Integrated Domestic Abuse Courts (IDACs) and similar court models: literature review

Chapter 1: Background and Policy Context

1.1 Introduction

This paper presents the findings of an evidence review carried out internally by a Scottish Government analyst in 2025-26.

This review replicates and expands on the aims of a previous Scottish Government research project, Domestic abuse courts, conducted in 2019, which looked at the effectiveness of Integrated Domestic Abuse Courts (IDACs). It builds upon that existing project by synthesising findings from the evidence base on IDACs published since 2019. That includes evidence arising from the “Pathfinder” pilots in relation to family courts in England and Wales. Additionally, it considers recent international developments in the evidence base on IDACs and assesses research on similar models that have relevance for the possible implementation of an alternative court model, or components of such, in Scotland. The review also incorporates high-level insights from two guiding discussions with key informants, namely individuals from Scottish Women’s Aid (SWA) and Women’s Aid England.

The review draws on a grant funded research project by the Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research (SCCJR), Domestic Abuse and Child Contact: The Interface Between Criminal and Civil Proceedings, exploring the criminal and civil interface, as well as ongoing improvement work in the context of domestic abuse and child contact. The improvement work is being led by the Scottish Government and relates to improving the interface of civil and criminal courts in the context of domestic abuse, including child contact.

1.2 Policy Context

The Scottish Government’s 2019 project on IDACs aimed to inform the debate on possible approaches to improving engagement between courts considering criminal and civil issues where there has been an allegation of domestic abuse. The project explored the effectiveness of IDACs and in particular it:

• identified jurisdictions where models of integrated domestic violence courts have been adopted;
• discussed the justification for introduction in jurisdictions and the desired outcomes of the particular models;
• described the practical operation of these models; and explored any evidence which assesses the effectiveness of these courts in meeting outcomes;
• and identified gaps in the evidence base.

This review aims to broadly replicate and expand on these aims, synthesising findings from the relevant evidence published since 2019 and broadening the scope to consider similar court models.

As such, the aims outlined above are more specifically operationalised for the purposes of this review in the form of four inquiry questions. These are outlined below:

1. What do the findings from the “Pathfinder” pilots and similar court models tell us about the effectiveness of an integrated court structure?

a. Are there findings that have relevance to the possible establishment of IDACs in Scotland?

2. What models of integrated domestic abuse courts are currently being used internationally?

3. What does the evidence tell us about the effectiveness of these courts in meeting outcomes?

a. How are these models being evaluated?

4. What are the key benefits/issues in relation to the establishment of IDACs in Scotland?

The need for improved engagement between the courts considering criminal and civil issues, particularly in the context of domestic abuse, was included in Part 4 of the Family Justice Modernisation Strategy, which the Scottish Government published when the Children (Scotland) Act 2020 was introduced.

This issue has continued to be raised, including during the parliamentary passage of Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill.

The Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Act 2025 received Royal Assent on 30 October 2025. The Act responds to concerns raised about the need to improve the experiences of victims and witnesses within Scotland’s justice system, especially the victims of sexual crime. It aims to ensure victims are treated with compassion and their voices are heard; ensure justice meets the needs of survivors of sexual offences, the majority of whom are women and girls; ensure our laws and legal processes meet the needs of modern Scotland and enable public confidence in the justice system (Scottish Government 2025b).

The Act introduces wide‑ranging reforms that span both the civil and criminal justice systems, including several measures that directly affect the civil–criminal interface. These include enhanced special measures for vulnerable witnesses and parties in all civil proceedings; extension of the presumption that a party is automatically deemed vulnerable in these cases; and special measures in non-evidential civil hearings (Scottish Government 2025b). The Scottish Government is also preparing a policy paper for the Scottish Civil Justice Council to propose new civil court rules (the Scottish courts make civil court rules rather than Scottish Ministers) including proposed changes to ensure the civil courts have full information about domestic abuse at an early stage of the process. This will mean that when the civil courts are dealing with a case, they are fully aware of any history of domestic abuse and of any parallel criminal proceedings^[1].

During the passage of the VWJR Bill, a non-Government amendment was lodged on the scheduling of related criminal/civil cases where domestic abuse is a factor. The amendment provided that, where a person involved in criminal proceedings raises parallel civil proceedings, the Lord President or the Sheriff Principal could consider the desirability of ensuring that the same judge or sheriff presides over both the civil and criminal cases where there is an aspect of domestic abuse involved. In response, the Lord President wrote to Parliament outlining a number of concerns regarding this proposal^[2] and the Scottish Government did not support the amendment, which was not pressed.

