Family law is undergoing a major shift with the rollout of the Child Focused Court (CFC) in England and Wales. The system, which prioritizes speed and early intervention, has been introduced to handle disputes between parents more efficiently. However, as the process expands, some legal professionals are raising concerns about a potential side effect: “over-correcting” in an attempt to address past failures in handling domestic abuse, which could inadvertently harm families.
The CFC represents a significant change from the previous Child Arrangements Programme (CAP). The new approach relies on front-loaded investigations by CAFCASS officers, who produce a Child Impact Report (CIR) early in the process. This report outlines recommendations for the child’s care based on the officers’ findings. In cases involving allegations of harm, Independent Domestic Violence Advocates (IDVAs) are brought in to conduct risk assessments. The goal is to resolve cases faster and reduce the need for lengthy fact-finding hearings.
Related: Direct Access Market Shift: Has the Bar Kept Up
Under the new system, cases are often resolved in a single hearing. This decision-making process typically happens on the papers, with limited oral evidence. Judges or legal advisers review the CIR and may hold a short decision hearing to finalize arrangements. Proponents argue this model is kinder and cheaper than traditional litigation. Yet, the reliance on a single report created by social workers and IDVAs introduces a different set of challenges.
The Risk of Over-Correcting
The core concern is that the system may be treating allegations as facts before they have been tested in court. Historically, courts have been criticized for not taking allegations of abuse seriously enough. The new reforms aim to fix that by ensuring allegations are “taken at their highest.” While this protects victims, it can also lead to drastic protective measures that are enacted before the truth is determined.
These protective steps often involve removing a child from one parent entirely or relocating the family to a refuge. In some instances, parents and children have even moved countries to escape the perceived danger. While these actions are often well-intentioned and necessary in confirmed abuse cases, they can cause significant harm when the allegations turn out to be false or exaggerated. A child subjected to these upheavals may develop a deep-seated fear of the accused parent, viewing them as a danger rather than a parent. The resulting instability can leave lasting psychological scars that persist even after the truth is revealed.
Related: How to Maximize Your Settlement With a Car Accident Attorney
There is a practical risk here, too. The CFC is designed to be fast. Consequently, reports sometimes contain language that resembles a finding of fact, though it is merely a risk assessment. With the system expanding and an increasing number of cases heard by lay magistrates, there is a fear that these unchallenged findings could go unnoticed. If the court relies on a single report that contains definitive judgments about a parent’s character, the system risks delivering injustice based on incomplete information.
Keeping the Balance
The author suggests that the Family Court must not choose between protecting victims and maintaining procedural fairness. The legitimacy of the system depends on balancing these two objectives. As the reforms become embedded, legal professionals need to be cautious. They must distinguish between a risk assessment and a factual finding. Professionals must remain skeptical and maintain “professional curiosity” even when allegations are serious, ensuring that they do not inadvertently validate a lie or punish a parent without evidence.