Policy paper

Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s report ‘Everyday Business': government response

Published 10 June 2026

Introduction

1. The Family Court engages with some of the most vulnerable people in our society and makes crucial decisions about the lives of children. The Government has a clear responsibility to protect those using the Court and to ensure that they have confidence in how the Court operates as well as the decisions that are made.

2. The Ministry of Justice is grateful to the Domestic Abuse Commissioner (‘the Commissioner’), her office, Professor Rosemary Hunter and Professor Mandy Burton for their work on designing and delivering the Family Court Review and Reporting Mechanism Pilot (‘the FCRRM’). We would also like to extend our sincere gratitude to all the victims and survivors of domestic abuse who took part in the research, sharing their often traumatic experiences to provide the review with invaluable first-hand experiences.

3. The pilot has provided a useful insight into the prevalence of domestic abuse in private law children proceedings and it has further developed our understanding of the types of abuse that feature in cases. Alongside this, the report provides an insight into how we can further deliver on the Government’s response to the Harm Panel report. In the response, the Government committed to establishing a mechanism to provide oversight of and report on the Family Court’s performance with regard to protecting victims of domestic abuse in private law children proceedings.

4. The Government is determined to take action to improve the experiences of those involved in private law children proceedings, including those who are victims of domestic abuse and other serious offences. We are already doing this through:

• The continued rollout of the Child Focused Courts model which constitutes a transformational reform to procedures in certain private law proceedings relating to children, including proceedings for child arrangements orders.
• The repeal of the presumption of parental involvement from the Children Act 1989 to ensure that the wellbeing and safety of every child remains at the forefront of every decision made in the Family Court.
• The introduction of new measures through the Victims and Courts Act 2026 to automatically restrict the exercise of an offender’s parental responsibility where they have been sentenced to four years or more for a serious child sexual abuse offence or where rape has led to the birth of a child.
• Work to establish best practice in managing requests for special measures, improving access to information and the user experience.
• Working with the Family Procedure Rule Committee (FPRC) to update Practice Direction 12J (which sets out the steps the Court is required to take in a case that involves domestic abuse or allegations of domestic abuse) to prevent the instruction of unregulated experts in child proceedings, subject to necessary exceptions.

5. We are committed to going further and that is why later this year we will publish, alongside our partners across the Family Justice System, a Family Justice Strategy. This will set out our understanding of the wide-ranging issues that can make the experience of private law proceedings difficult for vulnerable Court users and our commitment to long-term reform of the Family Court.

Note on Response

6. Section 8 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 gives the Commissioner the power to report on any matter relating to domestic abuse. The Government must publish a response to any such report.

7. On 14 October 2025, Commissioner published a report entitled ‘Everyday Business: Addressing domestic abuse and continuing harm through a Family Court review and reporting mechanism’ in which she outlined concerns relating to domestic abuse and continuing harm in Family Court cases and made 16 recommendations.

8. Ordinarily, Government responses must be published within 56 days of the original response. This response has been delayed in order to include confirmation of funding for phase two of the FCRRM.

9. This response incorporates feedback from partners across the Family Justice System. Although the duty to respond to a report by the Commissioner does not apply to the Welsh Government, we recognise that the Family Justice System operates across both England and Wales. We further recognise that the duty to respond does not apply to the judiciary (s7(6) Domestic Abuse Act 2021).

Summary of Recommendations and Responses

10. This section summarises the 16 recommendations made by the Commissioner’s report and the Government’s response to them. Two of those recommendations contain sub-recommendations, meaning the Government has responded to 19 recommendations in total. The Government has accepted 8 of the Commissioner’s recommendations in full and accepted 5 in part. The Government will not be taking forward 6 recommendations.

11. In formulating our response, we have grouped the recommendations together into thematic sections in order to provide a coherent response on related issues. This grouping is reflected in the summary below.

Phase Two of the Family Court Review and Reporting Mechanism (FCRRM)

Recommendation 1 - The Ministry of Justice should commit resource and funding to a second phase of the Family Court Review and Reporting Mechanism - Accepted.

Response - The Government has committed £500,000 over two years from 2026 to support phase two of the FCRRM.

