If the Harm Is Integrated, the Court Response Must Be Too

Ontario’s Integrated Domestic Violence Court model should make England and Wales ask a difficult question: why are survivors and litigants in person still being forced to join up fragmented criminal and family court systems themselves?

This article was prompted by a LinkedIn post shared by Trish Guise MSc, MBA, discussing Ontario’s move toward an Integrated Domestic Violence Court model. The post immediately stood out because the same fragmentation problem is visible in England and Wales, particularly for litigants in person trying to navigate family court where coercive control, post-separation abuse and criminal proceedings overlap.

Ontario has just made a change that should make family justice reformers in England and Wales sit up and pay attention.

From 2 April 2026, certain criminal intimate partner violence cases in Toronto, where there are related family law proceedings, are being scheduled together in the Integrated Domestic Violence Court at 10 Armoury Street.

In practical terms, this means that eligible criminal domestic abuse cases and connected family law issues can be brought before one coordinated court process, with one judge case-managing the connected matters rather than survivors being forced to navigate fragmented proceedings in different places, with different professionals, different timetables, and sometimes completely different understandings of risk.

This matters.

It matters because survivors do not experience domestic abuse as a criminal file over here, a children case over there, a safeguarding concern somewhere else, and a protection issue sitting in another system altogether. They experience it as one lived reality. The legal system, however, often slices that reality into separate jurisdictions, separate applications, separate hearings, separate evidence bundles and separate narratives.

That fragmentation is not a minor administrative inconvenience. In coercive control cases, it can become part of the harm.

The Ontario Development: What Has Changed?

The Ontario Court of Justice has issued a Practice Direction confirming that, effective 2 April 2026, specified criminal intimate partner violence cases and related family law matters will be scheduled in the Integrated Domestic Violence Court in Toronto.

The key point is coordination. The model is designed for cases where there is both:

• a criminal intimate partner violence case; and
• a related family law matter involving issues under the relevant Ontario family law framework.

The Practice Direction is not a magic wand. It does not mean every domestic abuse case will be absorbed into one court. It does not mean all trials will be heard there. In fact, the Ontario direction makes clear that where there are triable issues under the Criminal Code, the Children’s Law Reform Act or the Family Law Act, the proceeding may be referred back to the originating court for trial.

The Integrated Domestic Violence Court is therefore best understood as a coordinated judicial case-management model for connected domestic abuse proceedings.

But even that is significant.

Because in domestic abuse cases, especially cases involving coercive control and post-separation abuse, judicial case management is not just about administrative efficiency. It is about pattern recognition. It is about risk. It is about whether the court understands the case as a whole, or whether it sees only disconnected fragments.

If the harm is integrated, the court response must be integrated too.

The Problem: Survivors Are Forced Through Fragmented Systems

In England and Wales, survivors of domestic abuse can find themselves dealing with several legal processes at the same time. For example:

• a criminal investigation or prosecution;
• bail conditions or restraining order issues;
• private law children proceedings under the Children Act 1989;
• non-molestation or occupation order proceedings;
• social care involvement;
• school or safeguarding concerns;
• financial control, housing insecurity or immigration issues;
• police disclosure requests in the family court;
• Cafcass safeguarding checks and reports;
• allegations of “parental alienation” or “implacable hostility” being raised in response to abuse allegations.

Each process may have its own language, threshold, burden of proof, timetable and culture. Criminal justice asks whether an offence can be proved. Family justice asks what arrangements are in the child’s welfare interests. Civil protective proceedings focus on risk and protection. Social care may focus on parenting capacity, child protection thresholds and safeguarding plans.

Those differences matter. But the problem is that the systems often do not communicate with each other properly.

The result is that survivors, many of whom are litigants in person, are left carrying the burden of joining up the evidence themselves. They are expected to explain the same history again and again. They are expected to remember dates, incidents, messages, patterns, threats, safeguarding reports, police logs, school issues and children’s reactions. They are expected to understand which evidence matters in which court. They are expected to know how to raise criminal bail conditions in family proceedings, how to ask for police disclosure, how to challenge a report, and how to frame coercive control as a pattern rather than a list of isolated incidents.

That is not access to justice. That is system navigation under trauma.

Fragmentation Minimises Coercive Control

Coercive control is not properly understood by looking at incidents in isolation. It is a pattern of domination, intimidation, restriction, surveillance, threat, punishment, manipulation and control. It often escalates after separation, precisely because the perpetrator has lost direct access to the victim.

In family court, that pattern can become dangerously blurred.

A survivor may describe years of control, intimidation and fear. The alleged perpetrator may present as calm, reasonable and child-focused. Professionals may see two parents in conflict and conclude that the case is “high conflict”. But “high conflict” and coercive control are not the same thing.