A further non-Government amendment to the Bill was also lodged relating to connected proceedings, which was supported and passed. It now forms section 110 of the Act and requires Scottish Ministers to carry out a review in relation to proceedings for an offence involving domestic abuse where there are any other related or connected proceedings.

The question of introducing IDACs in Scotland was also raised during the Bill stages. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs acknowledged the potential merits in the IDAC model in principle, but said it was not for this Bill. However, the Cabinet Secretary committed to the Scottish Government carrying out further research on IDACs to examine models in other jurisdictions, with a commitment to publish the research in time to support the next Government and Parliament to assess the effectiveness of IDACs and their possible application within the Scottish context. This is part of the wider improvement work being progressed by the Scottish Government to improve the civil and criminal court interface in the context of domestic abuse.

This current research ought to fulfil this commitment by reviewing the available research on the effectiveness of IDACs in the UK and internationally. It also reviews a limited number of similar models that aim to improve engagement between the civil and criminal interface.

Progressive ‘developments have positioned the Scottish approach to domestic abuse at the international forefront in this area’ (Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research (SCCJR 2023). The Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 (DASA 2018) introduced a specific statutory offence of domestic abuse. This recognised that domestic abuse is often experienced as a pattern of behaviour encompassing a series of incidents, including emotional abuse and coercive control, rather than as a one-off event. In acknowledging that domestic abuse is a course of violent, threatening or intimidating behaviour that is abusive towards a partner or ex-partner, the Act ensures that the definition of abuse more accurately reflects victim experience and ensures more effective prosecution (SCCJR 2023). Research undertaken with victims and witnesses since the implementation of the Act found that the interactions between family and criminal courts and how non-harassment orders are applied in the context of child contact arrangements, could be better understood. The research also reported cumulative negative impacts on child victims and witnesses where the family were involved in both criminal and civil justice (family court) proceedings (Scottish Government 2023b).

In 2021, further legislation was introduced in the form of the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021, which provided the courts with a new power to impose orders in the form of domestic abuse protection orders (DAPOs) which can remove a perpetrator from the home of a person at risk and prohibit them from making contact with that person. The Act also introduced powers for the police to impose a domestic abuse protection notice (DAPN) before applying for a DAPO through the court (DAPA 2021). Although Part 1 of the Act, relating to DAPNs, is not yet in force and is currently being reviewed by a Short Life Working Group to consider recommendations for possible legislative change which will be consulted on more widely in 2026.^[3]

Despite these reforms, incidents of domestic abuse remain high. In 2023-2024, the police recorded 63,867 incidents of domestic abuse, an increase of 3% compared to the previous year (Scottish Government 2024a). This is the first year this figure has shown an increase since 2020-2021, when reported incidents reached their peak. Although this peak may have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, however, some caution is advised in necessarily attributing all changes to COVID-19. The 4% increase year-on-year previous to 2020-2021 is the same as that seen in 2019-2020 when the pandemic was not a factor and levels have been growing over the longer term (Scottish Government 2021). This represents 116 incidents of domestic abuse recorded by the police in Scotland per 10,000 population in 2023-2024. Where the relationship between the victim and suspected perpetrator was known, around 50% of domestic abuse incidents were between ex-partners and just under half (49%) of incidents were between current partners. Domestic abuse is also recognised as a specifically gendered crime, predominantly perpetrated by men against women. Where the victim’s gender was known, the majority of victims in 2023-24 (83%) were female. Over four-in-five incidents (81%) of domestic abuse in 2023-24 had a female victim and a male suspected perpetrator. This remained the same as in 2021-22 and 2022-23 (Scottish Government 2024a).

International research consistently shows that domestic abuse harms children, not only when they witness it, but because they actively experience it alongside the non-abusing parent (SCCJR 2023). Studies have repeatedly highlighted misconceptions that harm occurs only through direct abuse. For example, Jaffe et al. (2003) cite evidence of negative impacts on children’s brain development when exposed to domestic abuse, challenging the belief that witnessing abuse does not cause harm. Similarly, Field et al. (2016) argue that “living with intimate partner violence (IPV) is a form of child abuse,” rejecting the false separation of child abuse and domestic abuse. Research has also demonstrated that exposure to domestic abuse is a recognised ‘adverse childhood experience’ (ACE) (Scottish Government 2025a) and that domestic abuse can have a profound and lasting impact on children, with children often exhibiting symptoms such as anxiety, depression and aggression (UK Trauma Council 2025)

