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

Chapter 2: The Scottish context

In recent years, there has been a growing awareness of the issues related to the interaction between the civil and criminal interface in Scotland, reflected in Part 4 of the Family Modernisation Strategy, particularly in concurrent proceedings where an element of domestic abuse is involved. Recognised issues in these cases primarily relate to a disconnect between concurrent proceedings, which can compromise victim safety and lead to inconsistent and inefficient justice outcomes for victims (SCCJR 2023; Scottish Women’s Rights Centre). Additionally, the harms caused by the adversarial nature of child contact proceedings, a pro-contact culture and resource constraints have been well documented across the literature (SCCJR 2023; Centre for Justice Innovation 2020). In particular, the SCCJR grant-funded research highlighted a persistent disconnect between domestic abuse criminal proceedings and civil law child contact proceedings. Although the research was only based on the views of 38 family law practitioners, the research remains some of the most extensive on this topic in Scotland (SCCJR 2023).

Evidence relating to these issues within the Scottish context is examined in the following section. Where relevant, comparisons are also drawn with England and Wales, to provide additional depth and context for the discussion of the Pathfinder pilots in Chapter 3. It is acknowledged, that while insights from research in England and Wales may offer useful points of comparison, it is important to note that Scotland operates a distinct criminal justice system, meaning findings are not always directly transferable.

2.1 Current Issues

The existing research on IDACs and similar models offers valuable insight into how concurrent proceedings involving domestic abuse are currently handled across jurisdictions. Across the literature, a number of studies have highlighted persistent challenges at the interface of civil and criminal law, which undermine the system’s ability to respond to domestic abuse in a fair and effective manner.

Key issues identified across the literature are summarised here and discussed in more detail below:

• Limited mechanisms for raising awareness of domestic abuse in concurrent proceedings (Scottish Law Commission 2024; SCCJR 2023). This has contributed to a perception of systems operating in silos, resulting in outcomes marked by poor communication and coordination between the civil courts in family actions, other judicial bodies, and support services (Centre for Justice Innovation 2020).
• A narrow understanding of domestic abuse, where physical violence may be treated as the primary indicator of relevance in child contact cases. This overlooks other harmful forms of abuse, such as coercive control, and restricts the system’s capacity to fully consider the impact of domestic abuse within concurrent proceedings (SCCJR, 2023). Evidence also suggests that current legislative definitions and mainstream understandings of domestic abuse also don’t account for other forms of gender-based violence experienced by minoritised ethnic women, such as extended family abuse and honour-based violence (Scottish Government 2024b). Compounding this is a perceived prevailing pro-contact culture, which prioritises maintaining contact with the non-resident parent, frequently resulting in the minimisation of domestic abuse allegations (SCCJR 2023; Centre for Justice Innovation 2020).
• The adversarial nature of the current system, which places parents in opposition to each other, with minimal input into proceedings from the child, has also been identified as a barrier to effectively addressing domestic abuse (Ministry of Justice 2023; Centre for Justice Innovation 2020). In addition, there is evidence that victims and children find the system difficult to navigate and re-traumatising (SCCJR 2023; Domestic Abuse Commissioner 2023)
• A lack of clear and transparent civil justice data, particularly in Scotland, poses challenges for both research and legal practice. Research by the Scottish Law Commission and SCCJR indicate that the lack of accessible data makes it difficult to estimate the volume of contested child contact cases, the prevalence of domestic abuse within these cases, and the frequency or patterns of contact orders. This limits the ability of legal practitioners to provide informed advice to clients (Scottish Law Commission 2024; SCCJR 2023).

2.1.1 Limited mechanisms for sharing information

A key issue identified by specialist domestic abuse services, the literature and in discussions with stakeholders is a lack of information sharing between civil and criminal courts (Scottish Law Commission 2024; SCCJR 2023). Currently in Scotland, there is no formal system for identifying or recording domestic abuse in child contact cases within civil courts. For example, there is no standardised way of ensuring that a contact/residence decision in relation to a child made in the civil court will have taken into account special conditions of bail, a civil protection order or other orders made by one parent against the other (Scottish Law Commission 2024). Practitioners often rely solely on clients to disclose abuse, which carries the risk of cases being decided on incomplete or inaccurate information. This lack of awareness can lead to a perception of siloed working, resulting in potential delays in case preparation and progression, and affect decision-making in child contact cases. The consequences of which can compromise the safety of the child and non-abusive parent (SCCJR 2023).