Recommendation 2 - Pathfinder Court sites as well as Child Arrangement Programme (CAP) Courts should be included as part of the intensive Court study in phase two of the FCRRM - Accepted in Part.

Response - Phase two of the FCRRM will focus exclusively on Child Focused Court areas rather than CAP areas. This is because the Child Focused Model represents the future model of all child arrangement proceedings and will be rolled out nationally over the next three years. As such it is where data collection will be most valuable.

Recommendation 3 - As well as reviewing child arrangements cases, phase two of the FCRRM should incorporate the review of financial remedy cases, applying the same research questions to these cases - Not Accepted.

Response - This Spring, the Government will begin a consultation on the law around cohabitation and financial remedies. As such, it would not be appropriate to include these proceedings in phase two of the FCRRM.

Inadequacy of administrative data

Recommendation 4 - Data on (i) the presence of domestic abuse concerns and (ii) the type(s) of domestic abuse raised, should be routinely collected by the new Manage Cases (CCD) system from online forms, safeguarding letters and section 7 reports – Accepted in Part.

Response - The new Manage Cases (CCD) system is currently in use in four Designated Family Court areas and due to be rolled out nationally. The system records instances where an applicant has made allegations of harm and the type of allegations, thus capturing the presence of domestic abuse concerns. It will not, however, capture data on allegations made in safeguarding or Section 7 reports (a report prepared by a social worker for the Court which provides information about a child’s welfare and advice about what is in their best interests). Any future iterations of the system will need to be carefully evaluated in terms of administrative burden and so we cannot accept this recommendation in full at this time.   

Recommendation 5 - Future data collection focusing on domestic abuse in the Family Justice System should record allegations that are not endorsed by professional judgement as well as those that are. Data should disaggregate between:

• Allegations by the mother against the father
• Allegations by the father against the mother
• Allegations by either party against a same sex partner
• Allegations by either party against third parties and
• Allegations judged to be relevant by Cafcass England, Cafcass Cymru and the Court. - Accepted in Part.

Response - CCD records allegations made by either the applicant or respondent, regardless of role (i.e. mother or father) or gender. It can therefore be considered to cover the following allegations, though not disaggregated by these categories:

• Allegations by a mother against a father
• Allegations by a father against a mother
• Allegations by either party against a same sex partner.

The system does not capture:

• Allegations by either party against a third party
• Allegations judged to be relevant by Cafcass England, Cafcass Cymru or the Court

The CCD system is still in development and there will be further iterations of the system. The Government will consider whether this data can be captured as part of future iterations but at present can only accept the recommendation in part.

Recommendation 6 - Revise the C1A Form - Accepted.

Response - The Government agrees that the C1A Form requires updates to ensure it references further categories of domestic abuse and protective orders in order to ensure victims can accurately capture their experiences.

Recommendation 7 - The ethnicity of parties and children in proceedings should be routinely recorded as part of the C100 form and routinely recorded by professionals in reports, using established ONS ethnicity categories for consistency and comparison - Accepted.

Response - The Government agrees that it is important to collect ethnicity data in order to ensure equality and will conduct a review of the C100 form with a focus on collecting improved ethnicity and disability data, while taking into account data protection obligations.

Recommendation 8 - A general question about disability within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 together with a dropdown list of types of disability and health conditions should be included in the C100 form for both parties and children, to increase understanding of prevalence in the Court population and assist the Court and Cafcass/Cafcass Cymru in the handling of individual cases - Accepted.

Response - As above, the Government is committed to ensuring equality and will review the C100 form accordingly, while taking into account data protection obligations.

Recommendation 9(i) - That the tick-boxes for requests for special measures on the C100 and C1A forms be harmonised - Accepted.

Response - The Government agrees that requests for special measures should be standardised across the relevant forms in order to ensure ease of use by vulnerable Court users. As such, the reviews of the C100 and C1A forms committed to above will include consideration of include how this aspect can be made consistent.

Recommendation 9(ii) - That correspondence, administrative records and case management directions and orders relating to requests for special measures and for the appointment of a QLR always be added to individual case files - Accepted.

