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

Chapter 3: The evidence on domestic abuse courts

As noted in Section 1.5 of this paper, evidence published since 2019 specifically focusing on IDACs is limited. Much of the existing research is international and focused on quantitative data related to criminal justice outcomes, such as reduced reoffending or increased convictions. Overall, there is a lack of qualitative analysis of victim and family experiences. While two evaluations published since 2019, and the Pathfinder evaluations, have begun to address this gap, further research is needed to determine whether the introduction of IDACs improves outcomes for victims and their children and addresses the issues set out earlier in this paper. While the literature primarily emphasises criminal justice outcomes, evidence on civil court outcomes has been included where available. An overview of the components of each model is provided in Table 1, before the following section outlines the models in more detail.

3.1 IDAC models: Findings from the Literature

Two evaluations have been carried out of IDACs since the publication of the 2019 report by Scottish Government, these are: a study of the Toronto IDVC and a comprehensive assessment of an integrated model in Queensland, Australia. While more recent commentary on the New York IDAC has been included, new evidence on that model remains limited and largely cyclical, often referencing sources included in the 2019 review. For these reasons, although much of the most recent evidence on IDACs is presented here, for further context the following section should be read in conjunction with the relevant sections summarised in the 2019 research. Despite these limitations, this section updates the earlier findings and incorporates new evidence where available.

The previous 2019 review focused primarily on the simple IDAC model, with some attention afforded to the more complex US models, due to their dominance in the literature. While the 2019 research covered the Croydon and Vermont IDVCs, both had been discontinued by the time the report was published, meaning that no new evidence was available for inclusion in this review.

In the case of the Croydon IDVC, the court began life as an SDVC with the aim of bridging the gap between civil and criminal cases involving domestic abuse and child contact. However, although there was an expectation of one case per week, only 5 cases were entered into the Croydon IDVC over an 18 month pilot period. Of these, only one case involved concurrent criminal and civil cases eligible for the IDVC. An early evaluation of the court suggested that the reasons for the small number of cases may be because there may not be as many cases with overlapping criminal and civil proceedings as had been assumed, the criteria for the court may have been too restrictive or there may have been problems in the identification of cases. This meant that the evaluation was unable to assess whether the aims of the court had been fulfilled or whether there was a need for a court at all (Ministry of Justice 2008). The Vermont IDVC is discussed in more detail in Section 3.1.2.

3.1.1 The simple IDAC models: Ontario and Queensland

The Ontario and Queensland IDVCs are categorised as simple IDAC models. This model “provides one court where families can have their family cases (excluding divorce, family property and child protection) and domestic violence criminal charges heard before a single judge” (Scottish Government 2019a). The Ontario and Queensland courts focus on domestic abuse and a domestic criminal charge is the entry point for access into the IDVC.

Toronto, Ontario IDVC

There have been three evaluations carried out on the IDVC based in Toronto, Ontario. The final and most recent was published in 2025 and falls within scope of this review, while the others are included in the 2019 research. The IDVC in Toronto is part of the Ontario Court of Justice, a lower-level trial court with jurisdiction over non-jury criminal cases, family matters (excluding property and divorce), child protection, and juvenile justice. In Toronto, family and criminal proceedings are typically held separately, except within the IDVC. Although the IDVC follows a “one judge, one family” model, a different judge presides over the trial if the case proceeds to a contested hearing. This measure was seen to ensure due process and mitigate the perception of bias. This distinguishes the court from most US IDVCs, where the same judge presides over every stage of the process .

In its early years, the Toronto IDVC employed a dedicated Community Resource Coordinator, but the role was discontinued due to funding cuts. Support services remain in place, including staff who provide information and emotional support to victims, a Family Support Worker who coordinates community services, and Legal Aid staff who assist unrepresented individuals (Birnbaum & Bala 2025).

The most recent evaluation by Birnbaum & Bala assessed services, legal representation, court appearances, restraining orders, and parenting outcomes. Notably, it included 38 qualitative interviews with parents who had completed the IDVC process, thus addressing a key gap in the evidence base. These interviews underscored the value of the “one judge, one family” approach and the importance of courts having comprehensive information about domestic violence.