An analysis of calls to domestic abuse helplines suggests that a lack of information sharing could be contributing to harm and trauma for adult and child victims of domestic abuse. Research undertaken in 2024 by SWA analysed evidence from Scotland’s Domestic Abuse and Forced Marriage Helpline. The analysis indicated that approximately 900 calls seeking information and support related to child contact were made to the helpline in the June 2023 – June 2024 period (SWA 2024). The research found that concerns raised through the helpline covered a broad range of topics but included, abusers using contact proceedings to exhaust survivors emotionally and financially, children not wanting to attend court-ordered contact; abuse taking place at contact handovers; and abusers making allegations to sabotage the courts’ view of the non-abusive parent (SWA 2024).

This lack of awareness of concurrent proceedings and previous convictions of the abusive parent can have negative consequences for the non-abusive parent and the child. In particular, previous research has highlighted that this can lead to courts not fully understanding the risk of the child being abused and ultimately prioritising contact with the abusive parent (SCCJR 2023).

In Scotland it is recognised that improvements are needed on how the civil and criminal courts interact in the context of domestic abuse. The Scottish Government is taking forward actions in this area, including preparation of a draft policy paper proposing court rule changes to go to the Scottish Civil Justice Council, which are intended to help ensure the civil courts get information on domestic abuse at an early stage, and also plans to make regulations under section 102 of the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 in relation to vexatious litigants ^[9]. This is an ongoing area of work with other improvements under consideration, such as the potential for interaction between civil processes and the Disclosure Scheme for Domestic Abuse Scotland.

In England and Wales, there has been some attempt to improve information sharing in concurrent proceedings through the implementation of Practice Direction 12J (PD12J) and the use of fact-finding hearings. PD12J determines the process in such cases where “it is alleged, or there is otherwise reason to believe that the child or a party has experienced domestic violence perpetrated by another party or that there is a risk of such abuse”. In cases where PD12J applies, the court must decide the appropriate procedure at an early stage and decide whether a ‘fact-finding hearing’ is required^[10]. A hearing is determined to be required where domestic abuse allegations could be relevant to any child arrangements order that the court might make and where the disputed nature of the allegations make it necessary to establish a factual basis for subsequent risk assessments and recommendations for the child’s welfare (Domestic Abuse Commissioner 2025). In areas where Pathfinder pilots have been established, fact-finding hearings may take place during phase two of the process, following the preparation of the Child Impact Report (CIR). Once the CIR is shared with, and reviewed by, the court, it then determines how the application should proceed. The case continues through the system, with potential next steps including requests for information (such as documents and reports or fact-finding hearings) (Ministry of Justice 2026).

Research by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner (DAC) in England and Wales has found that fact-finding hearings are resource intensive, time-consuming, often discouraged and in practice, rarely used. Reasons given for this were that the hearings often entrenched conflict through adversarial proceedings and relied on limited evidence not provided by the parties themselves – either because that evidence didn’t exist or the decision was taken not to elicit evidence from third parties (Domestic Abuse Commissioner 2025) This accords with previous evidence that PD12J is being used inconsistently (Sharma 2021) and may not result in improved outcomes. In the Harm Report, individual submissions from parents who had alleged abuse, or who had been subject to allegations, most commonly reported that the outcome of child contact cases was some form of direct contact, often unsupervised (Ministry of Justice 2020).

Evidence also indicates that fact-finding hearings that do proceed often include allegations of physical or sexual abuse, suggesting that those allegations are considered more ‘serious’ and are more easily determined to be true in contested cases. Conversely, in cases where there were allegations of coercive control, a fact-finding hearing was less likely to be scheduled. The research also found that some parents were unaware that if they did not raise allegations early in the proceedings or pursue them through a fact-finding hearing, they would be prevented from raising those issues later. Such evidence suggests that although fact-finding hearings are a crucial mechanism in England and Wales, and encourage the early sharing of information to carry out informed risk assessments, they don’t always work effectively in practice, and they can entrench pre-existing conflict (Domestic Abuse Commissioner 2025).

