The position in brief

• The Victims’ Commissioner’s warning was directed principally at the criminal justice system. It was not a formal declaration that the Family Court itself is in a state of emergency.
• That distinction matters—but so does the reality that domestic abuse survivors may simultaneously be dealing with the police, prosecutors, probation, Cafcass, children’s services and the Family Court.
• Cafcass recorded a 13.4% increase in private-law children’s case demand between April and July 2026 compared with the same period in 2025.
• At the end of July 2026, Cafcass had 17,413 open private-law children’s cases involving 26,449 children.
• Delay is not simply inconvenient where domestic abuse or unsafe child contact is alleged. It can prolong uncertainty, increase opportunities for continuing control and leave temporary arrangements in place for extended periods.
• A police decision to take no further action is not the same as a Family Court finding that abuse did not occur. Equally, an allegation, arrest or charge is not automatically proof that it did.
• Good preparation cannot repair an overstretched system, but it can help a litigant identify the issues, preserve important evidence and make it easier for the court to understand the risk and the orders being requested.

What did the Victims’ Commissioner say?

On 2 September 2026, Claire Waxman OBE, the Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales, warned that what began as a prison-capacity crisis had developed into a much wider challenge affecting prisons, probation, policing, courts and victim services.

Her concern was not simply that individual organisations were busy. It was that pressure across the entire criminal justice system could affect public safety, the management of offenders, the ability of agencies to respond to warning signs and the confidence of victims who are already waiting too long for justice.

The Commissioner said that the situation had the “hallmarks of a national emergency” and questioned why stronger cross-government coordination had not taken place.

She also highlighted the connection between court delay and prison pressure. According to her statement, approximately one in five prisoners was awaiting trial because cases were taking so long to be heard. That means victims may also be waiting months or years for criminal proceedings to reach a conclusion.

The Commissioner’s full statement can be read here: Any credible “Plan for Britain” must include a plan for justice.

A necessary distinction: criminal justice and family justice

Accuracy matters. The Victims’ Commissioner was discussing the crisis within the criminal justice system. She was not announcing that the Family Court had formally been declared a national emergency.

Criminal proceedings and family proceedings have different purposes, procedures and legal tests. Criminal courts decide whether the prosecution has proved a criminal offence. The Family Court may be deciding where a child should live, whether contact can take place safely, whether findings of fact are required or what protective arrangements are needed.

It would therefore be misleading to take a statement about criminal justice and simply present it as a finding about the Family Court.

But it would be equally artificial to pretend that the two systems operate in isolation.

A person experiencing domestic abuse may report incidents to the police, seek medical treatment, contact a domestic abuse service, speak to a school or social worker, apply for a protective injunction and participate in child-arrangements proceedings. The alleged perpetrator may be subject to bail conditions, criminal investigation, probation supervision or separate proceedings.

The family’s reality cuts across all of those organisations. Risk does not remain neatly inside one court file.

Why the systems cannot be treated as separate worlds

The same family may appear in several systems at the same time:

Each organisation has a different role. Information held by one organisation will not necessarily be immediately available to another. A litigant should not assume that the judge has already seen a police report, that Cafcass has received a medical record or that a criminal court knows about every Family Court order.

Disclosure may require consent, a formal request, a court direction or compliance with specific information-sharing rules. Sensitive information about children and families also requires careful handling.

This is why effective coordination matters. A warning sign held in one part of the system may be highly relevant to a decision being made elsewhere.

What the latest Cafcass figures show

The latest Cafcass figures available at the time of writing cover the period from 1 April to 31 July 2026. They show a marked increase in demand across children’s cases.

Open private-law children’s cases had increased by 10.4% compared with July 2025, while the number of children involved had increased by 11.1%.

Across public- and private-law work combined, Cafcass recorded 29,228 open children’s cases involving 46,750 children at the end of July 2026.

These statistics do not, by themselves, prove that a particular case has been mishandled. Nor do they tell us the quality of every assessment or the precise cause of every delay. They do, however, show an organisation working with materially higher demand.

The source figures can be viewed on the Cafcass data page.