Response - The Government is in agreement that this data collection is valuable, which is why existing guidance already makes clear that documentation such as correspondence, administrative records and case management directions should be included in case files. Alongside this a case flag can be added which identifies where a Qualified Legal Representative (QLR) has been appointed. The CCD system will allow parties to upload documents directly to the system, which will reduce the administrative burden on HMCTS staff, improving management of case files and helping to ensure this guidance is met.  

Recommendation 9(iii) - That hearing record templates be built into the CCD to include tick-boxes for whether:

• A screen was provided in Court for either of the parties
• Either of the parties attended remotely
• Either of the parties was accompanied by an IDVA or DA support worker
• Either of the parties was accompanied by an intermediary
• An interpreter was present for either of the parties
• Any other special measures were in place for either of the parties
• A QLR was present for either of the parties
• Either of the parties were legally aided – Not Accepted.

Response - Much of this information is already recorded by other means. To require HMCTS staff to populate an additional template to collect this information would be a significant administrative burden which would risk limiting the ability of Court staff to continue to support vulnerable Court users. For this reason, we cannot accept this recommendation. 

Recommendation 10(i) - A schedule of findings should always be recorded following a fact-finding hearing, as required by Practice Direction 12J (PD12J) - Accepted in Part.

Response - The Government accepts the principle of the recommendation and agrees that this expectation is already set out in PD12J. Schedules are prepared, however, based on what is drafted or approved by the judge. As a matter of principle, the Government cannot and should not require judges to carry out specific activity. As such, the Government is not in a position to accept the recommendation.

Recommendation 10(ii) - Where an ex tempore judgment is given following a fact-finding or final hearing, the notes used for the judgment should always be added to the file - Not Accepted.

Response - As above, this recommendation is about judicial practice, given that the judge will decide whether or not to add their notes to the case file. For this reason, the Government is not in a position to accept this recommendation.

Recommendation 11 - The Ministry of Justice should create an analytics team focused on overseeing and analysing Family Court data and making that data publicly available – Accepted in Part.

Response - The Government agrees with the ambition to establish robust Family Court data analysis and publication. That is why we already have analytical teams that work to improve the quality and access to Family Court data. These teams are considering how to make more data publicly available. Due to this and existing systems aimed at collecting, analysing and publishing data, the Government will not establish a new team as set out in the recommendation and so can only accept it in part.

Research and Analysis

Recommendation 12 - To prevent delays, unnecessary steps, uncertainty and inconsistency, the process of obtaining permission to access and collect data in the Family Court ought to be transparent and facilitative, with inbuilt timescales – Not Accepted.

Response - The Government appreciates the data access challenges faced by the team during phase one of the FCRRM. Whilst we will take learning from this Report to inform further phases, given that there are numerous different data sets held by different parts of the system, many of which require individual consideration before being shared with researchers due to their sensitivity, it will not be possible to give a timescale for data sharing. 

Recommendation 13 - To simplify the process of obtaining judicial permission for different project strands, it should be possible to seek permission for all relevant strands involving the Family Court and the judiciary in the same application - Not Accepted.

Response - As set out above, data in the Family Court is held by different organisations and agencies. The data contains the sensitive personal information of children and families and so cannot be released without individual consideration. For this reason, it would not be viable or appropriate to create a single approvals process. 

Recommendation 14 - Learning from the pilot of the FCRRM in terms of how to manage and minimise the impact of research visits, future Court site selection should aim for a good cross-section of Courts to gain as representative a picture as possible of the way cases raising issues of domestic abuse are dealt with across the Family Court - Accepted.

Response - The Government supports the aim of having a good cross-section of Courts involved in the next phase of the FCRRM and will assist the Commissioner’s Office with this goal, whilst noting the role of the judiciary and other external factors in determining the participation of Courts in the pilot.

Recommendation 15 - To prevent the recurrence of access issues and consequent delays, a general privileged access agreement should be put in place to ensure that the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s Office can access Family Court data for the purposes of phase two of the FCRRM - Not Accepted.