An empirical study conducted at the University of Oxford focused on the family justice response to domestic abuse in six different countries^[11]. It found that a lack of information sharing persists across jurisdictions: “Stakeholders reported a lack of coordination which resulted in family courts not being kept up to date with relevant criminal proceedings that were simultaneously being undertaken”. In England & Wales, the police were cited as particularly problematic in this regard. Whereas, in France, Spain and Italy, the research identified a notable issue with communication between the family, child protection and criminal system. Survivors stated that the family courts operated in isolation of other proceedings despite being informed that those proceedings had occurred or were ongoing. The research found that it was common that family courts wouldn’t attempt to obtain this information and would proceed with the case without taking it into account. Where there was evidence of collaboration, it was often at a local level and quite often depended on the goodwill of those organisations involved (Choudhry & Gutierrez 2024).

Given these issues, it is clear that where no formal mechanism exists to share information on domestic abuse allegations, this is unlikely to take place on a regular and consistent basis, impacting on outcomes for non-abusive parents and children involved in concurrent proceedings. Even when mechanisms for information-sharing are in place, such as through PD12J and fact-finding hearings in England and Wales, persistent challenges remain. Issues inherent to the adversarial system (discussed in more detail in Section 2.1.4) and prevailing beliefs about the nature of abuse continue to influence whether these mechanisms are used in practice.

In Scotland, there is currently no formal process through which information related to domestic abuse allegations is routinely and consistently shared, and this makes the system confusing and challenging to navigate for victims and leaves decision-makers without the evidence required to make informed decisions. A situation that may, and often does, result in negative outcomes for the non-abusive parent and child (SCCJR 2023).

2.1.2 Narrow understandings of domestic abuse

Various studies have found that a narrow understanding of domestic abuse still persists (Domestic Abuse Commissioner 2025; Choudhry & Gutierrez 2024; SCCJR 2023). While work has been undertaken to improve understandings of domestic abuse in Scotland within the criminal justice system over recent years, this does not appear to have fully or consistently transferred to the civil courts. Interviews with stakeholders in the SCCJR research highlighted a lack of understanding of the complex nature and dynamics of domestic abuse within the civil courts. This resulted in incidents involving physical violence being more readily recognised as domestic abuse meaning they were progressed faster and more often, over those that do not, such as those relating to a course of behaviour indicative of coercive control (SCCJR 2023). This understanding is in contrast to current policy and legislative definitions (SCCJR 2023), and accords with previous research in Scotland that showed that the courts are unlikely to attach substantial weight to allegations of domestic abuse when determining the child’s best interests. A systematic review of 208 child contact cases found that non-harassment orders were only granted in cases of ‘extreme violence’ and that the courts were ‘reluctant to grant protective orders unless significant risk to life and limb existed’ (Mackay 2018).

Although relating to criminal cases, emerging findings relating to DASA 2018, indicate that some victims felt the Act and its provisions are under-utilised, and that there remains a focus on single and/or serious incidents in some cases of ongoing abuse. Difficulties in prosecuting some forms of psychological abuse, particularly in regards to verbal, telephone and online abusive behaviour, were also reported (Scottish Government 2023b).

The Harm Report in England and Wales found that fact-finding hearings to share information at an early stage of CAP were often not conducted due to the systematic minimisation of domestic abuse allegations. Echoing findings from the SCCJR research, the report observed that rather than evaluating the actual impact on the non-abusive parent and child, courts that dealt with private law child contact cases frequently relied on broad assumptions about the seriousness of the allegations. This included dismissing reports of non-physical abuse, historic incidents, and abuse that occurred when the child was not present (Ministry of Justice 2020). Research in 2025 by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner confirms these issues persist, where survivors reported in focus groups that there was little understanding of verbal, emotional, psychological or financial abuse and coercive control. As one survivor illustrates in the quotation below, domestic abuse is often minimised by reframing it as ‘minor’, ‘historical’, ‘parental conflict’ or a combination of these:

“I actually had a social worker laugh and say, ‘Anything over two weeks is classed as historical’ … It was just too easy for them to go – ‘This is warring parents’ … and the judge was like, ‘Yeah, I’ve glanced over it and it just, to me, looks like bickering parents’.” (Domestic Abuse Commissioner 2025)

Since 2024, findings from the Riverlight ‘In the Judge’s Words’ campaign has consistently exposed the dehumanising language and attitudes that victims and survivors of abuse have been subjected to by judges and magistrates during family court proceedings in England and Wales.