The evaluation highlights that court integration improved access to certain processes. For example, bail conditions such as restrictions on contact with children or victims can be more easily varied within the IDVC, as key stakeholders are informed and involved. Reports from perpetrator programs, including completion status, are also automatically shared with the court, allowing this information to inform family court decisions.

Echoing findings from the previous evaluations on this model, the research demonstrated that IDVC cases were more likely to result in changes to parenting arrangements that increased involvement of the parent that was alleged to be abusive This was attributed to perceived reductions in risk and participation in perpetrator programs, though the researchers caution that such shifts may reflect a broader tendency to minimise historical abuse. Family mediation services were also frequently used despite ongoing criminal charges, reiterating concerns from other studies that contact is often prioritised over safety. For this reason, the researchers called for further investigation into how mediation services respond to domestic violence and how survivors of abuse experience the mediation process^[14]. Concerns around the use of mediation in cases where these is an element of domestic abuse also came through as a theme in the guiding discussions with stakeholders in Scotland.

Interestingly, the research found that conduct conditions were used less frequently in IDVC cases than in the traditional two-court process. Conduct conditions can relate to requirements such as staying at a designated address, not contacting certain individuals, or reporting regularly to a police station. The researchers felt that this may reflect a more cautious judicial approach in the two-court process, where less information is available to assess risk and fewer support services are in place so judges are less likely to grant bail without conditions. The number of criminal court appearances, and total appearances overall, was also significantly lower in IDVC cases than in the two-court process, aligning with findings from US studies. There was some indication that integrated courts may reduce justice system costs although, the researchers noted that a detailed cost-benefit analysis would be needed to confirm this.

Overall, most victims and accused individuals expressed positive views of the integrated approach. They felt heard and respected by the IDVC judge, and appreciated the streamlined process and increased support. They felt that judges were better equipped to understand the full family context, thus enabling more informed decisions. However, the researchers emphasised that concerns around the implementation of the model remain, particularly around the limited use of restraining orders and the continued denial of abuse by many men interviewed. For example, of the thirteen accused men interviewed in the study, only five (38%) acknowledged the harm their abuse caused to the victim and their children. Even when the IDVC process led to a guilty plea, more than half (54%) blamed the victim for creating the circumstances that resulted in violence and for involving the police and child protection services. They also held the victim responsible for restrictions on their contact with the children. Ultimately, only five offenders accepted responsibility for the harm they had caused, even after pleading guilty or being found guilty. This persistent refusal to take responsibility raises ongoing safety concerns, not only for the victim and their children but also for any future partners if the abuser reoffends (Birnbaum & Bala 2025).

Southport, Queensland

Since 2015, Queensland has operated an integrated response to domestic and family violence through the Specialist Domestic and Family Violence Court Justice Response (SDFVCJR). This model now includes specialist courts in seven locations: Southport, Beenleigh, Mount Isa, Townsville, Palm Island, Brisbane, and Cairns. As Southport was the first to implement the model and remains the only location with a full evaluation, the following summary focuses on findings from that site.

The Southport SDFVCJR was designed to provide a coordinated, respectful, and fair court-based response to domestic and family violence (DFV), prioritising victim safety, holding perpetrators accountable, and promoting continuous improvement (Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney-General (QDJAG) 2021)). Its core aims include:

• Enhancing safety and wellbeing for victim-survivors, including children.
• Improving the court experience for victims.
• Increasing perpetrator accountability, compliance with court orders, and behavioural change.

In locations where civil and criminal matters are coordinated, dedicated magistrates preside over both types of cases in the same call-over^[15]. The model includes dedicated magistrates and prosecutors, a court coordinator, specialist court staff, court support services, and duty lawyers.

The final evaluation found that the Southport court is achieving its intended goals. The integrated model, with co-located services and specialist staff, was shown to enhance victim safety and support, and encourage engagement with services. The evaluation also reported that there is emerging evidence that the court is effective in keeping women safer. For example:

• Temporary protection orders, a key tool for immediate legal protection, made up 36% of all protective orders at Southport, a higher proportion than at comparison courts.
• Breaches of protection orders occurred later on average, with the median time between issuance and breach over a month longer than in other courts. This suggests that while the Southport response does not prevent orders being breached, it may improve compliance with orders and contribute to victim safety for a longer period of time.