Why delay is not neutral in domestic abuse cases

Court delay is often described as an administrative problem. In an ordinary dispute, delay may principally mean inconvenience, cost and uncertainty. In a case involving domestic abuse or serious safeguarding concerns, the consequences can be more acute.

Temporary arrangements may continue for much longer than expected

An interim arrangement may have been designed to last only until police disclosure, a Cafcass assessment or a fact-finding hearing. If the next hearing is delayed, that arrangement may remain in place for months.

Depending on the facts, this may mean a child continuing with arrangements that one parent says are unsafe. In other cases, it may mean a child having no relationship or only limited contact with a parent while serious allegations remain unresolved.

Neither outcome should be assumed to be safe merely because it is temporary.

Coercive control can continue after separation

Separation does not necessarily end domestic abuse. Control may continue through communication about the children, repeated demands, monitoring, financial pressure, threats, breaches of boundaries or the misuse of legitimate processes.

It is important to be precise here. Making a court application, challenging evidence or seeking enforcement is not automatically abusive. People have a right to use the courts. But legal and administrative processes can, in some cases, become part of a wider pattern of coercion, intimidation or continuing harm.

The court must consider the individual facts and evidence. Labelling every disagreement as litigation abuse weakens rather than strengthens a case.

Evidence may become harder to obtain

Messages may be deleted. CCTV may be overwritten. Memories become less precise. Staff move roles. Records may be archived. A child’s presentation may change over time.

This makes early, lawful preservation of relevant evidence important. Preservation does not mean collecting everything. It means identifying what may genuinely help the court determine a disputed fact, assess risk or understand the effect on the child.

Repeated uncertainty can affect children

Children may be living with disrupted routines, parental anxiety, repeated professional interviews or uncertainty about when they will see a parent. Some children may feel pressure to manage adult emotions or fear that what they say will determine the outcome.

A child should not be treated as a messenger, investigator or witness-gatherer for either parent.

Trauma can affect participation

A traumatised person may struggle to recall events in perfect order, identify the “most important” incident, read lengthy documents or speak clearly while facing the person they say abused them.

That does not mean every inconsistency is irrelevant. Courts must assess evidence fairly. But fragmented recall, distress or an initially incomplete account should not automatically be treated as proof of dishonesty.

Trauma-informed practice means examining the evidence carefully while understanding the circumstances in which that evidence is being given.

What happens when information is fragmented?

A common difficulty in complex family cases is that no single professional initially holds the complete picture.

The police may hold incident logs. A GP may have recorded injuries or distress. A school may have observed changes in a child. Cafcass may have spoken separately to both parents. The Family Court may have previous orders. A domestic abuse worker may have completed a risk assessment.

Looked at individually, each item may appear limited. Viewed chronologically and together, the information may reveal a pattern—or it may show that an allegation is not supported in the way initially suggested.

Evidence-led safeguarding requires both possibilities to remain open.

A broad request for “all records ever held” may create delay, cost and irrelevant material. A focused request—for example, police incident records relating to identified dates or medical records concerning a particular injury—may be more useful and proportionate.

What is the Family Court required to consider?

The legal framework already recognises that domestic abuse is not limited to physical violence and that children can be victims in their own right.

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021

Under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, abusive behaviour can include:

• physical or sexual abuse;
• violent or threatening behaviour;
• controlling or coercive behaviour;
• economic abuse; and
• psychological, emotional or other abuse.

The behaviour may be a single incident or a course of conduct. Whether an individual incident forms part of a wider pattern may therefore matter.

Children are recognised as victims

Section 3 of the 2021 Act recognises a child as a victim of domestic abuse where the child sees, hears or experiences the effects of abuse and is related to the person being abused or the perpetrator.

A child does not have to be physically assaulted to be affected. Living with fear, witnessing distress, hearing threats, experiencing disrupted care or seeing one parent controlled can all be relevant to the child’s welfare.

Practice Direction 12J

In private-law children proceedings where domestic abuse is alleged, admitted or otherwise appears relevant, Practice Direction 12J sets out steps the court must consider.