Findings from an Oxford University study also found evidence of a limited, narrow understanding of domestic abuse, where cases involving physical violence were progressed more often than cases that did not because it was easier and faster to prove. A number of stakeholders in the study also reported evidence of domestic abuse being minimised as ‘relationship conflict’, ‘bad behaviour’ or a bad reaction to a separation. However, there was also evidence of a good understanding of the relevance of historic abuse and how the relationship needed to be considered as a whole rather than as characterised by episodic incidents of violence (Choudhry & Gutierrez 2024).

2.1.3 Pro-contact culture

In addition to a narrow understanding of domestic abuse, evidence suggests an ongoing presumption of contact being in the best interests of the child. The Children (Scotland) Act 1995 is the key legislation in Scotland relating to contact, residence and parental responsibilities and rights. In general terms, a parent has the responsibility and associated right (if the child is not living with them) to maintain personal relations and direct contact with the child on a regular basis, in so far as this is practicable and in the interests of the child. There is no statutory presumption in favour of contact. However, the literature suggests that, in practice, these provisions are often treated as if such a presumption exists, with contact commonly assumed to be in the child’s best interests (SCCJR 2023).

Often this manifests as the belief that contact is preferable to no contact at all, and that unsupervised contact should be the eventual goal. For example, the SCCJR research found that some legal practitioners felt it was more important to maintain the existing contact status rather than consider the domestic abuse allegations as relevant and that, in particular, a gap in contact was especially undesirable. Others also noted that physical abuse of the child would not necessarily mean that contact would be stopped (SCCJR 2023).

Research has shown that domestic abuse is still largely perceived as an issue confined to adult relationships. Notably, there remains a persistent belief that abuse directed at a parent does not necessarily affect the child, unless the child is physically harmed or directly witnesses the violence. Findings from the SCCJR research indicate that views also differed on how significant a consideration domestic abuse should be in child contact deliberations, with varying opinions being expressed about the relevance of domestic abuse to the safety and wellbeing of the child. Research suggests that the risks to the child are often minimised, because the impact of domestic abuse is often misunderstood (SCCJR 2023).

Evidence from the Domestic Abuse Commissioner report, which looked at child arrangement cases in England & Wales, found that pro-contact culture often means that abuse is minimised in all but the most ‘severe’ cases, where children have been physically injured or have witnessed the abuse. However, even in these cases, the report found inconsistencies in how abuse is treated. For example, in one case involving physical abuse of a child, this did not prevent the court from granting contact (Domestic Abuse Commissioner 2025, pp18) . Despite the abuse in this case, magistrates issued an interim order for stepped overnight contact, pending a final hearing which would consider the outcome of a Multi-Agency Rish Assessment Conference (MARAC)^[12]. The research found that discussions between magistrates and legal advisers involved in the case seemed to suggest that they were unsure of what a MARAC was and confused it with a form of mediation (Domestic Abuse Commissioner 2025). Given that some of the potential criteria for MARAC referral are visible high risk and potential escalation (Safe Lives 2024), this lack of understanding is concerning.

These findings are also echoed in the Harm Report in England and Wales, where pro-contact culture was often linked to the concept of parental alienation. Parental alienation encompasses the idea that the views of the child have been ‘contaminated’ to such an extent by the non-abusive parent that the child then distances themselves from the abusive parent. In these cases, the child’s voice is often discounted because their views are assumed to reflect those of the non-abusive parent rather than their own wishes. As a result, contact with the abusive parent is maintained due to the belief that ongoing contact is always in the child’s best interests. For example, the Harm Report found that professionals were predisposed to see signs of alienation, thus silencing children, rather than assessing further what the child may have witnessed or experienced (Ministry of Justice 2020). It is noted that there is no formal recognition of parental alienation as a concept in Scotland.