Victim safety was further supported through early and ongoing risk assessments, conducted by individual agencies and collaboratively across SDFVCJR partners. Safety was also reinforced through the physical elements of the court, where victims are separated from perpetrators while at court.

A high-level cost analysis was also conducted as part of the evaluation. This drew on data from a range of quantitative and qualitative sources, including defendant data, orders granted and wider administrative data. A cost analysis found the model to be potentially cost-effective, with total operating costs of $17.3 million over the evaluation period and 13,146 unique participants. This equates to approximately $1,316 per individual. However, the researchers cautioned that the actual cost may be higher in practice, as service providers often draw on resources from other programmes that sit outside of departmental funding for the Office for Women and Violence Prevention. The researchers note that this may not be sustainable with the current funding over the longer term, particularly as the workload of the court continues to increase.

To measure cost effectiveness, the evaluation utilised a case study analysis, that monetised the benefits at a scenario-based level which calculated the direct and indirect costs for the aggrieved and respondents in three illustrative examples. The studies presented the costing likely to occur without the wrap-around response offered by the Southport court. The scenario-driven cost analysis estimated the cost of ineffective domestic and family violence interventions to be 30 to 80 times higher than the $1,316 cost per participant in the SDVC.

Where the evaluation identifed benefits, these include:

• Consistency and efficiency from a dedicated magistracy.
• Duty lawyer services that help respondents understand their orders, potentially reducing breaches.
• Specialist case managers from Queensland Corrective Services who coordinate support and work directly with perpetrators to challenge harmful attitudes and behaviours.

Overall, the evaluation emphasised the importance of continuity, expertise, and consistent decision-making as central to the model’s success (QDJAG 2021).

3.1.2 The complex IDAC model: New York and Vermont

As highlighted in the 2019 review, the New York and Vermont IDVCs are classified as complex IDAC models, each with slight variations in structure. No recent evaluations of the New York model were identified during this review, and the Bennington County IDVC in Vermont was discontinued. The Bennington County IDVC was founded in 2007 by Judge David Suntag, and ran for just under 3 years (closing due to withdrawal of stakeholder support).

The review also documents the establishment of a similar court in Windham County, Vermont. This was also discontinued after one year due to Judge Suntag’s retirement, after he championed the establishment and operation of the model. The Vermont courts dealt with summary-level domestic criminal charges and all relevant family family cases for one family, including divorce, separation, child contact, residency and parental responsibilities. The Judge that set up the Vermont models aimed to institutionalise procedural fairness in the court’s approach to domestic abuse services. It’s main objectives were:

• “protection and safety for victims and their children as well as other family members”
• “providing immediate access to community services and resources for victims, their children, and offenders” and;
• “providing an immediate and effective response to non-compliance with court orders by offenders” (Vermont Centre for Justice Research 2013).

The closure of both the Vermont models, and the factors contributing to their discontinuation, underscore the critical importance of stakeholder engagement and the influence of key individuals in sustaining integrated models. Although no new evidence on these models has been published since the 2019 research, some more recent commentary on the New York model is provided below.

New York

In New York, the IDVC system was established in 2001 as an expansion of existing domestic violence courts. Unlike earlier models, IDVCs were designed to handle not only criminal domestic violence cases but also related family court matters and matrimonial disputes. This approach aimed to address the recognised challenge of families having to navigate multiple, often disconnected, court processes and services (Blonder 2023).

While the following section does not present new evidence, it highlights aspects of the New York model that were not covered in the previous review. That earlier review provided a detailed narrative of the IDVC system; however, more recent commentary offers additional insights into implementation that may be relevant for Scotland.

In her summary of the "One Family, One Judge" model, Elka Blonder (2023) outlines four key requirements for establishing an IDVC in New York State:

1. Administrative Order: The Chief Administrative Judge must issue an order to create an IDVC within an existing court and assign one or more judges to preside over cases.

