The Problematic Pro-contact Model in the Family Court
Across Western Societies, a predominant belief prevails in family courts: that maintaining contact with non-residential parents, typically fathers, is inherently beneficial for children.
This pro-contact ideology has become deeply entrenched, often overshadowing pressing concerns about child safety and wellbeing.
In my experience, this pro-contact culture often leads to the marginalisation of significant issues, including domestic violence and child abuse.
The underlying assumption is that any opposition to continued fathering, except in proven cases of physical or sexual violence, stems from implacable hostility rather than legitimate protective concerns.
This perspective not only fails to recognise the complexities of family dynamics but also risks the safety of children and the aggrieved parent.
In many instances, the unyielding belief in the benefits of contact with fathers leads to the overlooking of safeguarding concerns.
Even when children express experiences of violence, these are often sidelined in favour of preserving paternal relationships.
This trend is alarming, as it systematically undermines the voices and safety of those most vulnerable.