Among other things, the court must:

• identify the relevant factual and welfare issues at the earliest opportunity;
• consider the nature of the allegations, admissions and available evidence;
• decide whether disputed facts are relevant to the child-arrangements decision;
• give appropriate directions so that relevant disputes can be determined fairly;
• consider the risk of harm before making interim arrangements; and
• ensure that any final order protects the safety and wellbeing of the child and the parent with whom the child is living.

A fact-finding hearing is not required simply because allegations have been made. The court considers whether determining the disputed facts is necessary to decide the welfare issues or the arrangements that can safely be made.

Modern domestic abuse analysis should not reduce coercive control to a collection of disconnected incidents. Individual events may need to be considered within the wider context of the relationship, including patterns, cumulative impact and post-separation behaviour.

Cafcass domestic abuse policy

Cafcass policy requires practitioners to listen to children and adults who have experienced domestic abuse, assess harm and future risk, and accurately record and share relevant information with the court.

It also requires consideration of the efforts made by a protective parent to keep a child safe, the child’s experiences and the impact that proposed arrangements may have on both the child and their main carer.

The current Cafcass Domestic Abuse Practice Policy can be read online.

Vulnerability and participation directions

Under Part 3A of the Family Procedure Rules and Practice Direction 3AA, where it is stated that a party or witness is, or is at risk of being, a victim of domestic abuse by a relevant person, they are treated as vulnerable for the purpose of considering participation directions.

This does not determine whether the allegation is true. It enables the court to consider what measures may be needed so that the person can participate and give their best evidence.

Depending on the circumstances and available facilities, measures may include:

• separate entrances or waiting areas;
• screens or remote participation;
• changes to the structure or timing of the hearing;
• careful management of questioning;
• a ground rules hearing before oral evidence; and
• other arrangements needed to reduce fear, distress or impaired participation.

Statutory restrictions also prevent direct cross-examination in person in specified domestic abuse circumstances. Where the restrictions apply, the court must consider the appropriate alternative process. This can include consideration of a Qualified Legal Representative.

A litigant who needs participation measures should raise the issue as early as possible and explain what is requested, why it is needed and how it would help them participate or give evidence.

Criminal and family proceedings: understanding the difference

Confusion about criminal and family proceedings can seriously weaken a case.

“The police took no further action”

A decision to take no further action does not necessarily mean that the police found the report to be false. It may mean that the available evidence did not meet the criminal charging threshold, that evidence could not be obtained or that a prosecution could not proceed.

The Family Court applies the civil standard of proof—the balance of probabilities—when determining disputed facts. Criminal offences must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The Family Court must still assess the evidence relevant to the child’s welfare. It should not automatically treat a no-further-action decision as a finding that nothing happened.

“The other parent was arrested”

An arrest is not a conviction. A charge is not a conviction. A police investigation is not, by itself, proof of the allegation.

These matters may be relevant, particularly to interim risk management, but they must be described accurately. Do not tell the Family Court that somebody was “found guilty” if they were only arrested or investigated.

“The allegation was proved in the Family Court”

A Family Court finding is important, but it is not the same as a criminal conviction. It should be described as a finding made on the balance of probabilities in family proceedings.

Precise language protects credibility. Courts need to know what happened procedurally, what was alleged, what was admitted, what was found and what remains disputed.

Practical steps for litigants in person

You cannot personally solve court backlogs, professional workloads or failures in information-sharing. You can, however, reduce the risk that important information becomes lost inside an unstructured case.

1. Separate immediate safety from longer-term case preparation

If a child or adult faces an immediate risk of harm, deal with safety first. Contact the police in an emergency and seek specialist domestic abuse or legal advice where possible.

Do not rely on an email to the court office as an emergency safeguarding response. Court staff cannot provide legal advice, investigate allegations or guarantee that a judge will see an email immediately.

2. Read the latest court order carefully

The latest order should tell you:

• what the court has already decided;
• what documents must be filed;
• who must obtain particular evidence;
• the deadlines;
• the purpose and length of the next hearing; and
• whether any temporary child-arrangements or protective provisions remain in force.

Missing a direction because the system is busy will rarely help your position. If you cannot comply, raise the problem promptly, explain why and identify what practical direction you are asking the court to make.

3. Build a working chronology

A chronology helps convert an overwhelming history into an intelligible sequence. It is not the place for lengthy argument.