Historically, justice systems focused on adult victims, overlooking children’s experiences (SCCJR 2023). Since 2006, legislation has begun to address this, with the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 amending the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, to include provisions requiring the court to consider (in contact and residence cases) the need to protect the child from abuse or risk of abuse. The Children (Scotland) Act 2020, when fully implemented, will further reform the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. Key aims of the 2020 Act include ensuring the child’s best interests are at the centre of any contact and residence case, ensuring their views are heard, and further protecting victims of domestic abuse and their children.

In addition, other legislation has built on this, with DASA 2018 framing children as experiencing abuse rather than merely witnessing it. Section 5 introduces an aggravation for behaviour involving or affecting a child, though some critics argue this still falls short of fully recognising children as victims (Cairns & Callander 2022). The Act also expects courts to impose non-harassment orders protecting both adult victims and children unless an alternative response can be justified. Although evidence suggests that there is a perception among parents that these orders are under-utilised (Scottish Government 2023b). The final report on the progress and outcomes of domestic abuse cases in court and information about the experiences of witnesses, including child witnesses, was published in February 2026. From a civil justice perspective, concerns remain about how effectively systems address perpetrators’ harm to children (SCCJR 2023).

Research consistently finds that a substantial proportion of child contact cases reaching court are likely to have a domestic abuse element. In Scotland this is commonly estimated at around 50% of cases (Mackay 2013). Whereas more recent evidence from England & Wales, suggests that prevalence may be even higher, with domestic abuse identified in up to 91% of private law children cases where case files were reviewed (Domestic Abuse Commissioner 2025). Although no equivalent recent research has been conducted in Scotland, it is evident that domestic abuse plays a material role in child contact proceedings. In practice, this often means that individuals involved in these cases may be simultaneously engaged in criminal proceedings. Consequently, the way domestic abuse is addressed across both these spheres - criminal and civil - and the way in which these processes interact, is of fundamental importance to achieving positive outcomes for families. One proposed approach to bridging this interface is the use of IDACs, particularly the ‘one family, one judge’ model, which is frequently cited as a potential solution (Scottish Government 2019a).

1.3 Methodology

As stated above, this paper synthesises findings from research published on IDACs and similar models in the UK and internationally, building on the Scottish Government’s 2019 review on the same topic and incorporating new findings published between 2019 and 2025. The review was commissioned following a commitment by the Cabinet Secretary to carry out further research on the effectiveness of IDACs. Upon conducting initial literature searches, it became evident that the available UK and international literature focused specifically on the operation and effectiveness of IDACs is limited. The 2019 review already noted a limited evidence base and therefore this review confirms that the body of research remains relatively small.

This review consisted of a web-based literature review of evidence on IDACs, specialist domestic abuse courts (SDACs), and other relevant court models. Due to the size of the evidence base on IDACs, the scope of the review was widened to consider evidence on SDACs and the approach operationalised in the Pathfinder pilot in England and Wales. The review included an assessment of key academic sources and grey literature.^[4] Two informal guiding discussions with SWA and Women’s Aid England also took place. These were intended to help shape the direction of the literature review and identify relevant sources.

1.3.1. Literature review

The literature review was carried out between March and October 2025, and built on sources identified in the 2019 review. The literature review methodology is the most appropriate approach as the outputs will be used to provide a general understanding of how IDACs are operating in other jurisdictions. A systematic review^[5] was not deemed appropriate in the given timescales, as there was a commitment to publish the research in time for the next Government and Parliament. As such, the review does not consider the entirety of the material on the subject but instead synthesises and evaluates the published evidence which could be identified, accessed and reviewed in the timeframe available.

Search Strategy

Searches were initially based on the reference list from the previous IDACs review. This allowed key sources of evidence and academics in the field to be identified. Building on this initial evidence gathering, academic and grey literature were explored via Scottish Government library searches and supplemented with Google Scholar searches. Key search terms were employed such as ‘integrated domestic abuse courts’, ‘specialist domestic abuse courts’ and ‘family courts’ etc., the term ‘domestic violence’ was also used alongside ‘domestic abuse’ recognising that different terminology is used in different jurisdictions. Further snowball sampling^[6] from relevant reference lists were also carried out. Key terms identified in these initial sources of evidence were used to help refine the search terms for subsequent searches.

