"Trauma Factories": How paralysed family courts are destroying lives
Children’s lives are on hold, families are broken, and abusers are exploiting delays in the badly overworked, badly underfunded legal system.
CW: Contains references to abuse
In August, when UK streets erupted in xenophobic rioting, the government's response was swift and decisive. Newly-elected Prime Minister Keir Starmer mobilised police forces, fast-tracked prosecutions and told judges to work around the clock. The violence was quelled.
But the government’s scramble was, in a way, an exception that proved the rule: Britain’s justice system is so clogged and has been underfunded for so long it’s coming apart at the seams. This is true about the criminal justice system, where cases might take anywhere from 6 weeks to two years from charge to conviction. But it’s also true about family courts. Over 100,000 children are stranded in a family court system that is completely incapable of addressing their or their parents’ needs. Their lives are on hold, families are torn apart, and the sheer uncertainty is adding to what is, for many, an already traumatic period of experiencing their parents' separation.
James*, a father, describes his experience in the court system as “being hit by a bus.” After an initially amicable separation, things deteriorated when he sought overnight visits with his children. Initial attempts at mediation failed, and he and his ex-wife turned to the courts. What followed was a nightmare of delays, cancelled hearings, and endless fact-finding missions, which led to access to his toddler being delayed for many months, something which can feel like a lifetime to a young child. “No one wants to go to court. It's costly, it's stressful, it's awful, to be honest,” he explains. He describes his attitude going into the process as “naive”, thinking that as his separation was fairly civil, the process for the children would be painless. “You don't realise just how broken the system is. When you're first in it, you think, okay, I’ve got hearing in August or July, six months away. I’ll have the kids 40:60. But when I came out of that first hearing, that was one of the worst days of my life. It was really, really upsetting, it was horrible.”
Despite beginning his court journey in early 2023, endless delays meant James doesn’t expect to see an end to proceedings until summer 2025 at best. In the meantime, he has spent over £100,000 on legal fees, as repeated setbacks incur additional costs. Every court date gets pushed back,” he says. Hearings have been cancelled due to judge availability; or moved to different locations. On a number of occasions the judge was changed entirely, meaning there has been no consistency or continuity.
Gift a Lead subscription this Christmas - buy now to get 15% off! Get access to all our content, to live events, to direct chats with our editors and writers, and more.
James’ experience is not unique. UK courts have long been on the brink of collapse, as the fallout from austerity measures and shifting budget priorities left them buckling under pressure. In 2010, the Ministry of Justice budget was slashed by 23 percent, triggering a cascade of challenges across the court system – exacerbated delays, stagnant pay, poor working conditions, and dilapidated courtrooms. While the government has occasionally stepped in with funding boosts, the overall trend has inevitably been one of chronic underinvestment.
This mounting crisis is reflected in staggering statistics. In just the second quarter of 2023, over 13,000 new private law applications were filed, involving more than 19,000 children. Unlike public law cases, where local authorities intervene in matters of child protection, private law disputes typically involve parents clashing over arrangements and access to children, with little to no state oversight to drive resolutions.
Judges often adopt the view that parents should resolve their issues independently, but this approach overlooks the complexity and emotional intensity of many cases. As Caroline Korah, Head of Children at top family law firm, Vardags notes: “A lot of people think this is just family stuff—sort it out with a therapist or act like adults. But that’s incredibly hard when one side is unyielding, and the other is a desperate parent fighting for their child. When compromise isn’t possible, or one side is not engaging, that’s what courts are for. But right now, the courts are absolutely inundated and children and families are suffering as a result.”
The combined underfunding of the system and a lack of political will to speed up proceedings have resulted in family court cases dragging on for more than 11 months on average. But in more complex or severe cases, the wait can stretch into years. Family solicitor Oliver Conway says one of the longest cases he is working on has already lasted four and a half years. Conway describes these courts as “trauma factories”, as many of his clients have relapsed into substance abuse, suffered mental health crises, or been sectioned due to the prolonged stress of family court proceedings and trying to protect their children: “People self-medicate to get through it [...] Imagine waiting over a year to find out if a stranger believes your ex raped you or not, and if he did, how he spends time with your kids, it is unimaginable”.