2. Stakeholder Advocacy and Support: The successful establishment and operation of an IDVC depends on strong advocacy and collaboration among stakeholders. The New York Center for Court Innovation played a pivotal role in supporting implementation. Blonder (2023) emphasises the need for judges who are passionate about both family and criminal law, and for district attorneys who recognise the value of cooperation, particularly in assigning assistant DAs to IDVCs and facilitating collaboration with defence attorneys.

3. Victim Services: Comprehensive support for victims is a cornerstone of the IDVC model. Victim service organisations are essential partners in implementation, ensuring that the court system addresses the full spectrum of victim needs.

4. Cost Considerations: Financial constraints are a major barrier to wider adoption of IDVCs across the United States. Blonder notes that the high costs associated with integrating multiple court functions into a single system have deterred many states from pursuing similar models. While grant funding is available, it requires proactive advocacy and a willingness to apply for support.

Finally, Blonder stresses that IDVCs require a significant period of planning and implementation to become fully operational. The New York IDVC model recommends six months of intensive planning followed by six months of implementation, during which twelve core components must be established. These include: training for judges and staff; case identification, screening, and scheduling; installation of technology and safety measures; and coordination of domestic violence and community resources^[16].

If Scotland were to consider implementing IDVCs or a similar integrated model, these stages and requirements, aside from the administrative order, may be broadly applicable and should be carefully considered during planning.

Although challenges persist, findings from the evidence outlined above indicate that IDACs can deliver tangible benefits in terms of consistency, effficiency and improved victim safety.

3.2 Specialist Domestic Abuse Courts: Findings from the literature

As was discussed in section 1.5.2, Glasgow has operated a form of SDAC since 2004. Recognising that Scotland may not implement a fully integrated model, the section below outlines components already in place across several Sheriff courts that form a basis for improving the response to domestic abuse in criminal matters. As the majority of recent evidence from the Glasgow SDAC comes from the evaluation of the SCM pilot, the section below relies heavily on these findings.

3.2.1 The Summary Case Management (SCM) Pilot, Scotland

The SCM Pilot, a key initiative in domestic abuse case handling, was initially launched in September 2022 at Dundee, Hamilton, and Paisley Sheriff Courts. Due to its initial performance, the pilot was extended to Glasgow Sheriff Court in January 2024 and subsequently to Perth Sheriff Court. Crucially, the evaluation of the pilot demonstrates how certain integrated components can be applied to the existing criminal court structure.

The primary aims of the SCM pilot were focused on improving the efficiency of the criminal justice process and reducing the burden on victims and the court system. The key operational objectives included achieving:

• Increased early resolution: A higher percentage of cases resolved at the initial stage (first calling or continued without plea (CWP)).
• Reduced procedural activity: A decrease in the total number of witness citations issued.
• Efficient trial scheduling: A reduction in the number of scheduled trials where no evidence is ultimately led.

The final evaluation reports that the SCM model secured several key benefits over the course of the pilot. These are outlined below, however, what is clear is that the SCM Pilot has already successfully introduced components consistent with many of the goals of an IDAC model, while maintaining the separation between criminal and civil remits.

Key performance indicators were developed to measure the success of the pilot. The indicators focused on performance in relation to automatic and targeted disclosure, witness citation volumes and trial outcomes. These included:

• That disclosure of the key material is available, within 3 days of receipt of a letter of engagement from the defence, in all domestic abuse cases at the first calling (custody, undertaking, cited);
• That the number of witness citations issued decreases;
• That the percentage of domestic abuse trials in which evidence is led at the trial diet increases.

The indicators were reviewed and developed as the pilot progressed and new processes embedded, with measures fixed once sufficient data became available. The evaluation also included a qualitative component with key stakeholders, including representatives from the SCTS, Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS), Police Scotland and ASSIST.

