Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): The witnesses providing evidence today are Geraldine Hanna, Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime, and Louise Kennedy, chief of staff in the office of the Commissioner for Victims of Crime. You are very welcome to the Committee, as always. I invite you to make an opening statement.

Ms Geraldine Hanna (Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime): Thank you, Chair and members, for the opportunity to speak to you today. I will begin by commending the Committee for its ongoing interest and activism in improving family courts for victims of domestic abuse and their children. As the Chair said, I am joined by Louise Kennedy, who is our chief of staff. I may hand over to Louise if any questions get very detailed, because she was the key link with the researchers.

Why does the report exist? I took the decision to commission the research because of what children and victims of domestic violence and abuse have told me about their experience of private law family court proceedings in Northern Ireland and the impact that those processes had on them. Victims and the agencies that support them told me shockingly consistent stories about how they and their children had been subjected to gruelling processes where their experience of abuse was ignored or minimised, where children were being forced into contact with an abusive parent against their wishes and where perpetrators were using proceedings to continue to exercise control after separation.

I want to be clear from the outset that the report, as comprehensive as it is, does not tell us anything that we did not already know. Many of you have raised those issues with me directly, based on what you see and hear in your constituencies every week. You know how prevalent those issues are, and you know how complex and damaging they can be for families and the harm that the process can and does cause. What the report does, however, is bring those experiences together into a single comprehensive, credible evidence base for Northern Ireland, and it asks a simple but difficult question: what are we going to do differently now that we know this?

I will provide some background on the report to begin with. The research was carried out by a team from the Centre for Children's Rights at Queen's University. The researcher spoke directly to 51 individuals. That included adult and child victims whose lives have been shaped not only by domestic abuse but by how the family court system responds to it. Male and female adult victims, as well as male and female children, took part. Young people from the Social Action Youth (SAY) project, run by Women's Aid, also helped to structure and oversee the research as part of an advisory group. I pay tribute to those wonderful young people who gave their time and expertise to help make the research the child-focused piece of work that it is and, ultimately, to help make things better for the children who come after them. I am also really pleased to say that a child's version of the report will be launched on 8 June, and researchers from the Centre for Children's Rights have been working closely with the SAY group in the development of that. The research team also interviewed support organisations, legal professionals, judges and social workers, who deliver the role of child court officer, to ensure that the research captured a broad picture of how private family law proceedings operate and what issues exist for domestic abuse victims and their children.

Domestic abuse is not an edge case in private law proceedings. One of the clearest messages from research recently published to the Committee by the Research and Information Service (RaISe) is that domestic abuse is not a marginal factor in private law child contact cases. Recent analysis by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner in England and Wales showed that domestic abuse was identified in 73% of the hearings and 87% of the case files in the family court cases that were examined. That is far higher than previous estimates, which underscores how routine those issues are in private law proceedings. That matters because the private law system was not designed with that reality in mind. It was designed to resolve disputes between parents who, while they may be at odds with each other, are not in a relationship marred by control, power imbalance or fear. The current process is simply not made for identifying and managing ongoing patterns of harm. When domestic abuse is present, as it so often is, the system can struggle. The consequences of that struggle are felt most by the children.

That brings me to the main findings from the report. You will appreciate that it is a sizeable, comprehensive document. I have chosen to highlight some of the key findings, but if you have any further questions on other findings, we are happy to take those, too.

One of the first findings was that while children are present in the actual process, they are not often heard by it. Children and young people told the researchers that the court process can feel confusing, frightening and disempowering. In many cases, they did not understand what was happening or why decisions were being made. They were left unclear about whether their views had made any difference to decision-making around their contact with a parent who was already an abuser. One parent described the impact of this on their child in stark terms:

Children described feeling caught between adults and carrying responsibility that they should never have to bear. They experienced fear and anxiety, linked not to the family circumstances but to the court process itself.

Interestingly, there was a stark disparity between how professionals thought the system worked for children and how children thought the system worked for them. To be clear, this is not to disparage the hard work that many dedicated social workers do in that field. It is a case of individual commitment not being enough to hold together a system that is simply not designed to centre around the needs and the views of the child where domestic abuse is a factor.