Response - The case files held within the Family Court contain sensitive information about children and families. It would not be appropriate to provide a general privileged access agreement to this information.

Voice of the Child

Recommendation 16 - To ensure that the voices of children are included in phase two of the FCRRM, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s (DAC) office should work with the Home Office or Ministry of Justice to identify an appropriate ethics process, meet necessary conditions and secure ethical approval in advance to enable children’s participation – Accepted.

Response - The Government is committed to including the voices of children in research which will inform our understanding of the Family Court. All research funded or delivered by the Ministry of Justice must adhere to the Government Social Research ethical principles^{[footnote 1]}, which include specific guidance on conducting research with children.

Detailed Responses to Recommendations

Phase Two of the FCRRM

Recommendations

Recommendation 1 - The Ministry of Justice should commit resource and funding to a second phase of the Family Court Review and Reporting Mechanism - Accepted.

Recommendation 2 - Pathfinder Court sites as well as CAP Courts should be included as part of the intensive Court study in phase two of the FCRRM - Accepted in Part.

Recommendation 3 - As well as reviewing child arrangements cases, phase two of the FCRRM should incorporate the review of financial remedy cases, applying the same research questions to these cases - Not Accepted.

Summary

12. This group of recommendations sets out expectations about the scope and focus of a further iteration of the FCRRM. There is a particular emphasis on ensuring that a continued mechanism includes additional types of family proceedings to ensure system-wide data is collected.

Response

13. The Government recognises the significant value of the first phase of the FCRRM Pilot, which has provided vital evidence about the prevalence and nature of domestic abuse in private law children proceedings. Beginning in 2026, we will commit £500,000 to support phase two of the FCRRM, satisfying recommendation 1 of the report.

14. This funding is being provided exclusively to expand the pilot into Child Focused Courts. Given the intention to roll out the Child Focused Court model nationally in the coming years, future consideration of the system should focus on this model. We will explore with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and her team how the FCRRM can help us understand the operation of the Child Focused Courts model, which is central to our strategy for improving the experience of children and families in private law proceedings. Early evidence from Child Focused Courts sites is promising and further research and evidence will be essential to build on this progress to better to understand how practice is changing.

15. As such, no further funding will be provided to monitor the existing Child Arrangement Proceedings model and accordingly we have only partially accepted Recommendation 2.

16. In response to Recommendation 3, the Government is grateful to the Domestic Abuse Commissioner for highlighting the important issue of domestic abuse in financial remedy proceedings (used to resolve financial matters between divorcing or divorced couples) in her report.

17. We are carefully considering the issue of domestic abuse in financial remedy cases on divorce, including the Law Commission’s work on this issue as set out in its December 2024 scoping report on financial remedies^{[footnote 2]}. The Government has also benefitted from considering other important reports in this area, including those published by Resolution in 2025, the Fair Shares Project and Surviving Economic Abuse^{[footnote 3]}.

18. In its December 2024 report, the Law Commission highlighted several issues relating to the law of financial remedies. This is a matter of concern to the Government, which is why this Spring the Government will launch a consultation on cohabitation and financial remedies reform, including questions on the issues raised by the Law Commission.

19. We want to draw on the lessons learnt from the Law Commission’s work in building a framework for cohabitants on separation, while also improving the existing arrangements for financial remedy proceedings. This approach will help us build a coherent, modern system that delivers fairness across both regimes.

20. Given that the Government will be consulting on the law relating to financial remedies, we consider that now is not the right time to introduce a reporting mechanism on financial remedy proceedings. However, as we continue work in this area, we will keep under review whether a reporting method in relation to these proceedings would be beneficial.

Inadequacy of administrative data

Recommendations

Recommendation 4 - Data on (i) the presence of domestic abuse concerns and (ii) the type(s) of domestic abuse raised, should be routinely collected by the new Manage Cases (CCD) system from online forms, safeguarding letters and section 7 reports – Accepted in Part.

Recommendation 5 - Future data collection focusing on domestic abuse in the Family Justice System should record allegations that are not endorsed by professional judgement as well as those that are. Data should disaggregate between:

• Allegations by the mother against the father
• Allegations by the father against the mother
• Allegations by either party against a same sex partner
• Allegations by either party against third parties and
• Allegations judged to be relevant by Cafcass England, Cafcass Cymru and the Court. - Accepted in Part.