Findings from the evaluation highlight that enhanced judicial case management in domestic abuse cases delivered a number of positive outcomes across pilot sites:

• Early Case Resolution: Significant increases in the early resolution of cases and the number of evidence-led trials, which minimises trauma, inconvenience, and delays for complainers, witnesses, and the accused.
• Victim Confidence: Earlier and more proactive engagement with complainers in domestic abuse cases, leading to increased confidence in the criminal justice system.
• Streamlined Journey Times: A positive overall impact on criminal justice journey times.
• Resource Savings: A marked reduction in citations of police witnesses, generating savings that can be reinvested in front-line operational policing duties and officer wellbeing.

As a result of the measures implemented to facilitate early case resolution, the pilot also brought in key changes to the disclosure of evidence and the provision of legal aid. These changes demonstrate that meaningful, systemic improvements are achievable within the existing court framework.

• Early Evidence Disclosure: The pilot mandated a mechanism for the early disclosure of "key evidence"in domestic abuse cases. Police Scotland is required to identify and submit this evidence to the COPFS, which then discloses it to the defence. This process supported efficient resolution but did place an initial resourcing pressure on Police Scotland. However, compliance with disclosure timelines did improve over the pilot's duration. This finding was similar to the capacity pressures observed on social work services in the England and Wales Pathfinder models.
• Legal Aid Remuneration: The model's focus on early resolution meant that defence agents raised concerns about remuneration for pre-court engagement with the Crown, as cases resolved without a court appearance often did not qualify for the standard summary fixed fee under the Assistance by Way of Representation (ABWOR) scheme. In response, the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) successfully sought a change via Scottish Statutory Instrument, allowing the fixed fee to be paid once a complaint is issued or a decision to prosecute has been made.

The pre-existing model in Glasgow, where automatic grants of legal aid have been in place for domestic abuse cases since 2004, suggests that enhanced legal aid provision is vital for the smooth functioning of such integrated approaches, particularly where early evidence gathering is a component.

Finally, effective judicial case management and consistency were found to be central to the pilot's success:

• Standardised Judicial Scrutiny: Effective judicial case management established an expectation that sheriffs actively scrutinise cases at all stages. To support this consistency, sheriffs are required to complete a standardised case management pro forma for every case where a trial diet is assigned.
• Digital Evidence Streamlining: Police Scotland reported significant benefits in handling digital evidence. Updated procedures enabled frontline officers to download, edit, format, and share CCTV and other digital evidence directly with the Crown, streamlining the overall evidence management process.
• Leadership and Consistency: While COPFS emphasised the importance of judicial leadership in the pilot’s success, they noted inconsistencies in practice across the courts, particularly involving visiting sheriffs. This highlights the ongoing challenge of maintaining consistency in judicial practice and aligning court programming and resources effectively.

Taken together, the components and benefits outlined above, particularly the focus on early evidence sharing, judicial specialisation, and victim-centred scheduling, provide a strong foundation that could be expanded to integrate civil and criminal considerations in domestic abuse cases, without requiring the implementation of a fully integrated model.

3.3 The Family Court: The Private Law Pathfinder Pilot, England & Wales

As discussed in Section 1.5.5, the Private Law Pathfinder pilot was established in response to recommendations set out in the The Harm Panel Report. The central aims of the pilot were to improve the experience of families in private law child arrangements proceedings, specifically by reducing re-traumatisation of victim-survivors of domestic abuse, minimising the time families spent in court, and enhancing coordination between support agencies. The following section should be read in conjunction with the Ministry of Justice evaluation reports, published in 2025 and 2026, where the findings are reported in more detail.

Child arrangement proceedings in England and Wales determine with whom a child lives, spends time, or otherwise has contact. These are distinct from criminal proceedings but do, as evidenced in the DAC report, involve families affected by domestic abuse in the vast majority of cases (Domestic Abuse Commissioner 2025). Given the nature of these cases, the systems and professionals involved in advising the courts play a critical role in safeguarding children’s welfare. In England and Wales, Cafcass is an independent organisation tasked with looking after the interests of children involved in family proceedings. Cafcass employ family court social workers, also known as Family Court Advisors, who advise the family court on what arrangements would best support a child’s safety, welfare and development. In Scotland, there is no direct equivalent to Cafcass and social work are not routinely involved in private family law cases. Child welfare reporters (CWRs) in Scotland fulfil a similar role to Cafcass in producing reports for the courts in contact and residence cases. Most CWRs are lawyers but some may be from other professional backgrounds, such as social work and education.^[17]