If a date is uncertain, say so. “Approximately March 2025” is safer than presenting a guessed date as fact.

4. Identify the pattern, not just the incidents

A list of individual incidents may fail to communicate coercive control. Explain, concisely:

• what behaviour occurred;
• how often or over what period;
• how the behaviour changed what you or the child could do;
• whether it continued after separation;
• what independent evidence exists; and
• why it matters to the child-arrangements decision now.

Do not create an allegation schedule simply because you have seen one online. Follow the court’s directions. The court may require a schedule, focused narrative, statement or another form of evidence depending on the issues in the case.

5. Create an evidence index

An evidence index can record what you have, what is missing and why it matters. Potential categories include:

• previous Family Court orders and judgments;
• police incident or crime reference numbers;
• bail conditions, protective orders or criminal outcomes;
• relevant medical records;
• school, nursery or health visitor records;
• Cafcass letters and reports;
• children’s services assessments or referrals;
• messages, emails or call records;
• financial material relevant to alleged economic abuse;
• photographs or recordings obtained lawfully; and
• witnesses with direct knowledge of relevant events.

Collecting evidence must be lawful and proportionate. Do not access another person’s private accounts, impersonate them, alter documents or encourage a child to gather material.

6. Explain the impact on the child

Family proceedings are not primarily about proving that one adult behaved badly. The court must decide what serves the child’s welfare.

Instead of writing only:

“The other parent sends abusive messages.”

identify the relevant welfare consequence, if supported:

“The messages continue during handovers and include threats about removing the child. As a result, handovers have become distressed and the child has begun refusing to leave the car. I ask the court to consider a neutral handover arrangement and communication through a parenting application.”

This moves the presentation from adult accusation to evidence, welfare impact and a workable request.

7. Ask for focused directions

Depending on the case, the court may need to consider:

• focused police or medical disclosure;
• the scope of a section 7 report;
• whether a fact-finding hearing is necessary;
• safe interim contact or handover arrangements;
• special measures or participation directions;
• interpreting, disability or accessibility support;
• how questioning will be managed;
• permission and deadlines for statements or other evidence; or
• review of temporary arrangements if important evidence remains outstanding.

Do not request every possible direction. Identify what is genuinely needed for the court to decide the live issues fairly and safely.

8. Keep professional communication calm and specific

Write every email on the assumption that it may later be shown to the judge.

A useful professional communication usually identifies:

• the case number;
• the relevant order or deadline;
• the specific problem;
• the steps already taken;
• the effect on the case or child; and
• the precise response or action requested.

Avoid insults, speculation about motives, copied social-media arguments or repeated emails that add no new information.

9. Record delay and non-compliance properly

If disclosure is late or a professional report has not arrived, keep a short record of:

• what was ordered;
• who was responsible;
• the deadline;
• what follow-up took place;
• whether the delay affects an upcoming hearing; and
• what revised direction you are seeking.

Keep the language procedural. “The report due on 20 August has not been filed” is more useful than “Nobody cares about my case.”

10. Prepare for the hearing the court has actually listed

A First Hearing Dispute Resolution Appointment is not the same as a fact-finding hearing or final hearing. Check what the court will decide at the next stage.

Prepare a short list containing:

1. the live issues;
2. the key evidence already available;
3. the important evidence still missing;
4. the immediate safeguarding position;
5. the directions or orders you are requesting; and
6. why those requests are necessary and proportionate.

The aim is not to tell the entire history at every hearing. It is to help the judge make the decisions required at that particular stage.

What if a Cafcass report or safeguarding process is inadequate?

Litigants sometimes receive a safeguarding letter or section 7 report containing factual errors, omitted evidence or analysis they strongly dispute.

The first task is to separate four different complaints:

1. A factual error—for example, an incorrect date, name, conviction or account of an order.
2. An evidential omission—important material appears not to have been considered.
3. A disagreement with professional analysis—the facts are recorded, but you say the risk or welfare assessment is wrong.
4. A service or conduct complaint—for example, communication, delay or alleged professional behaviour.

These issues may require different responses.