Summary

21. The Commissioner’s report notes that there is a lack of easily accessible data about allegations of domestic abuse. This includes material about when allegations have occurred, what form the abuse has taken and who the alleged perpetrator is. This creates challenges in properly understanding the scale of the problem and how effective the response is. The Commissioner’s recommendations are aimed at ensuring more information is recorded in a more accessible way.

Response

22. The Government agrees that it is important that data on cases involving domestic abuse is routinely recorded in an accessible way. The CCD system is the new case management system operated by His Majesty’s Court and Tribunals Service. The system was first piloted in the Swansea Designated Family Court area from April 2023 and is now operational in the Swansea, Kingston-upon-Hull, Essex and Suffolk and Wolverhampton Designated Family Court areas, with national roll-out planned to begin during 2026. CCD will allow legal representatives and litigants in person to submit applications, respond and manage their cases digitally. It is expected to improve administrative case management and also to enable HMCTS to capture enhanced data, including in relation to allegations of domestic abuse.

23. At present, this system records whether an applicant or respondent has raised allegations of harm and the type of allegations that have been made, so it captures data relating to:

• Allegations by a mother against a father
• Allegations by a father against a mother
• Allegations by either party against a same sex partner.

It does not, however, segregate the data by the role of mother or father or by gender, nor does it capture:

• Allegations by either party against a third party
• Allegations judged to be relevant by Cafcass England, Cafcass Cymru or the Court.

24. Further, the current system will identify that a respondent has filed a C1A form (a supplemental form that contains information about allegations of harm and domestic abuse) but will not capture data on the type of allegations this includes. Nor will it record whether a safeguarding letter or Section 7 report (a report prepared by a social worker for the Court which provides information about a child’s welfare and advice about what is in their best interests) identifies domestic abuse, though this information will remain manually identifiable within those documents. Given the current limitations of the system, we can only partially collect the information as recommended and thus we can only accept in part the recommendations.

25. CCD is, however, still in development. At present it is a minimum viable product and there will be further iterations of the system. The Government recognises the points raised by the Commissioner’s Report and is committed to ensuring information is collated in an accessible manner. We are monitoring the implementation of CCD and will consider whether planned improvements satisfy the recommendations made by the Commissioner or whether more work is required with Cafcass England and Cafcass Cymru to explore what is possible in terms of capturing data on domestic abuse from safeguarding letters and Section 7 reports. Should more work be required, we will consider it against the administrative burden to the organisation in terms of further developing the system.

Recommendations

Recommendation 6 - Revise the C1A Form - Accepted.

Recommendation 7 - The ethnicity of parties and children in proceedings should be routinely recorded as part of the C100 form and also routinely recorded by professionals in reports, using established ONS ethnicity categories for consistency and comparison - Accepted.

Recommendation 8 - A general question about disability within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 together with a dropdown list of types of disability and health conditions should be included in the C100 form for both parties and children, to increase understanding of prevalence in the Court population and assist the Court and Cafcass/Cafcass Cymru in the handling of individual cases - Accepted. 

Summary

26. The Commissioner’s report noted concerns about the accessibility of data around the ethnicity, disability and health of parties to Family Court cases. The report sets out that this limitation in data creates barriers to understanding whether the prevalence of disability and health issues among parties and children in the Family Court. In order to address this, the report’s recommendations focus on improvements to the C100 (the form used by parties to apply to the Family Court for orders such as child arrangements orders or prohibited steps orders) and C1A (which is submitted alongside the main application form and includes information relating to allegations of harm, such as domestic abuse) forms which are used to improve the amount of information they collect and their usability.

Response

27. The Government recognises that the Family Court must support all Court users and that accurate demographic data is essential to that. That is why HMCTS collects protected characteristics data from parties via an optional survey within all digital services and on some paper forms. This data has been published on GOV.UK for transparency^{[footnote 4]} and can be used to inform Access to Justice Assessments^{[footnote 5]}. The protected characteristics questions are based on the harmonised standards set by the Office for National Statistics and Government Statistical Service. The questions include ethnicity information and details relating to disability as defined in the Equality Act 2010, as well as impairments.