3.3.1 Core Reforms and Process Structure

The Pathfinder process fundamentally reformed the previous Child Arrangements Programme (CAP) by introducing three new phases and key roles focused on early intervention and risk assessment:

1. Information Gathering and Assessment: A frontloaded phase focused on safety and risk.

2. Interventions and/or Decision Hearing: Targeted support or judicial decision-making based on early assessment.

3. Review Stage: A final stage to monitor the outcome and ensure long-term safety.

The pilot also introduced critical roles and mandates:

• Case Progression Officer: A new role dedicated to case coordination and serving as a single point of contact for families.
• Direct Agency Funding: Provision of direct funding to domestic abuse support agencies to conduct risk assessments and provide integrated support within the court model.
• Child-Centred Information Gathering: Information gathering was frontloaded and specifically focused on collecting the views and experiences of the child from the very beginning of proceedings.

During the information gathering phase, the Family Court Advisor (a qualified social worker employed by Cafcass) conducts an assessment resulting in a Child Impact Report (CIR). This report centres the voice of the child and integrates their views alongside detailed domestic abuse, stalking, and honour-based violence (DASH) risk assessments (Ministry of Justice 2025).

3.3.2 Findings from the Process Evaluation and Financial Analysis

An initial evaluation, which included a process review and exploratory financial analysis, compared the implementation of Pathfinder in the initial Dorset and North Wales sites against two comparison sites using the older CAP process. Based on interviews with family justice, local authority, and domestic abuse practitioners, the evaluation found that the model’s benefits are "extensive".These included:

• Improved Outcomes: Practitioners reported "perceptions of substantially improved experiences and outcomes for children and families."
• Judicial Efficiency: Fewer hearings and reduced time spent in court were consistently observed.
• Informed Decisions: Better information gathering informed safety planning, which was attributed to the success of the CIR in prioritising the child's voice and needs. Researchers noted that this clarified issues earlier and provided the court with input from a broader range of sources, supporting more informed decision-making.

In terms of cost, the overall expenditure for Pathfinder sites was found to be similar to the older CAP comparison sites. However, the cost savings achieved by conducting fewer hearings were off-set by new expenditure required to fund domestic abuse agencies for their input and support (Ministry of Justice 2025).

Resourcing Challenges and Rollout

While highly effective, the frontloaded nature of the Pathfinder model created significant resourcing challenges:

• Social Work Pressure: Social workers faced intense pressure due to the tight timescales required to produce a detailed CIR, necessitating prompt meetings with children and family members. During discussions with stakeholders for this review, concerns were raised that this pressure would only increase if the model were rolled out nationally without adequate funding.
• Cost of Resourcing: Pathfinder changes the cost profile of a case, with higher costs for some organisations at different stages within a case. The evaluation concluded that "effective rollout may require consideration of how organisations are resourced to manage this different cost profile" (Ministry of Justice 2025). Resourcing was also a key theme in discussions with a stakeholder who had experience of Pathfinder, where they expressed concerns that the pilot would be expanded further before additional funding, for both additional staff and training, had been provided.

3.3.3 Findings from the Evaluation on the Experiences of Children and Families

The subsequent evaluation, published in January 2026, on how children and families experience the Pathfinder process complements the process evaluation outlined above. The evaluation aimed to understand the lived experience of parents, children and young people, including those who were at risk of domestic abuse and other harms, and how that lived experience relates to the policy goals of Pathfinder courts. The evaluation involved 39 parents and carers (25 mothers, 13 fathers, 1 grandparent) and 9 children across both pilot sites in Dorset and North Wales.