The tables below show the resources used to implement the search, as well as the key words used for the search strategy.

Resources Searched

Idox

Knowledge Network

Policy Commons

National Library of Scotland Catalogue

Scottish Government Library

KandE

Academia.edu

Research Gate

Sage Journals

ProQuest

Scottish Government publications

UK Government publications

Scottish Sentencing Council publications

Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research publications

Scottish Law Commission publications

Scottish Women’s Aid publications

Google Scholar

Google Advanced Search

Keywords

(Integrated domestic abuse courts) OR (IDAC)

(Integrated domestic violence courts) OR (IDVC)

Specialist domestic abuse courts

Family courts

(Specialist family court OR integrated family court) AND (domestic violence OR domestic abuse OR family violence)

(domestic abuse) AND (family courts)

(problem-solving courts) AND (domestic abuse OR domestice violence OR family violence)

One family one judge

(one family one judge) AND (domestic violence OR domestic abuse OR family violence)

To gain a comprehensive view of the available evidence, published material from justice and third sector organisations was considered alongside peer-reviewed academic literature. Some of these sources were also identified through stakeholder engagement. Due to the limited breadth of the evidence base, some opinion articles were included where they offered new insights and were supported by robust references.

Some of the returned literature was excluded after reviewing titles and abstracts. This was typically due to the focus of these resources not being relevant to the key topics of the review.

Inquiry questions were developed to guide the review (please refer to Section 1.2), and a broad evidence appraisal process was undertaken. It is acknowledged that this review is wide in scope, much of the literature is concentrated in international jurisdictions (The US, Canada and Australia), and it does not explore all the discrete elements of IDACs in depth. For example, while some integrated models provide advocacy services to those families involved in the court or provide referrals to community services, this report does not seek to provide an overview of the wider literature on the effectiveness of these approaches to improve outcomes for families. Should a decision be made to implement an alternative court model in Scotland, or some components of the models reviewed, further research into these elements may be beneficial in determining which are most effective.

Following the compiliation of the literature list, the documents were sifted for inclusion by reviewing abstracts and titles according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria outlined below, to ensure that only those sources aligned with the core research topics were included. From this sift, 26 sources were identified.

Inclusion criteria:

1. Published research papers, systematic reviews and evaluations focusing on the operation of IDACS and similar models, in the UK and internationally.

2. All above material published in English between 2019 and 2025

3. Relevant grey literature

4. Material from opinion articles and editorials (where they were supported with robust references).

Exclusion criteria:

1. Material in other languages other than English and published pre-2019.

2. Returned results deemed to not be relevant to the topic and inquiry questions.

For each document that met the inclusion criteria, the core themes were identified and the key findings and conclusions were summarised. This helped the researcher track recurring ideas across sources and refer back to specific documents during later stages of analysis and synthesis. Finally, the thematic analysis results were brought together under key headings, creating a narrative structure that connected the themes and addressed the inquiry questions. Where relevant, the narrative structure has been supplemented with findings from additional sources to provide further depth and improve coherence.

1.3.2 Limitations

Similar to the conclusions of the previous research carried out in 2019, this review found that when limiting the scope to focus solely on IDACs, and in particular the ‘one family, one judge’ model as defined above, the evidence base is relatively small. Following a library search using the Scottish Government library service, examination of literature lists and additional searches using Google Scholar, it was clear that many of the empirical evaluations identified had been covered in the previous review. The evidence base is also somewhat cyclical, with many sources relying on literature reviews that reference the same foundational studies. and this repetition makes it difficult to draw fresh conclusions. Additionally, comparisons across jurisdictions are challenging due to the complexity and variation in court structures and processes.

Where evaluations do exist, methodological inconsistencies such as differences in control groups, research design, and outcome measures, often make meaningful comparison difficult. As highlighted by the previous review, many studies focus on criminal justice metrics, such as reoffending rates or the number of protective orders issued. These indicators often fail to reflect the core aim of IDACs, to improve the experience and outcomes for victims. That said, two recent studies (Birnbaum & Bala 2025; Queensland and Department of Justice and Attorney-General 2021) have begun to address this gap by incorporating qualitative research with victims, while evaluations of the Pathfinder pilot have begun to provide some insight on civil outcomes. The limited amount of published research has also been noted by the Centre for Justice Innovation in their study summarising the evidence and models of practice in existing IDACs (Centre for Justice Innovation 2020).