28. The Government recognises, however, that the C100 and C1A forms are key Family Court forms that present a significant opportunity to collect data and we agree with the recommendations above to improve data collection through them. For this reason, we are committed to reviewing both forms in order to establish how they can be improved.

29. This work will commence when resources allow and will consider both the existing material in the form as well as where further points can be added. This will include a particular focus on how data around the ethnicity and disability information of parties and children can be collected whilst maintaining an emphasis on data protection requirements. As part of this work, we will engage with Court users and other interested parties in order to ensure that any changes meet the needs of those who will use them. Any changes will be developed with the Family Procedure Rule Committee and its Forms Working Group.

Recommendations

Recommendation 9(i) - That the tick-boxes for requests for special measures on the C100 and C1A forms be harmonised - Accepted.

Recommendation 9(ii) - That correspondence, administrative records and case management directions and orders relating to requests for special measures and for the appointment of a QLR always be added to individual case files - Accepted.

Summary

30. The Commissioner’s Report noted that case files do not routinely record information about the provision of special measures or the appointment of QLRs. Without this data it is difficult to understand whether the recommendations of the Harm Panel Report to bar direct cross examination in proceedings where there is evidence of domestic abuse or where domestic abuse is the subject of proceedings, in order better to protect victims, have been implemented.

Response

31. The Government recognises that data collection about use of special measures and QLRs is essential to understanding whether domestic abuse victims are being appropriately safeguarded in the Family Court. There are already a number of initiatives taking place to improve this data. These include:

• Designing a standard set of questions about required support, including special measures, to appear within all HMCTS digital services;
• A survey of Court users, Court staff and Designated Family Judges to gather their views about the current provision of special measures, together with views about what improvements could be made to inform the future operation of these provisions;
• An HMCTS-led cross-jurisdictional project looking to establish best practice in managing requests for special measures and improving information for users. The workstream is testing approaches within Nottingham, Newport (Gwent) and Truro; and
• The presence of case flags to identify the use of special measures and QLRs in CCD.

32. As in our response to recommendations 6, 7 and 8, the Government recognises the significance of the C100 and C1A forms for users. As part of the review of the forms committed to above, we will consider how the elements relating to special measures can be harmonised so that there is clarity for any applicant requesting them.

33. Clear guidance already indicates that all relevant documents should be included in the Court file, including where QLRs have been appointed. The Government recognises that the FCRRM found inconsistencies in the application of this, however, the CCD system will allow parties to upload documents directly to the system, which when rolled out nationally will reduce the administrative burden on HMCTS staff, improving management of case files and helping to ensure that this guidance is met.

Recommendation

Recommendation 9(iii) - That hearing record templates be built into the CCD to include tick-boxes for whether:

• A screen was provided in Court for either of the parties
• Either of the parties attended remotely
• Either of the parties was accompanied by an IDVA or DA support worker
• Either of the parties was accompanied by an intermediary
• An interpreter was present for either of the parties
• Any other special measures were in place for either of the parties
• A QLR was present for either of the parties
• Either of the parties were legally aided - Not Accepted.

Summary

34. The report seeks to improve the collection of data relating to special measures and the appointment of QLRs to enable a better understanding of what is required and provided in the Family Court.

Response

35. As set out above, CCD already includes the capability to record whether a special measure was granted as part of a particular set of proceedings. Alongside this, any order made following a hearing should clearly record if special measures were requested by a party, as well as whether they were granted or refused by the Court. Each type of special measure requested is recorded under a separate case flag for the party who needs it. For this reason, we do not consider that further work to add these individual tick boxes is necessary, given the significant administrative burden it would place on HMCTS staff, which would risk limiting the ability of Court staff to continue to support vulnerable Court users.

Recommendations

Recommendation 10(i) - A schedule of findings should always be recorded following a fact-finding hearing, as required by PD12J - Accepted in Part.