If a report is being relied upon in ongoing proceedings, the Family Court remains responsible for deciding the case. A complaint to Cafcass does not replace the need to raise relevant evidential or welfare issues with the court.

A focused response may:

• identify the exact paragraph disputed;
• state the correction sought;
• refer to the supporting document and page;
• explain why the issue could affect the welfare analysis; and
• identify any question that may need to be put to the author at a hearing.

A lengthy attack on the professional’s character is unlikely to assist. Challenge the evidence, reasoning and process precisely.

Common mistakes that can weaken a safeguarding case

A strong case is not necessarily the case with the most material. It is the case in which the relevant issues, evidence, welfare consequences and requested orders can be understood.

What meaningful reform requires

The Victims’ Commissioner is right to frame the problem as a whole-system challenge. Moving pressure from one organisation to another does not resolve risk.

Meaningful reform requires:

• timely court decisions, particularly where temporary arrangements affect safety or a child’s relationship with a parent;
• properly resourced police, probation, courts, Cafcass and specialist victim services;
• lawful and effective information-sharing between the agencies holding relevant risk information;
• pattern-based domestic abuse analysis rather than a narrow search for isolated physical incidents;
• clear accountability when directions, disclosure or safeguarding actions are delayed;
• recognition of children as victims whose experiences and welfare must remain central;
• trauma-informed participation without abandoning evidential fairness;
• accessible information for litigants in person who are expected to comply with complex procedure without representation; and
• early, practical assistance so that cases reach court in a form that can be understood and managed.

In June 2026, the Government published its response to the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s Everyday Business report concerning domestic abuse and continuing harm in the Family Court. The response acknowledged the vulnerability of many Family Court users and committed funding for a second phase of the Family Court Review and Reporting Mechanism.

The Government accepted some of the Commissioner’s recommendations fully, accepted others in part and declined to take forward several recommendations. It also indicated that a wider Family Justice Strategy would be published later in 2026.

The Government response to the Everyday Business report can be read on GOV.UK.

Reform announcements matter, but victims and children experience the system through what happens in their actual case: whether the warning sign is recognised, whether the record is obtained, whether the hearing takes place and whether the final arrangement is safe.

How JSH Law may be able to help

People often come to JSH Law with years of messages, reports, orders and correspondence but no clear way of presenting what has happened.

I provide structured McKenzie Friend and litigation-support services for litigants in person. Depending on the case and agreed scope, support may include:

The aim is not to produce the most aggressive case. It is to help you present a clear, proportionate and evidence-led case that keeps the child’s welfare, safeguarding and the court’s decision-making responsibilities in view.

Clear, calm family court support

Book a free 15-minute introductory telephone consultation

If you are representing yourself in family court and need help making sense of safeguarding concerns, Cafcass involvement, evidence, court documents or an approaching hearing, you can book a short introductory call with JSH Law.

The call allows me to understand where you are in the process, explain the type of support available and identify possible next steps if JSH Law is an appropriate fit.

New enquiries only. The introductory call is not legal advice and does not create a solicitor-client relationship. Any paid work is subject to conflict checks, written confirmation of scope, JSH Law’s client agreement and payment arrangements.

Sources and further reading

• Victims’ Commissioner: Any credible “Plan for Britain” must include a plan for justice, 2 September 2026.
• Cafcass: Private- and public-law children’s case data, covering 1 April to 31 July 2026.
• Domestic Abuse Act 2021, Part 1.
• Practice Direction 12J: Child arrangements and contact orders—domestic abuse and harm.
• Practice Direction 3AA: Vulnerable persons, participation and giving evidence.
• Cafcass Domestic Abuse Practice Policy.
• Government response to the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s Everyday Business report, 10 June 2026.

Important legal information

This article provides general information about family justice, domestic abuse and safeguarding in England and Wales. It is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as advice about an individual case. Family Court decisions depend on the particular facts, evidence, procedural history, applicable law and judicial discretion. JSH Law provides McKenzie Friend and litigation-support services to litigants in person and does not act as a firm of solicitors or undertake reserved legal activities unless expressly permitted and agreed. If you need legal advice, representation or urgent protective action, you should consider consulting an appropriately regulated legal professional.