Although the evaluation reflects the experiences of a relatively small number and self-selecting sample of participants, it does provide some insight into the differences in how parents and children experienced Pathfinder. Across the qualitative data, the evaluation identified seven key themes:

• Court Experience: Across the studies, most participants reported positive interactions with Cafcass/Cafcass Cymru Family Court Advisors (FCAs) and, in some cases, with judges and magistrates, particularly when they felt their views were acknowledged. However, participants also described negative experiences, noting occasions where social workers, FCAs, and members of the judiciary appeared to minimise or overlook their concerns.
• Child Experience and Participation: Children generally reflected positively on their contact with FCAs, and parents felt that the Child Impact Report (CIR) supported children in articulating their views about contact arrangements. Despite this, experiences varied in relation to how well children’s wishes and perspectives were reflected in final decisions. Both children and parents identified clear improvements in capturing the child’s perspective under the Pathfinder model, especially when compared with previous CAP processes.
• Reducing Re‑traumatisation in Domestic Abuse Cases: Findings on the Pathfinder model’s aim to reduce re‑traumatisation in cases involving domestic abuse were mixed. Many participants valued the avoidance of mediation, as well as access to DASH risk assessments and special measures, though these were not consistently offered, and participants were often unclear about the basis for such decisions. Mothers, in particular, reported positive experiences with domestic abuse service involvement, contrasting these favourably with prior CAP experiences. Some participants also felt that professionals responded more appropriately to false or unsubstantiated counter-allegations. Nevertheless, many parents, again especially mothers, felt that further opportunities existed to reduce re‑traumatisation, particularly during court attendance. They highlighted the importance of being believed and having their abuse experiences validated. Concerns were also raised about inconsistent implementation of trauma‑informed practice during proceedings.
• Multi‑agency Working: Most participants believed that multi-agency collaboration required improvement. Parents frequently reported negative experiences relating to information sharing, particularly around safeguarding and welfare concerns, which they felt were often downplayed or disregarded by professionals across different agencies.
• Efficiency of the Court Process: Parents with prior exposure to CAP generally viewed the Pathfinder process as more efficient. However, some domestic abuse victim‑survivors felt the process moved too quickly at the outset, limiting their ability to fully communicate their experiences during the court process.
• Returning Cases and the Review Stage: Parents tended to respond positively when their desired outcomes were achieved, though some anticipated returning to court where outcomes had not been secured or enforced. Although participants were informed that cases would undergo professional review, many reported that the review stage was rarely implemented, generating frustration and feelings of insufficient post‑court support, particularly among domestic abuse victim‑survivors.
• Broader Family Justice Issues: Participants also identified several wider issues influencing their experience of Pathfinder. Those with legal representation generally reported more positive experiences, while Litigants in Person (LiPs) more commonly described negative ones. Financial pressures associated with the court process were highlighted, and some participants expressed concerns regarding the handling of allegations of alienating behaviours (related to the concept of parental alienation) (Ministry of Justice 2026).

Similarly to the SCM pilot, the Pathfinder model incorporates many of the key elements of the IDAC model, albeit without combining civil and criminal proceedings within a single process. In particular, it’s core goals align with those of an integrated model by aiming to: reduce the re-traumatisation of victim-survivors of domestic abuse, improve the experience and outcomes for children in child arrangement proceedings, and improve coordination between agencies.

Evidence from both evaluations indicates that improved outcomes for children and families, alongside greater efficiency and better information sharing, can be achieved through comprehensive, front‑loaded information gathering. This approach equips the court with clearer and more complete data at the outset, enabling more informed safety planning and decision‑ making. Increased involvement of domestic abuse services also provides essential practical and emotional support, including assistance with special measures and navigating court attendance. In addition, more efficient processes reduce the number of required hearings and help to limit overall delay.

3.4 Key components of the court models

Although the court models outlined above have different remits, (criminal, civil or integrated), they do share a core set of commonalities that can inform how the response in Scotland can be improved. Many of these are similar to the common components discussed in the 2019 review, where the importance of specialist training, case identification, the IDAC coordinator, victim advocacy and legal representation, scheduling and offender monitoring was emphasised. Within Pathfinder, maintaining the focus on the voice of the child was a key finding that emerged in both evaluations. The shared commonalities across the courts discussed in this review reinforce the conclusion that there are shared components of best practice for responding to domestic abuse within the context of concurrent proceedings.