Recommendation 10(ii) - Where an ex tempore judgment is given following a fact-finding or final hearing, the notes used for the judgment should always be added to the file - Not Accepted.

Summary

36. As part of her Report, the Commissioner noted instances where research had been affected by there being no written judgment, making it difficult to understand both findings and orders made by the Court.  As a result, recommendations 10(i) and (ii) are intended to enhance the number of recorded decisions which would support more detailed analysis of the Court’s response to allegations of domestic abuse and the outcome in cases where issues of domestic abuse are a feature.

Response

37. Orders and any relevant schedules should be prepared by Court staff on the basis of what has been drafted or approved by the judge in each case and in line with the appropriate procedure outlined in provisions such as Practice Direction 12J. For this reason, recommendation 10(i) can in principle be accepted, but, due to the independence of the judiciary, the Government cannot specify actions that the judiciary must take and so the recommendation can only be accepted in part.

38. Where an ex tempore judgment (a judgment delivered at the time of the hearing, rather than reserved to a later date) is made, a transcript of that judgment may be ordered by the Court or obtained by the parties. The notes used to deliver a judgment of this type normally remain part of the judge’s private preparation within his or her notebook and are not automatically filed unless the judge chooses to place them on the file, which is rare. This is exclusively a judicial function; for this reason the Government cannot accept recommendation 10 (ii).

39. We will highlight the recommendations about both the inclusion of schedules of findings and ex tempore judgments to the President of the Family Division for his consideration of whether as to guidance might be appropriate.

Recommendation

Recommendation 11 - The Ministry of Justice should create an analytics team focused on overseeing and analysing Family Court data and making that data publicly available - Accepted in part.

Summary

40. The report found that while data about the Family Justice System is recorded, it is generally not done with the intention of facilitating monitoring or transparency. Alongside this the report also notes that no single agency has ownership of all the data across the system which has a negative impact for both policy makers understanding performance and researchers attempting to analyse activity. To address this the Commissioner recommends the creation of a specific analytical team within the Ministry of Justice.

Response

41. The Government recognises the importance of robust analysis of, and transparency in, Family Court data. Whilst we do not plan to establish a new team as recommended, there is already a range of analysts working across the Family Justice System to deliver research and analysis, including regular publications such as the Family Court Statistics Quarterly and HMCTS Management Information, in addition to ad hoc statistical releases. There are also existing internal sources of Family Court data available to system partners, such as the Family Justice Performance Dashboard, which provides regular internal reporting. This includes granular Court-level metrics to support local performance monitoring, tracking against Family Justice Board targets and the development of bespoke ad hoc metrics in response to business needs.

42. The Government recognises that as well as having robust system-wide data, it is essential for transparency and accountability that we make Family Court data public where possible. That is currently facilitated through an ongoing programme to improve access to justice system data for research, including developing secure data-sharing arrangements and trusted research environments through the Data First programme^{[footnote 6]}. We also work closely with academics to support policy-relevant research. Our published Areas of Research Interest^{[footnote 7]}sets out priority topics for future research, including understanding outcomes for children and families, effective methods of engaging children in proceedings and domestic abuse in Court processes.

43. We are committed to going further, which is why we have an analytical team working on improving quality and access to Family Court data, including how we can make more data available to the public. The upcoming Family Justice Strategy, due to be published later this year, will include commitments to improving data and evidence.

Research and Analysis

Recommendations

Recommendation 12 - To prevent delays, unnecessary steps, uncertainty and inconsistency, the process of obtaining permission to access and collect data in the Family Court ought to be transparent and facilitative, with inbuilt timescales - Not Accepted.

Recommendation 13 - To simplify the process of obtaining judicial permission for different project strands, it should be possible to seek permission for all relevant strands involving the Family Court and the judiciary in the same application - Not Accepted.

Recommendation 14 - Learning from the pilot of the FCRRM in terms of how to manage and minimise the impact of research visits, future Court site selection should aim for a good cross-section of Courts to gain as representative a picture as possible of the way cases raising issues of domestic abuse are dealt with across the Family Court - Accepted.

