When the Family Court Process Becomes Part of the Harm: Domestic Abuse, Solicitors’ Letters and Litigation Pressure

A recent LinkedIn post by Hana Sakkal challenged family-law professionals to consider the human consequences of their correspondence with domestic-abuse survivors and litigants in person. Her observations about Friday-afternoon emails, disproportionate queries, artificial urgency and dismissive language warrant serious examination.

This article develops that conversation in JSH Law’s own evidence-led analysis. It does not suggest that every robust legal letter is abusive, or that a disputed allegation should be treated as a judicial finding.

The Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s research: what 87% actually means

The Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s October 2025 report, Everyday Business identified domestic abuse as an issue in 87% of closed child-arrangements case files reviewed and 73% of cases observed. The pilot study examined nearly 300 files and observed nearly 100 hearings across three Family Court sites.

The figures do not mean that domestic abuse was judicially proved in 87% of cases. Cases were counted where abuse had been raised by a party or professional. Nor is the three-site pilot a definitive national prevalence estimate. What it does provide is evidence of the scale of safeguarding questions confronting the system and the risks of minimising patterns of coercive control.

The Ministry of Justice’s response, published in June 2026, addresses the Commissioner’s recommendations. That does not remove the need for scrutiny of practice in individual proceedings.

When can ordinary correspondence become another source of pressure?

A court process can be legitimate and still be exhausting. An adverse allegation can be properly advanced and still cause distress. The important questions are purpose, relevance, proportionality, truthfulness and the cumulative pattern. The impact on the recipient is relevant, but distress alone does not establish misconduct or abuse.

One late Friday letter does not, by itself, demonstrate coercive control. An urgent safeguarding issue or a genuine court deadline may require an immediate message. But repeated unnecessary demands, unreasonable response times and unsupported threats should not be dismissed as ordinary professional behaviour merely because they appear on legal letterhead.

The useful evidence is not simply a pile of messages. It is a dated record explaining what happened, why the communication may have been unnecessary or misleading, how it relates to the actual proceedings, and what can properly be proved.

What does professional regulation require of solicitors?

The SRA’s Conduct in Disputes guidance draws attention to paragraph 1.2 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors: solicitors must not abuse their position by taking unfair advantage of clients or others. The SRA specifically calls for care in dealings with unrepresented or vulnerable opponents.

Its examples of problematic conduct include artificially short or wholly unnecessary deadlines, excessively legalistic correspondence intended to intimidate, aggressive language and exaggerated adverse consequences. Solicitors also owe duties of independence, integrity and candour to the court. They cannot automatically justify oppressive methods by saying they were acting on instructions.

However, professional independence does not mean abandoning properly arguable claims, agreeing to every extension or withholding relevant evidence. The other party is also entitled to procedural fairness. Firm advocacy and humane conduct are entirely compatible.

Domestic abuse should not automatically be reframed as parental conflict

A description of two parents as being in conflict may fail to capture a pattern of coercive or controlling behaviour. Post-separation abuse can arise without frequent direct contact. Equally, disagreement and mutual hostility do not establish domestic abuse by themselves. Allegations must be assessed against evidence and the legal requirements.

Practice Direction 12J governs relevant child-arrangements proceedings where domestic abuse is alleged, admitted or there is other reason to believe it may have occurred. It directs a holistic approach to alleged patterns of controlling or coercive behaviour, rather than treating each event in isolation.

A separate fact-finding hearing is not automatic. Under PD12J paragraphs 16–18, the court considers whether findings are needed and proportionate for welfare and risk assessment, including the admissions and other evidence available. Where it decides against a separate fact-finding hearing, its order must record reasons.

Children must not be forgotten

Section 3 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 recognises a child as a victim for the purposes of that Act where the child sees, hears or experiences the effects of domestic abuse and the statutory family relationship conditions are satisfied. That provision does not itself prove that abuse occurred in a particular family.

In private children proceedings the child’s welfare is paramount under section 1 of the Children Act 1989. Wishes and feelings must receive proper weight in the welfare assessment, alongside risk, harm, age, understanding and the other statutory considerations. A child should not bear responsibility for resolving adult disputes.