The overarching commitment is to a coordinated, systemic response to domestic abuse with the primary goal of improving outcomes for victims and families.The core components embedded within all the models are outlined in more detail below.

Targeted eligibility: Integrated court and similar models have a defined eligibility. Some IDACs, such as the Toronto IDVC, require that for cases to be eligible there must be concurrent cases in criminal, family or civil courts. While other courts may focus on specific family cases or on all domestic abuse cases within an area. Pathfinder for example, applies to all child arrangements cases that involve an application for a Section 8^[18] order or an application for an enforcement order. However, there is also some evidence that too narrow an eligibility can be a particular issue. Previous evaluations of the Croydon IDAC found that its emphasis on concurrence meant that very few cases passed through the court (Centre for Justice Innovation 2020).

Coordination and scheduling: What is clear from the evidence is that case scheduling in an integrated court or similar model requires dedicated resources and effort. Across the models reviewed, it is clear that the IDAC coordinator or case management officer is key to effectively identifying and managing case schedules to ensure the smooth running of the court. As the Southport evaluation notes, the court coordinatior acts as ‘a central hub within a ‘wheel’ of key stakeholders’. These include court personnel and service providers, with the coordinator collecting and sharing information with relevant partners (Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney-General 2021). While in the Pathfinder pilot, although only dealing with civil cases, the Case Progression Officer was seen as key to the delivery of the model through ensuring that ‘timeframes were maintained, cases were managed efficiently, communications were coordinated and support was provided to families’ (Ministry of Justice 2025).

Strong partnerships: Evidence shows that support services were central to the success of the court models, this finding held true for integrated, criminal and civil models. As the Centre for Justice Innovation notes, these partnerships allow the court to fast-track both victims and perpetrators into external services (Centre for Justice Innovation 2020). In Toronto for example, the linking of perpetrators into offender programmes was seen as key to holding perpetrators accountable and promoting changes in attitude and behaviour (Birnbaum & Bala 2025). Whereas in the Pathfinder pilot, strong partnerships with domestic abuse services were central to the effectiveness of the CIR. Participants reported that the risk assessments and tailored support plans provided by domestic abuse services were leading to improved safety and better outcomes generally for victims and their children (Ministry of Justice 2025).

Culturally appropriate support: The Southport evaluation noted that for individuals from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, language is a key barrier to accessing the criminal justice system. Having an interpreter at court is therefore key to ensuring that these individuals can access positive outcomes. There may also be additional barriers for people from different backgrounds if the court does not recognise and appropriately respond to cultural perceptions of violence (Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney-General 2021).

Training and continuous professional development: As noted in Section 2.1.2, research indicates that a lack of understanding among some court professionals and judges, negatively impacted victim experiences of the justice system. Across the literature and in interviews with key informants, the importance of specialised training for staff employed in any court model was consistently highlighted. In the Pathfinder evaluation, participants noted the value in joint training in supporting Pathfinder delivery and improving understanding of domestic abuse across the system. Where challenges were reported, these related to new staff, who may have only worked on a few Pathfinder cases and did not have the requisite training. The report noted that investment in joint training and, in particular, role appropriate domestic abuse training was seen as key to the success of any further successful rollout (Ministry of Justice 2025). The importance of training was also repeatedly raised in discussions with key informants. They noted that although improvements had been made, there was still work to be done to improve overall understanding of the dynamics of domestic abuse across the system. In terms of Pathfinder, concerns around embedding appropriate knowledge before any further rollout were also raised by informants.

The Voice of the Child: Findings suggest that, from the perspective of children and families, Pathfinder is performing particularly well in centering the child’s experience and participation. In the lived‑experience evaluation, children reported feeling comfortable engaging with Cafcass and social workers, and noted that the CIR offered a meaningful opportunity to express their views. In a system where evidence shows that children’s voices are often marginalised, the CIR represents an important mechanism for ensuring that children can actively engage with the process and communicate their feelings about contact arrangements (Ministry of Justice 2026; Ministry of Justice 2025)