Shrouded in secrecy
The family justice system has long faced challenges that predate the current court delays, yet these existing issues now intensify the effects of the backlog. Until recently, strict reporting restrictions made it nearly impossible for journalists to cover cases, despite growing concerns about judicial bias, corruption, and the damage caused by ongoing delays. Campaigners and journalists, such as Louise Tickle, have fought for greater transparency and reporting powers. In a Guardian article, Tickle stressed the critical need for increased transparency, explaining: “The possible consequences of a family court case – sometimes losing your children forever – are seen by many as a fate far worse than imprisonment [...] Power exercised in secret is dangerous. We all behave better when someone is watching. And the plight of parents and children who end up in family courts and how the system deals with them needs to be seen – and shouted about.”
In late 2023, the courts trialled a pilot allowing reporters to attend and publish anonymised accounts of family court proceedings, and this initiative has since expanded to 16 additional courts, marking a notable step forward in enhancing transparency. Yet critics argue that the secrecy surrounding family courts has allowed institutional misogyny and bias to thrive, fostering a system that harms families and shields abusers. Claire Throssell MBE, a survivor of family court abuse and ambassador for Child First, said “inequality, injustice, fear and oppression” reside within the family court system: “Too often, perpetrators are shielded because practice directions and guidance that were created to protect children are not working effectively. There is still too much insistence on parental rights and a deafening silence about the rights of a child. ”
While campaigners have highlighted some of the most egregious abuses and biases within the system, delays provide abusers the opportunity to drag out proceedings, inflicting further emotional and financial harm on their spouses or children. This tactic, known as litigation abuse or weaponising proceedings, is a common strategy employed by one parent against the other, according to barrister Charlotte Proudman. “We might see this tactic appear as relentless filings, demands for hearings, or contesting every minor issue,” she explains, “Effectively turning the legal process into a tool for control and intimidation.”
One woman – who will be referred to as Lucy* for legal reasons – knows this all too well. Speaking to The Lead, she said that after separating from her abusive ex-husband, she endured a decade-long legal battle during which her child was removed from her care, despite her being deemed a good parent in court. Lucy said her husband used his wealth to manipulate court outcomes. “He weaponised everything within the court system,” she recalls. His tactics included securing urgent hearings while she was unwell, monitoring their child's communications, and blocking her attempts to seek legal representation. “I was isolated from any support network. It was terrifying.” Lucy spent over half a million pounds in legal fees, but says her case isn’t even extreme. “That’s not as much as some women now, but back then, it was quite unheard of. But now you hear women speak over a million pounds, which is just shocking.” Lucy is one of a number of women that the Lead spoke to who were too frightened to go public, not only as a result of reporting restrictions around family courts but also because of post-separation abuse and coercive control.
The cost of fighting
The financial strain of prolonged litigation can indeed be overwhelming. Legal fees, psychological assessments, and supervised contact sessions—typically costing around £100 per hour—quickly accumulate. Hair strand tests – which can be used to detect drugs or alcohol in the system of the parent – can run into the hundreds of pounds, while psychiatric evaluations may reach thousands. The cost of police disclosures, often crucial to uncovering details of abuse, can also add up to hundreds or even thousands of pounds. Delays exacerbate this burden, as litigants may need to pay more to cover the costs of cancelled or rescheduled hearings.
The financial challenges have been worsened by cuts to legal aid. Before 2013, many people used a lawyer through public funding to navigate the family court process. However, the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 removed many civil and private law children and family cases from legal aid. As a result, the number of people representing themselves in family court has increased by 30% since 2013, while the Law Society of England and Wales analysed figures showing a 96 per cent increase in cases without legal representation between 2016 and 2023.
For survivors like Lucy, the court system does not protect the most vulnerable—instead, it becomes another battleground for further abuse. A lack of access to funds, compounded by delays, can be used as an agitator in already frayed relations. “Many parents feel like litigation is being weaponised against them,” Korah explains. “If one parent refuses non-court dispute resolution, and keeps bringing the other parent back to court for costly hearings and applications, you have to turn up, or risk orders made in your absence. It can feel like more and more orders are being thrown at you. So there's never a ceasefire.”