On 22 October 2025, the UK Government announced a commitment to changing the law in England and Wales to repeal the presumption of parental involvement from the Children Act 1989, so that it is no longer based on the idea that contact with both parents is usually in a child’s best interest^[13]. In Scotland there is no statutory presumption in favour of contact in the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, which is the key legislation. In deciding whether to make a contact order under this Act the child’s welfare must be the court’s paramount consideration.

Overall, the evidence indicates that narrow definitions of domestic abuse, in particular those that downplay incidents not involving recent physical violence, can result in harmful outcomes for both the non-abusive parent and their children. Allegations may be dismissed during child contact proceedings as insufficiently serious, and even when acknowledged, they are often deemed irrelevant to the child’s safety and wellbeing. Such minimisation places both the non-abusive parent and children at increased risk of physical and emotional harm.

2.1.4 The adversarial nature of proceedings

Across the literature, findings indicate that consideration of domestic abuse in child contact proceedings is inhibited by the procedural and practical aspects of those proceedings (Domestic Abuse Commissioner 2025; SCCJR 2023; Domestic Abuse Commissioner 2023; Ministry of Justice 2020). One reason for this, noted by research in England and Wales, is that the adversarial system encourages conflict and contest, which can re-traumatise victims and obscure the child’s best interests. Proceedings within the adversarial system are brought by one parent and, especially where allegations of domestic abuse are denied, are conducted on an adversarial basis. In this setting, the court must adjudicate between two opposing parents, which shifts the focus away from the child, particularly as most children have little involvement in the process and few are directly represented (Ministry of Justice 2020).

In Scotland, there have been moves towards a more ‘innovative’ approach in the form of Child Welfare Hearings (CWHs). CWHs were added to Chapter 33 of the Ordinary Cause Rules (OCRs) (Schedule 1 to the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1907) in 1996 as the main process for dealing with civil cases involving the welfare of a child under section 11 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. Most disputes concerning child contact or residence begin with a series of CWHs. One CWH must be held early in any defended action, and the sheriff may convene further hearings where necessary.

At any of these hearings, the sheriff may determine that the issues in dispute are substantial enough to warrant fixing a Proof. A Proof enables the court to hear oral evidence and consider documentary materials relevant to the child’s welfare. The sheriff then makes findings of fact and decisions on key matters, including contact arrangements.

Although CWHs are designed to facilitate resolution rather than adversarial contest, this “cautious process” can result in prolonged proceedings. Concerns have been raised about the potential for lengthy delays and their negative impact on children’s welfare (SCCJR 2023). Solicitors interviewed in the SCCJR study described child contact cases as distinct from other civil matters. They highlighted that the CWH process focuses on understanding the child’s circumstances rather than testing evidence to determine which party’s position should prevail. One consequence of this approach is a reduced emphasis on evidentiary scrutiny in child contact cases, marking a clear contrast with more adversarial family law actions and with how domestic abuse is addressed within the criminal justice system.

Although moving away from an adversarial model may appear beneficial in principle, interviewees in the SCCJR research noted a disconnect between the statutory requirement in the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 to consider domestic abuse and the reality of practice. While allegations of abuse might appear in pleadings, these were not always examined during CWHs. Findings from the research indicate that, in most child contact cases, solicitors rely primarily on their clients to disclose any allegations of domestic abuse. Whether these allegations are subsequently brought to the attention of the court, and at what stage, was reported to depend largely on whether the concerns related directly to the child or to risks posed to the client. Interviewees indicated that such matters might be revisited if a case proceeded to Proof, although Proofs were described as relatively rare. Within the CWH, process which interviewees characterised as the central route through which child contact cases progress, pleadings were viewed as having limited relevance. Instead, participants pointed to a prevailing pro‑contact ethos embedded within the system, in which reconciliation, compromise and ongoing contact is generally assumed to be in the child’s best interests (SCCJR 2023).

Additionally, the research by SCCJR suggests that the procedural aspects of the system further reinforce the minimisation of domestic abuse as a ‘dispute between parents’. The research found that there was an underlying view amongst interviewees that domestic abuse is just another issue between parents. The researchers assert that this construct may be particularly pronounced in disputes about child contact, as the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 constructs them as disputes between adults who either have or seek to have parental rights and responsibilities (PR&R). As a result, the voice of the child in such proceedings can be obscured or used as evidence to either confirm or deny the word of one parent against the other (SCCJR 2023).

