low figures contradict narratives suggesting parental alienation claims are overwhelming family courts.
However, the report's own findings raise questions about whether courts are adequately recognising when children are being manipulated against a parent. If domestic abuse allegations are so prevalent, why aren't courts equally vigilant about emotional manipulation of children?
What Real Reform Would Look Like
The TBIJ report calls for urgent reform, and we agree: but true reform must address the system's fundamental flaws:
1. Proper Investigation Standards
- Thorough fact-finding hearings for all abuse allegations
- Expert assessment of risk to children vs. risk to ex-partners
- Clear timescales to prevent cases dragging on for years
2. Balanced Legal Support
- Equal access to legal aid regardless of gender
- Specialist training for judges on all forms of abuse
- Independent advocates for children in every case
3. Nuanced Contact Solutions
- Graduated contact arrangements based on specific risk assessments
- Safe handover facilities in every area
- Post-order monitoring to ensure arrangements work safely
The Question We Must Ask
As we digest these troubling findings, we need to demand better data and more honest discussions. The 87% figure is shocking, but without knowing how many allegations were proven, how many involved mutual accusations, and how many genuinely posed risks to children, we can't design effective solutions.
Are we protecting children, or are we allowing the system to be gamed by those who understand how to manipulate abuse allegations for tactical advantage?
Moving Forward Together
The family court system is failing everyone: mothers genuinely fleeing abuse, fathers falsely accused, and most tragically, the children caught in the middle. Real reform requires acknowledging that abuse can come from either parent and that protecting children means ensuring they have safe relationships with both parents whenever possible.
We need a system sophisticated enough to distinguish between:
- Proven abuse requiring protection
- Tactical allegations requiring investigation
- Risk to ex-partners vs. risk to children
- Safe contact arrangements that protect everyone involved
Join the Conversation
The TBIJ report should spark serious national debate about family court reform. Share this article, discuss these findings with your networks, and demand that politicians and policymakers address the fundamental flaws this research exposes.
Every child deserves protection from genuine abuse: and every safe parent deserves meaningful time with their children.
Fathers United. Rights Respected. Every Dad Matters.
What are your thoughts on these findings? Have you experienced the issues highlighted in this report? Join the conversation and help us push for the nuanced, evidence-based reforms our families desperately need.