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.
The Ongoing Violence in Post-separation Contact
The simple fact is that abusers often use contact as a means to exert power, not only over their children but also as a continued form of coercion against their former partners.
This manipulation can range from overt aggression during custody exchanges to subtle emotional abuse, with children often caught in the crossfire.
For victims of domestic abuse, both adults and children, being compelled to interact with their abuser can be traumatising.
This trauma is then compounded when courts, driven by a pro-contact agenda, dismiss concerns about safety and psychological wellbeing.
A critical flaw in the pro-contact model is the assumption of parental equality, which fails to account for the fact that not all parents, especially those with a history of violence, are equally equipped to provide a safe and nurturing environment for their children.
The model’s blanket application can inadvertently place children in harmful situations, under the misguided belief that contact with both parents is always beneficial.
Addressing this issue demands a shift towards more context-sensitive approaches in family court rulings.
For this to be possible though, family court professionals need to be able to recognise and to be actively looking for signs of manipulation and control, alongside understanding the long-term psychological impact on children who witness or experience abuse.
Invisible Male Violence in Family Courts
Alongside more overt forms of violence (physical / sexual violence or abuse), the often unseen violence in the family court can also include coercive control, financial manipulation, verbal intimidation, and the use of children as leverage.
The crux of the problem here, lies in the discrepancy between the court’s perceptions and the lived realities of victims.
Courts, bound by legal frameworks and evidence requirements, often struggle to recognise and adequately respond to these nuanced forms of violence.
As a result, male aggression can be minimised or dismissed, particularly when it lacks physical evidence.
Systemic biases within the judiciary further compound the issue. There exists a prevailing tendency to view male violence through a lens of scepticism or disbelief.
In my experiences family court judges and legal professionals are often ignorant of the statistics which demonstrate the widespread nature of familial violence, predominantly at the hands of men.
This is then compounded by widespread misconceptions about the nature of abuse, where unless it is overtly physical, it is not deemed as serious.
Such biases not only invalidate the experiences of victims but also embolden abusers.
Custody arrangements, visitation rights, and protective orders are often determined without fully considering the subtleties of abuse.
Victims also face an uphill battle in proving non-physical forms of violence, with the onus often falling on them to provide evidence of abuse — a task made all the more challenging given the covert nature of such violence.
This requirement can retraumatise victims, who are often already ill positioned to provide such (because of the abuse), and forces them to relive their experiences while grappling with a system that may not fully understand or acknowledge their plight.
Addressing invisible male violence necessitates a holistic approach.
Family courts must broaden their understanding of abuse, acknowledging that violence manifests in various forms.
Training for legal professionals in identifying and responding to non-physical abuse is critical, alongside the creation of supportive environments for victims, where their experiences are validated, and their voices are heard.
Reassessing Shared Care in the Context of Violence
In many family court decisions, the notion of shared care is also pursued as a normative ideal, ostensibly offering children the best of both parental worlds.
However, this presumption also overlooks the reality that equitable access does not always equate to safe or healthy environments for children.
In scenarios where one parent has a history of violence, the imposition of shared care can inadvertently expose children to ongoing harm and trauma.
The emotional and psychological impact on children in shared care arrangements, where one parent is abusive, is often also profound.
These children often live in a state of constant anxiety, torn between loyalty to both parents and the fear of violence from one.
The court’s well-intentioned pursuit of fairness can thus result in a situation where children’s emotional needs and safety are compromised.
Where coercive control is an element of the abuse, abusive parent may use the shared care arrangement as a means to continue exerting control and manipulation, not only over the children but also over the other parent.
This dynamic can perpetuate the cycle of abuse, leaving the victimised parent and children in a state of ongoing victimisation.
One of the critical challenges in reassessing shared care in the context of violence is the accurate assessment of risk.
Courts must navigate complex situations, often with limited information about the day-to-day interactions within families.
This difficulty is compounded by the fact that manifestations of violence and abuse can be subtle and not always evident in legal proceedings.
Again, to address these challenges effectively, there is a need for specialised training for legal professionals, including judges, lawyers, and child welfare experts.
Such training should focus on understanding the dynamics of domestic violence, recognising the signs of coercive control, and assessing the psychological impact on children.
Increased awareness and expertise in these areas would enable more informed and nuanced decision-making in shared care arrangements.
The pro-contact model in family courts, while rooted in the intention of preserving parental bonds, often overlooks the complexities and dangers inherent in cases of domestic violence and abuse.
A shift towards a more nuanced, safety-oriented approach is imperative.
This change must prioritise the voices and wellbeing of children and victims, ensuring that their safety and psychological health are at the forefront of all decisions.