Across the wider literature, the continuance of the adversarial approach creates additional challenges in cases where there is an element of domestic abuse. While judges aim to maintain a level playing field, power imbalances between victim and perpetrator can undermine fairness. Courts must ensure victims can participate fully without intimidation or control, yet evidence suggests they often struggle to address these dynamics. For example, requests for special measures or support workers may be refused on the grounds that they would create inequality rather than correct it (Ministry of Justice 2020). Although the Harm Panel’s evidence relates specifically to England and Wales, its findings indicate that while special measures were theoretically available, they were often not effectively implemented. The panel also highlighted that perpetrators may exploit the Family Court process to continue abusive behaviours, for example by submitting repeated or vexatious applications (Ministry of Justice 2020). These concerns have also been raised in discussions surrounding the VWJR Act 2025.

Evidence suggests that victims can find the adversarial system re-traumatising, particularly where they are required to re-live their experiences. Cross-examination in particular has been identified as traumatic, often leaving victims feeling undermined and belittled by questioning (Scottish Government 2023a). Although it is noted that cross-examination in family actions in the civil system only takes place in the small number of cases that are taken to Proof.

The Harm Report (2020) in England and Wales, suggests that the adversarial nature of the family courts often worsened conflict between parents, which could re-traumatise victims and their children. The report also found that the system could act as a barrier to children's participation. By design the process excludes children from an active role, except in rare cases where they are made parties to proceedings, though even then, the adult-centred nature of the process is even more evident. A domestic abuse worker involved in the research for the Harm Panel described how giving evidence can be re-traumatising for children as they can often struggle to express their account of events. For example, in one instance, a child was left feeling immense guilt, believing they had done something wrong when the abusive parent was released following their evidence (Ministry of Justice 2020).

Additionally, qualitative findings from a Domestic Abuse Commissioner report in England & Wales indicate that the adversarial process can often leave survivors feeling disempowered. Survivors said that either they did not know how to make a case within the rules, or that they felt that the perpetrator had advantages within the adversarial process, often having representation when survivors did not (Domestic Abuse Commissioner 2025). As the Harm Panel observes, the adversarial system in family courts in England and Wales assumes that both parties will have legal representation. In reality, in private law children proceedings, it is common for only one party - or sometimes neither- to be represented. When neither party has representation, existing dynamics of power, control, and intimidation within the relationship are likely to persist unchecked (Ministry of Justice 2020).

2.1.5 A lack of clear and transparent civil justice data

SCCJR’s research on the civil/criminal interface found a significant gap in the availability of clear and transparent civil justice data. This lack of accessible data not only poses challenges for academic research into the civil justice system but also has practical implications for legal professionals. In examining the civil/criminal interface, researchers found their work constrained by the limited availability of reliable civil justice data. The researchers claim that the lack of civil justice data has resulted in little understanding of the volume and nature of contact applications, particularly in relation to cases involving allegations of domestic abuse. While such information may exist within court documents, it is not readily accessible and would require detailed examination of individual case files. Furthermore, there is limited understanding of what additional datasets relating to the civil justice system exist, what these contain and how access might be achieved (SCCJR 2023).

Recent findings from England and Wales suggest that the lack of data may be obscuring domestic abuse allegations in the vast majority of child contact cases. A Domestic Abuse Commissioner report that reviewed a sample of child arrangement case files, found evidence of domestic abuse in up to 91% of reviewed case files. Files were identified as involving domestic abuse where it was raised as an issue by either party or by a professional at any point in proceedings (Domestic Abuse Commissioner 2025). It is noted that this report was based on a one-off analysis of case files and the underlying data remains relatively inaccessible, meaning it is difficult to assess whether the level of allegations in these cases is consistent over time, or representative of such cases, given the files were drawn from a random sample.

The lack of accessible and transparent data poses challenges for those working in legal practice. Without robust evidence on the number of contested child contact cases, the extent to which domestic abuse features in these cases, or the typical outcomes in terms of contact being granted or refused, legal practitioners face difficulties in offering well-informed advice to their clients.