High conflict suggests mutual hostility. Coercive control involves a pattern of power, fear and domination.

That distinction matters because the wrong label leads to the wrong intervention.

If the court sees the case as mutual conflict, it may push for communication, co-parenting, mediation-style thinking, parental education, contact progression or “both parents need to move on” reasoning. If the court sees the case as coercive control, it should be asking different questions:

• What is the history of power and control?
• What happened during the relationship?
• What changed after separation?
• Has the family court process itself become a vehicle for continued control?
• Are repeated applications, emails, allegations, disclosure demands or contact disputes being used as litigation abuse?
• Are children being exposed directly or indirectly to fear, manipulation or emotional pressure?
• Are professionals seeing the full pattern or only the latest application?

That is why integrated case management matters. Not because it solves everything, but because it creates a better chance that someone in the system is holding the whole picture.

The UK Already Knows There Is a Problem

This is not a new issue in England and Wales.

The Ministry of Justice’s 2020 Harm Report examined how the family courts respond to allegations of domestic abuse and other serious harm in private law children cases. The report identified serious structural issues, including the way domestic abuse can be minimised in private law proceedings. It also recognised the problem of silo working.

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 gave England and Wales a statutory definition of domestic abuse that goes beyond physical violence and includes coercive or controlling behaviour, economic abuse, emotional abuse and psychological abuse. It also recognises children as victims of domestic abuse in their own right where they see, hear or experience the effects of abuse.

On paper, therefore, the legal framework has moved forward.

In practice, litigants in person still encounter a fragmented system.

That gap between legal recognition and courtroom reality is where much of the harm sits.

Pathfinder Is Not Enough If the System Remains Fragmented

The Pathfinder model, now being rolled out more widely under the language of “Child Focused Courts”, is an important development in private law children proceedings. It has been promoted as a less adversarial, more child-focused approach, with earlier information gathering and stronger attention to domestic abuse and safeguarding.

But Pathfinder is still primarily a family court reform.

It does not, on its own, solve the fragmentation between family court and criminal court. It does not automatically place criminal proceedings, police evidence, bail conditions, risk assessment, Cafcass safeguarding, domestic abuse support, children’s welfare, enforcement issues and litigation abuse before one coordinated judicial structure.

That is why the Ontario model is worth watching.

England and Wales should not simply copy and paste another jurisdiction’s approach. Our legal system is different. Our court structures are different. Our family and criminal jurisdictions operate differently. But the principle is directly relevant:

Where domestic abuse gives rise to linked criminal and family proceedings, the system should not require survivors and children to carry the burden of joining up the courts themselves.

Why This Matters So Much for Litigants in Person

For represented parties, fragmentation is difficult. For litigants in person, it can be devastating.

A solicitor can identify which court needs which document. A barrister can frame the relevance of criminal bail conditions to child arrangements. A legally trained advocate can explain why police disclosure is necessary before the court progresses contact. A specialist domestic abuse lawyer can challenge minimising language in a report. A professional can distinguish between isolated allegations and a pattern of coercive control.

A litigant in person is often expected to do all of that alone.

They may be traumatised. They may be frightened. They may be financially controlled. They may have children to protect. They may have no legal aid. They may be dealing with an alleged perpetrator who is calm, articulate and strategic. They may be accused of exaggerating, obstructing contact or failing to co-parent. They may be cross-referencing police incidents, WhatsApp messages, school concerns, GP notes, MARAC referrals, Cafcass safeguarding letters and court orders late at night, while trying to hold their life together.

That is the reality for many litigants in person.

And it is why system design matters.

A fragmented system favours the party with stamina, resources, confidence and procedural knowledge. In coercive control cases, that can mean the system unintentionally advantages the person already using process as power.

The Family Court Must Stop Treating Criminal Proceedings as Background Noise

One of the recurring problems in private law children proceedings is that criminal justice information is often treated as something separate, delayed or peripheral.

There may be an ongoing police investigation. There may be bail conditions. There may be a pending charging decision. There may be digital evidence. There may be body-worn camera footage, 999 calls, DASH risk assessments, officer notes, witness statements or admissions. But the family court timetable may continue moving.

In some cases, the family court is being asked to make decisions about children before the relevant criminal evidence has been obtained, understood or tested.

That is dangerous.

Not because every allegation is automatically proved. Not because the family court must wait indefinitely for the criminal process. Not because contact should be suspended forever simply because a criminal investigation exists.

But because risk cannot be properly assessed if the court refuses to look at the whole evidential landscape.

If a criminal case contains evidence relevant to coercive control, violence, threats, harassment, stalking, non-fatal strangulation, child exposure to abuse, breach of protective conditions or post-separation intimidation, that evidence may be directly relevant to welfare.