Recommendation 15 - To prevent the recurrence of access issues and consequent delays, a general privileged access agreement should be put in place to ensure that the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s Office can access Family Court data for the purposes of phase two of the FCRRM - Not Accepted.

Summary

44. During their work to gather the material that informed the report, researchers identified barriers to securing access to material, Court proceedings and to undertaking interviews. This created delays to the overall project and meant that researchers were required to redirect resources towards understanding the process rather than the operation of the Family Court. As a result, recommendations 12 to 15 are targeted at making the process for securing access to data and other sources of information simpler.

Response

45. The Government recognises the importance of researchers (including those external to Government) having access to Family Court data in safe and ethical ways. This assists with the transparency of the Family Justice System and ensures that services can be improved to deliver the best outcomes for children and their families. There are, however, limitations on how this data can and should be shared and we must maintain the appropriate safeguards in order to ensure the safety and privacy of the children and families involved.

46. For this reason, we cannot accept recommendation 15, which seeks to create a privileged agreement for the FCRRM research team. Family Court case files are judicial records and access must remain subject to judicial oversight to protect confidentiality, privacy and the integrity of proceedings.

47. There are also different rules of access for different materials based on differing legislative provisions and judicial decisions, that relate to access to, and disclosure of, information from proceedings. Live observations require judicial permission and interviews with judges, magistrates or Cafcass/Cafcass Cymru officers require approval through judicial channels or organisational governance structures. Administrative data from HMCTS, MoJ and Cafcass have their own data controllers and approval processes. These individual processes are necessary because each category is legally distinct: a single permission cannot provide access to all areas. Because the legal and ethical tests differ, applications for different strands of the research cannot be merged into a single process. For these reasons we cannot accept recommendation 13.

48. For similar reasons, recommendation 12 is not achievable. There are numerous individual processes each of which requires decision-making from members of the relevant organisations, including the judiciary, on an individual basis. Inbuilt timescales would not provide for the necessary consideration and flexibility that these decisions require.

49. That said the Government remains committed to working closely with the Commissioner’s Office to facilitate secure and ethical access to the data required for phase two of the FCRRM, within the appropriate framework for approving research projects. For this reason, we accept recommendation 14. We will work to ensure the learning taken from the initial phase of FCRRM can inform phase two.

Voice of the Child

Recommendation

Recommendation 16 - To ensure that the voices of children are included in phase two of the FCRRM, the DAC office should work with the Home Office or Ministry of Justice to identify an appropriate ethics process, meet necessary conditions and secure ethical approval in advance to enable children’s participation - Accepted.

Summary

50. The report outlines the difficulties researchers encountered in securing the correct approvals to include the work with children in the research, which ultimately meant these voices were not included in the report. Recommendation 16 sets out the importance of understanding the views of children in any future iteration of the FCRRM.

Response

51. The Government fully recognises the importance of including children’s voices in research that informs decisions affecting their lives. We agree that any future phase of the FCRRM should include research with children and young people who have experience of relevant cases, provided this is done safely and ethically.

52. All research funded or delivered by the Ministry of Justice must adhere to the Government Social Research ethical principles^{[footnote 8]}, which include specific guidance on conducting research with children. This includes securing informed consent from parents/legal guardians and children themselves and ensuring that participation is appropriate to the child’s age and maturity.

53. It is the responsibility of the research team to ensure these standards are met and we will continue to support efforts to include children’s perspectives in a way that is ethical, secure and meaningful.

1. GSR Ethical Assurance for Social and Behavioural Research - GOV.UK ↩

2. Financial remedies on divorce – Law Commission ↩

3. Final-Report-Dividing-property-and-finances-on-divorce-What-happens-in-cases-involving-domestic-abuse.pdf ↩

4. HMCTS Protected Characteristics Questionnaire - Data on Users of Reformed Services - GOV.UK ↩

5. Assessing Access to Justice in HMCTS Services - GOV.UK ↩

6. Ministry of Justice: Data First - GOV.UK ↩

7. Ministry of Justice: areas of research interest 2025 - GOV.UK ↩

8. GSR Ethical Assurance for Social and Behavioural Research - GOV.UK ↩