This research has identified two substantive evaluations that have been published since 2019, and therefore since the previous Scottish Government review. This includes the third, in a series of evaluations, of the Toronto IDAC, Ontario (previous evaluations of this court are outlined in the 2019 paper) and an extensive evaluation on an IDAC model in Southport, Queensland. Where other evidence on the effectiveness of IDACs was identified, this is also reported in the relevant section below. It is noted that the decision to broaden the scope of the review was taken in recognition of the fact that IDACs represent a holistic and coordinated response to domestic abuse when there are concurrent criminal and civil proceedings and aspects of this holistic approach may be achieved by other means without a fully integrated model.

1.4 Terminology

In line with the DASA 2018 and the refreshed Equally Safe Strategy, the term ‘domestic abuse’ is used throughout this report to refer to abusive behaviour that includes physical, psychological and emotional abuse. Consistent with the Act, it recognises that abusive behaviour includes ‘violent, threatening or intimidating’ behaviour (S2(2)(a)) that is likely to cause physical or psychological harm. It also criminalises a course of conduct and criminalises non-physical abuse. As such, this report refers to domestic abuse rather than domestic violence throughout.

Therefore, for the purposes of this paper the integrated court system is referred to as the IDAC. In other jurisdictions, the term Integrated Domestic Violence Court (IDVC) is commonly used. Where this term appears in cited literature, this report will retain the original terminology as far as possible.

1.5 Models of domestic abuse court

1.5.1 The IDAC Model

Across the literature, IDACs are most commonly defined as specialist court models that aim to provide a more effective and comprehensive response to cases involving domestic abuse. These courts are founded on the core principles of coordination among different parts of the justice system and related support services, specialisation of judges, sheriffs and processes, and a victim-centred approach that prioritises safety and well-being. The development of IDACs stems from a growing understanding that domestic abuse cases present unique complexities that are often inadequately addressed within traditional, adversarial court systems. These complexities include the co-occurrence of criminal behaviour and family law issues, the significant impact of trauma on victims and children, and the need for specialised expertise to navigate the dynamics of abusive relationships (Centre for Justice Innovation 2020). Although models have been established in the US, Canada, Australia, and piloted in England, their use has also been advocated for in other jurisdictions, such as in Mexico (Ramirez 2021)

Similarly to the previous Scottish Government research, published in 2019, this paper identified a range of IDAC models, each varying in complexity based on their remit and the scope of issues that they address. For consistency this study adopts the same working definition of IDACs, which applies to models internationally and is defined as: ‘a court in which a single judge hears both criminal and civil cases relating to one family, where the underlying issues is domestic abuse’. Within this definition, IDACs are considered to be a single court which includes all of the following elements:

• Jurisdiction over summary-level^[7] domestic criminal cases, and;
• Jurisdiction over civil cases involving child contact, child maintenance, parental rights/responsibilities, but excluding divorce, property disputes and child protection cases, and;
• A system of one family, one judge.^[8]

Concurrent or parallel proceedings covering both civil and criminal matters are considered to be compulsory elements of the court. This means that, although they are discussed in this report because they offer useful insights, SDACs and the Pathfinder model are excluded from this definition as they solely deal with criminal and civil proceedings respectively. Therefore, although the Ministry of Justice has previously referred to the Pathfinder model as an IDAC, technically it does not fall within the definition for the purposes of this paper (Ministry of Justice 2023).

Similarly to the previous report, this review identified three categories of ‘integrated courts’, with the level of court complexity generally relating to the type of civil cases the court has jurisdiction over:

• The simple IDAC model: courts that deal solely with summary-level domestic abuse and concurrent family law cases; but do not have the capacity to deal with contested criminal trials, child protection, divorce or property disputes.
• The complex IDACs model: courts that deal solely with domestic abuse and concurrent family law cases, and also have the capacity to deal with divorce, property disputes and child protection.
• 'One Family One Judge' problem-solving courts: integrated courts which use the 'one family, one judge' model to address a variety of cases including, but not limited to: domestic abuse, substance abuse, mental health, and juvenile offending. Domestic abuse is one of a number of different case types handled by the court and is not compulsory for entry into the court system.