It is not background noise. It may be central.

The Same Judge Seeing the Whole Picture Is Not a Luxury

The idea of one judge seeing the connected picture is powerful because coercive control is cumulative.

A single judge who understands the linked family and criminal context is better placed to identify:

• inconsistent orders between courts;
• contact proposals that conflict with bail or protective conditions;
• risk minimisation in professional reports;
• litigation behaviour that mirrors the abuse pattern;
• repeated applications used as pressure;
• children being used as conduits for control;
• attempts to reframe abuse as parental conflict;
• whether professional intervention is reducing risk or simply moving the case along.

Domestic abuse cases require more than diary management. They require judicial memory. They require continuity. They require pattern recognition.

Too often, family court hearings are treated as isolated events. One judge deals with an urgent application. Another handles a directions hearing. Another hears a fact-finding issue. Another considers interim contact. Each judge sees part of the file. Each professional sees part of the picture. The survivor keeps having to start again.

That is not a trauma-informed system.

It is a system that repeatedly asks survivors to prove the same context to new people.

Coordination Alone Is Not Enough

There is an important caution here.

An integrated domestic abuse court is only as good as the understanding of the professionals within it.

If judges, lawyers, Cafcass officers, court staff, domestic abuse workers and liaison professionals do not understand coercive control, integration will not be enough. A coordinated court that still mislabels coercive control as conflict will simply process the wrong analysis more efficiently.

That is why any UK model must include specialist training in:

• coercive and controlling behaviour;
• post-separation abuse;
• litigation abuse;
• economic abuse;
• trauma presentation;
• risk assessment;
• child impact;
• perpetrator tactics;
• how abuse can be disguised as concern, reasonableness or child-focused litigation;
• the difference between conflict and coercive control;
• the limits of unsupported “parental alienation” narratives where abuse is alleged;
• how to scrutinise professional reports properly.

This cannot be tokenistic training. It cannot be a one-hour webinar and a laminated checklist. Coercive control is sophisticated. Perpetrators can be sophisticated. Court misuse can be sophisticated. The professional response must be equally sophisticated.

What a UK Integrated Domestic Abuse Court Model Could Look Like

A serious model for England and Wales would need more than branding. It would need structure.

At minimum, a proper integrated domestic abuse court pilot should consider the following features:

1. Linked Family and Criminal Case Identification

There should be a clear mechanism for identifying where parties have connected family and criminal proceedings. This should not depend solely on a distressed litigant in person telling each court what is happening elsewhere.

2. Judicial Continuity

Where domestic abuse and coercive control are alleged, judicial continuity should be treated as a safeguarding feature, not an administrative preference. The same judge, or a small specialist judicial team, should manage the linked proceedings where possible.

3. Domestic Abuse Liaison Support

The court should include trained domestic abuse liaison professionals who understand both court process and survivor safety. Their role should include signposting, safety planning, procedural navigation and coordination with community support services.

4. Early Evidence Mapping

At the start of the case, the court should identify what evidence exists across the systems: police logs, body-worn footage, bail conditions, MARAC information, GP records, school safeguarding material, social care documents, Cafcass safeguarding checks and digital communications.

5. Proper Police Disclosure Pathways

Police disclosure in family proceedings is often slow, inconsistent and poorly understood. A specialist integrated model should have clear disclosure pathways and realistic timetables so that family court decisions are not made in an evidential vacuum.

6. Specialist Risk Assessment

Risk should not be assessed merely by asking whether there has been a recent incident. Coercive control risk is often embedded in patterns: escalation, separation, threats, stalking, harassment, legal intimidation, financial pressure, child contact demands and breach behaviour.

7. Scrutiny of Reports

Cafcass, local authority and expert reports must be properly scrutinised. Reports should not be accepted simply because they carry professional letterhead. The court should ask whether the report writer has understood coercive control, whether they have considered the full evidence, whether they have minimised risk, and whether their recommendations are safe.

8. LiP-Friendly Procedure

If the model is not usable by litigants in person, it will fail the very people who need it most. Orders must be clear. Directions must be practical. Evidence requirements must be explained. Safety measures must be proactive. The court must not assume that a survivor can navigate multi-track proceedings alone.

9. No Automatic Push to Contact Progression

In domestic abuse cases, contact should not be progressed simply because time has passed or because the court wants momentum. Progression must be tied to safety, insight, accountability, child welfare and evidence.

10. Accountability and Data

A UK pilot must publish meaningful data. Not just speed. Not just disposal rates. Not just how quickly cases conclude. The court must measure safety, recurrence, breach, survivor experience, child outcomes, re-litigation and whether allegations of domestic abuse were properly identified and addressed.