And while any parent with the resources can weaponise the court system, Proudman explains that this behaviour overwhelmingly affects women: “Women are disproportionately the victims of male-perpetrated abuse, and this extends into legal systems where the abuser can continue asserting power and control,” she explains. “The delays create situations where women—already vulnerable—are left exposed to ongoing manipulation and fear tactics that perpetrators exploit due to these systemic gaps.”
Children left vulnerable
The delays put children at risk, too. As well as the mental anguish and uncertainty of being separated from warring parents, the most severe cases raise the serious prospect that prolonged family court proceedings could lead to vulnerable children being hurt or even killed, as they may be forced to continue contact with abusive parents while waiting for outcomes. Between 2005 and 2015, 19 children were killed by fathers granted contact despite serious concerns, leading to calls from domestic violence charities for courts to prioritise the safety of children and non-abusive parents in child contact decisions.
Delays at the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS), an independent organisation that represents the welfare of children in family court cases in England, compound this. At present, CAFCASS reports – which advise the court on a child’s welfare and advises what arrangement might be in their best interest – now take an average of 20.7 weeks in London, as the organisation struggles with an increased backlog, prolonged reporting timescales, shortage of resources and staff burnout.
CAFCASS told The Lead that the delays are a “system-wide issue” as the safeguarding checks they undertake require coordination with other authorities, such as the police and local authorities, “thus contributing to how long it can take for us to complete a full safeguarding check”. CAFCASS said: “We continue to do our best to work with our partners to reduce delay and provide the best possible experience for every child with whom we work,” adding that they have reduced the average number of children’s cases held by our Family Court Advisers and Children’s Guardians in most of their service areas, and are also in the process of introducing a Framework for a Balanced Workload which will reflect what they see as “reasonable and fair to expect of a confident and competent social worker”.
But these compounded delays have driven some parents to desperate measures, with some forced to abandon proceedings or even return to an abusive spouse or partner, believing this will protect their children. Conway explains: “The delay often gets people to drop allegations if it brings the whole sorry process to an end, while I don't always agree with that I understand it. What is the cost of being right?” For Lucy, the drawn-out court process led her to the unthinkable: at one point, having to refuse contact with her child altogether. “To prove to the court that these were their feelings -- that they wanted to be removed from him -- I said I would stop contact with them completely. That was the hardest thing I've ever had to do, and it had a profound effect on them, which is not what I intended but there was no other choice.” Lucy has since had access restored.
Underfunding lies at the heart of these issues. Conway calls for increased investment in legal aid, CAFCASS and judicial resources. They stress the need for a system that can handle the volume of cases and ensure timely decisions. Conway’s solution to the crisis is straightforward: money. The Law Society previously called for an £11.3m investment in civil legal aid to increase fees for early legal advice to “keep the system” running, but Conway argues we need “billions” to redress the legal aid deficit, add judicial sitting days, and to bring in more CAFCASS officers.
Proudman says it is not just a matter of funding, but a need for increased transparency and better training for judges on the dynamics of abuse and control: “These are places we could easily start change with, which would significantly impact the lives of survivors”.
Responding to the issues raised in this piece, the Ministry of Justice said: “The new Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with an outstanding caseload in the Family Court that remains too high.
“We want families to get the best outcomes as quickly as possible. That is why we’re reducing the number of hearings per case and are promoting mediation for families to resolve issues outside the courtroom, where appropriate, by providing up to £500 towards costs.”
But as Conway points out, much of these problems run much deeper: “Seventy-five percent of my work is cleaning up the failures of the welfare state. Poverty and want are, in my experience, the root cause of domestic abuse and cycles of trauma. If we had a social fabric, most people would not have disputes that were so serious they required judicial intervention.”
*Names have been changed
Coming up on The Lead - “Taken and forgotten”: Scarlet Hannington reports on how vulnerable mothers see child after child removed by services, with little to no pathways to ever get them back. Subscribe now to be the first to read.