1.5.2 Specialist domestic abuse courts

IDACs are distinct from and have a wider remit than SDACs, such as Glasgow’s Domestic Abuse Court. SDACs are common in Scotland, the UK and internationally and unlike IDACs operate in the criminal court only. Such courts adopt the principle of ‘problem-solving’ for specific issues such as drug-related crime, youth crime or domestic abuse (Scottish Sentencing Council 2022). In SDACs, domestic abuse cases are fast-tracked into specially convened hearings with specialist court professionals. These courts incorporate limited services for victims, including court orientation and advice services. In England and Wales, SDACs operate in magistrates’ courts and victims are supported by Independent Domestic Violence Advocates (IDVAs) (Centre for Justice Innovation 2020).

In Scotland, a SDAC was piloted in 2004 at Glasgow Sheriff Court, with similar initiatives introduced in Edinburgh and Livingston. Additionally, Domestic Abuse Cluster Courts operate in Ayr, Dunfermline, Falkirk, and the Scottish Borders. The specialist courts aim to streamline and accelerate the judicial process by assigning a single judge to oversee each case from start to finish. In contrast, cluster courts focus primarily on ensuring consistent scheduling of domestic abuse trials (Scottish Human Rights Commission 2023). Where a court ‘clusters’, it schedules cases of the same type in the same court and before the same sheriff, in an attempt to ensure the sheriff has more experience of the offence type (McPherson 2024)

However, support agencies have criticised the way in which some courts are defined as Domestic Abuse Courts, arguing that cluster courts may speed up the process for victims but do not offer other key components of a specialist court, such as an independent advocacy service and specially trained judges, prosecutors and sheriffs. As such, agencies argue, these courts do not offer meaningful improvements for victims and witnesses (Source News 2018).

A 2007 evaluation of the Glasgow pilot found evidence of a number of improvements to the process and practice for dealing with domestic abuse, and there was a high-level of satisfaction with the criminal justice response (Scottish Executive 2007). Yet, beyond this evaluation, publicly available data is extremely limited, and there has been “virtually no evidence in the public domain” regarding the performance of the specialist courts published since the initial evaluation (Scottish Sentencing Council 2022). Currently, a Summary Case Management (SCM) pilot is underway in Glasgow, Dundee, Hamilton, Paisley and Perth Sheriff Courts. This will be discussed in more detail in Section 3.2 (Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) 2024).

1.5.3 Problem-solving courts

These specialist courts operate exclusively within the criminal justice system and are presided over by a single judge, supported by dedicated on-site staff such as a court resource coordinator, a victim advocate, and representatives from both the defence and prosecution. Unlike SDACs, they provide intensive judicial supervision post-sentencing, allowing the court to actively monitor compliance with protection orders and other mandates, such as programme attendance. This enables swift responses to non-compliance and promotes offender accountability. Their therapeutic use of the law may include mental health or substance abuse treatment as part of sentencing, and rehabilitation is typically prioritised over punitive measures. Notably, the presence of domestic abuse in a case may not be the sole criterion for referral to these courts (Centre for Justice Innovation 2020; Scottish Government 2019a). Several of these courts, covering a range of issues, are currently in operation in Scotland, including the Aberdeen Problem-Solving Approach for prolific female and young offenders, and the Glasgow Drug Court (Scottish Government 2018; Centre for Justice Innovation 2017).

1.5.4 Family court models: Pathfinder

The Pathfinder pilot launched in Dorset and North Wales in February 2022, it expanded to South East Wales in April 2024, and Birmingham in May 2024. It has now (as of January 2026) expanded to Mid and West Wales, West Yorkshire, the West Midlands and Hampshire and the Isle of Wight (Ministry of Justice 2026). In 2020, The Harm Panel, comprised of experts on the family justice system, was convened to draw together evidence and publish a report on private law children cases in England and Wales. It recommended reform to the Child Arrangements Programme (CAP), which is the process that the family courts in England and Wales follow when settling disputes between separating parties involving children.

Although the Pathfinder pilots are discussed in this report, and attempts are made to draw out key learning which may have relevance for Scotland, the Pathfinder model is distinct from the models outlined above in that it solely deals with civil matters, through taking a problem-solving, investigative approach to contested child contact arrangements rather than presiding over both civil and criminal matters within one court. In this model, it is the child that is placed at the centre of the court rather than reproducing the traditional adversarial system. In situations where there are concerns or an ongoing criminal case involving domestic abuse families are referred to specialist domestic abuse agencies for a risk assessment and ongoing support. In this way, domestic abuse support services and risk assessments are integrated into family court proceedings, improving outcomes for victims of domestic abuse and reducing the risk of re-traumatisation (Ministry of Justice 2025).