Speed Is Not the Same as Justice

This point matters.

There is a real risk that court reform becomes obsessed with speed. Faster hearings. Faster reports. Faster disposal. Faster case closure.

But a fast unsafe decision is not justice.

For survivors and children, the question is not simply “how quickly was the case resolved?” The question is:

• Was the risk understood?
• Was the evidence properly gathered?
• Was coercive control recognised?
• Were children protected?
• Was the survivor heard without being retraumatised?
• Did the court prevent litigation abuse?
• Were orders safe, clear and enforceable?

Pathfinder and Child Focused Courts will be judged not by branding, but by outcomes. If cases conclude faster but unsafe contact is ordered, risk is minimised, evidence is not properly tested, and survivors are left feeling steamrolled, then the reform will not have solved the problem.

It will simply have made the machinery move faster.

Why England and Wales Need More Ambition

The family justice system in England and Wales is currently trying to reform itself while still operating inside deeply fragmented structures. That is the difficulty.

We have domestic abuse legislation recognising coercive control. We have PD12J in private law children cases. We have Pathfinder reform. We have increased public discussion about post-separation abuse. We have growing criticism of parental alienation arguments being used to obscure domestic abuse. We have more awareness of litigation abuse.

But awareness is not enough.

The court structure itself must change.

It is not reasonable to expect litigants in person to coordinate the criminal court, family court, police disclosure, safeguarding evidence, Cafcass reports, domestic abuse support and children’s welfare issues while also trying to survive the abuse itself.

That is the work of a system. It should not be pushed onto the shoulders of the survivor.

What Ontario Gets Right in Principle

Ontario’s model is not perfect. It has eligibility limits. It is geographically specific. It does not hear all trials. It does not cover every type of family law case. It will need proper evaluation.

But the principle is right.

The principle is that connected domestic abuse proceedings should be seen as connected.

The principle is that survivors should not be sent from one process to another as though each hearing exists in a vacuum.

The principle is that one judge seeing the full picture may reduce inconsistency, duplication, retraumatisation and risk.

The principle is that domestic abuse is not just a collection of incidents. It is a pattern. And a pattern cannot be properly understood if the system only looks at pieces.

The UK Should Pilot Proper Integrated Domestic Abuse Courts

England and Wales should now be looking seriously at a properly designed Integrated Domestic Abuse Court pilot.

Not merely a renamed family court process.

Not merely a faster case management pathway.

Not merely a domestic abuse “flag” on a file.

A genuinely integrated model should bring together the criminal and family dimensions of domestic abuse where proceedings are connected. It should include specialist judicial continuity, domestic abuse liaison, police disclosure pathways, evidence mapping, safeguarding oversight, proper report scrutiny and LiP-friendly procedural design.

It should be built around the lived reality of coercive control, not around the convenience of court silos.

For Litigants in Person, This Could Be Transformational

For represented parties, integrated domestic abuse courts would improve coordination.

For litigants in person, they could be transformational.

They could mean fewer repeated hearings. Fewer inconsistent orders. Less need to explain the same abuse history to different professionals. Better understanding of bail conditions and protective measures. Better scrutiny of contact proposals. Better recognition of litigation abuse. Better identification of coercive control as a pattern. Better protection for children.

Most importantly, they could shift the burden of coordination away from survivors and onto the justice system where it belongs.

That is the real issue.

Litigants in person do not need more slogans about access to justice. They need a system that is actually designed for the reality they are living through.

Related Reading

You may also find our related article on coercive control, family court and post-separation abuse helpful if you are trying to understand how abuse can continue through litigation after separation.

Useful External Sources

• Ontario Court of Justice Practice Direction: Integrated Domestic Violence Court
• Ministry of Justice: Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Children Cases
• Domestic Abuse Act 2021
• Practice Direction 12J: Child Arrangements and Contact Orders where Domestic Abuse is Alleged

Final Thought

Ontario’s Integrated Domestic Violence Court development should be watched closely by anyone concerned with family justice reform in England and Wales.

It is not the whole answer. But it points in the right direction.

Domestic abuse cases do not sit neatly inside one legal box. Coercive control does not stop at the boundary between criminal and family law. Post-separation abuse often moves through the very systems that are supposed to protect survivors and children.

If the harm is integrated, the court response must be integrated too.

Until England and Wales confront that reality, litigants in person will continue to be left doing the work that the system itself should be doing: joining the dots, explaining the pattern, chasing the evidence, managing the risk and trying to protect their children while navigating a fragmented court process alone.

That is not good enough.

Ontario has taken a step that recognises the problem. The UK should be brave enough to do the same.