What should a litigant in person do if letters feel like intimidation?

Do not disregard a genuine court direction because the accompanying letter is distressing. Deal with the actual procedural requirements while preserving a factual record of any questionable conduct.

1. Identify the source of the deadline. Check whether it comes from a sealed order, a procedural rule, an urgent welfare issue or merely a request by the sender.
2. Preserve original communications. Keep the complete email chain and attachments, dates and context. Do not publish private children’s proceedings documents online.
3. Create a concise evidence log. Record what was asked, the relevance, your response, any objection and any measurable impact. Keep fact and interpretation separate.
4. Answer necessary points proportionately. Ask for clarification or a justified extension rather than responding emotionally to every accusation.
5. Raise procedural unfairness through the correct route. Depending on the order and issue, seek case-management directions or consider an appropriate application with proper service.
6. Prioritise safety. Where harassment, stalking, threats or urgent harm arise, seek appropriate domestic-abuse assistance, regulated legal advice or emergency help.

A proportionate reply: illustrative wording

Can the court make arrangements for vulnerable parties?

Family Procedure Rules Part 3A and Practice Direction 3AA govern vulnerability and participation directions. Depending on the facts, measures may include arrangements to reduce intimidation and enable meaningful participation. The court must consider the applicable criteria and the views of the person concerned; special measures are not automatic.

Separate waiting facilities and screens should not be presumed tactical, but neither should any requested measure be granted without assessment. If participation is affected, explain what makes it difficult, the evidence where appropriate and the particular measure that would help.

Keep requests focused on the next decision, the child’s welfare and the fairness of the process. The court is not assisted by allegations of professional wrongdoing detached from the material evidence and the order sought.

The JSH Law six-question check

This is a practical preparation framework, not a statutory legal test. Before replying to correspondence, ask:

1. What exactly am I being asked to do?
2. Which court order, rule or genuine need supports the request?
3. What are the original documents and factual evidence?
4. Is this an isolated disagreement or a demonstrable pattern?
5. What safeguarding or participation issue genuinely needs judicial consideration?
6. What is the shortest accurate, calm response that protects my position?

For adjacent practical guidance, read JADEing and Coercive Control, Co-Parenting App Harassment and How to Redact Family Court Documents Safely.

Frequently asked questions

Is it unlawful for a solicitor to email late on a Friday?

No general rule prohibits it. The question is whether timing, content and urgency are reasonable in context. A time-sensitive filing or safety issue may justify immediate correspondence.

Do I have to respond to a solicitor’s artificial deadline?

A solicitor’s requested date is not necessarily a court-imposed deadline. But do not ignore a genuine rule or court order. Clarify the basis, protect any procedural deadline and ask for reasonable time where appropriate.

Can I complain about unfair correspondence?

You may raise a substantiated professional-conduct issue with the solicitor, their firm or the SRA as appropriate. A complaint does not replace a court application, alter an order or establish that domestic abuse occurred.

Must the Family Court hold a fact-finding hearing if abuse is alleged?

No. PD12J requires the court to consider whether findings are necessary and proportionate for safe welfare decision-making. A reasoned decision against a separate hearing is possible where an adequate factual basis already exists.

Can I request screens or other measures as a litigant in person?

Yes. Explain why vulnerability may affect your participation and what would help. The court will apply the relevant Part 3A and PD3AA criteria.

Acknowledgement and primary sources

This article was inspired by the public LinkedIn commentary of Hana Sakkal, who writes about domestic abuse, post-separation experiences and family justice. Her invitation to legal professionals to consider the necessity and effects of correspondence is the starting point for JSH Law’s independent legal analysis. Readers can also read Hana’s related post about Friday-afternoon legal correspondence. No endorsement of this JSH Law article is implied.

• Domestic Abuse Commissioner — Everyday Business (October 2025)
• Ministry of Justice — response to the report (June 2026)
• SRA — Conduct in Disputes
• Practice Direction 12J — Domestic Abuse and Harm
• Family Procedure Rules Part 3A — Vulnerable Persons
• Domestic Abuse Act 2021, section 3