Children and young people told us time and time again that they felt that they were not listened to, that engagement with them was minimal and that they felt like an afterthought in a system that is supposed to be about them, centering on their needs. That is why children's participation cannot be informal or incidental. It must be structured, supported and safe. Seeking children's views, voices and experiences should be the first port of call out of which everything else should flow during contact proceedings. That is also why the voices of groups such as the SAY project are so important, because children themselves are telling us what participation should look and feel like.

Another finding was that court processes are becoming part of the abuse. Survivors described how perpetrators often used repeated applications and hearings, made counter-allegations of domestic abuse, and delayed or frustrated proceedings as a means to continue to exert control and continue to abuse their victims. In that way, the family court process is successfully being used to continue abuse after separation. That litigation abuse, as it is named in the research, had hugely negative impacts on victims and children, especially as it often resulting in proceedings being dragged out and spanning much of the young child's life. I spoke to a female victim this morning who has been going through the family court system for 10 years now.

One survivor explained the impact in their own words:

Rather than providing safety and resolution, the process itself is experienced by many as re-triggering their harm, reinforcing their fear and keeping them in the very cycle of abuse that they have tried to break free from. That is why post-separation control and litigation abuse must be recognised early and actively addressed within family court processes. That requires that all allegations of domestic abuse are dealt with comprehensively at the outset of any proceedings and that, in places where domestic abuse is found to exist, a specific process, tailored to address that reality and protect victims and their children, is followed

Another finding is that there is a de facto presumption of contact operating in family courts in Northern Ireland. No doubt members are aware of moves under way in England and Wales to remove that presumption in law from family cases. That was as a result of campaigning by victims and their advocates and the recommendations of the 2020 harm panel report, which included an urgent review of presumption of parental involvement in cases where domestic abuse was present. Unlike England and Wales, Northern Ireland does not have a presumption of contact written into legislation. However, our research found that, in practice, contact proceedings operate a presumption that the eventual goal of proceedings is resuming unsupervised contact with an abusive parent, and that is dangerous for several reasons.

First, it disregards the possibility that contact with an abusive parent may not be in the best interests of the child. Some children told researchers that their experience of abuse or witnessing abuse traumatised them and that they were clear that they did not want to see their parent. Children told us that being forced into contact in those circumstances directly harmed them. It was also clear from what child and adult participants told us that the circumstances of facilitating contact while abuse was ongoing often had a debilitating impact on the non-abusing parent, which therefore impacted on the child. Secondly, a presumption of working towards contact means that perpetrators are able to go into the system with the reassurance and knowledge that, pending something absolutely catastrophic, they are going to be guaranteed contact. That gives them leverage in an adversarial process, which reinforces the power imbalance between them and their victim, and it gives them a green light to commit further abuse and continued control knowing that, ultimately, there will not be any consequences for that behaviour.

What does all that tell us? This is not about poor practice; it is about system design. The report does not suggest a lack of commitment or concern among the professionals. Instead, the findings point to structural problems: adversarial processes that lend themselves to being hijacked by abusers; late identification of risk; a lack of recognition that abuse of one parent by another may impact directly on the well-being of children and cause them harm; fragmented information given to children and victims throughout the process; and limited access to specialist domestic abuse expertise. Those are design issues, and design issues cannot be fixed by guidance alone. If we continue to run cases involving abuse through a system designed to mediate parental disagreement, we will continue to see children and victims harmed, regardless of the goodwill of individual practitioners.

Knowing what we know, how do we move forward? The 'Totally Invisible' report cannot be another report that sits on a shelf. It would be a travesty for the victims, children and young people who bravely shared their experiences and views on how to make the system better if we responded by doing nothing. That is why I set up a task and finish group to look at what a new safety-focused, trauma-aware, problem-solving model of private family courts might look like. That group is intended to be a focused, time-limited piece of work designed to turn the evidence from 'Totally Invisible' into a practical, testable pilot for cases involving domestic violence and abuse. As for who is sitting around the table, we have commitment to take part from officials in the Department of Justice, the Department of Health, the Department of Finance, the health trusts, the Children's Court Guardian Agency, the Courts and Tribunals Service, the legal professions and the domestic abuse support sector. The Lady Chief Justice has agreed to be informed of the progress of the group and to provide judicial input once we have a draft model to share. The group is deliberately cross-departmental because the problems that it seeks to address, and the responsibility for addressing them, cut across the Finance, Justice and Health Departments and require the buy-in and support of children's services and beyond. The group will be chaired by me, and my aim will be to drive the work forward and facilitate the resolution of any challenges or sticking points that may arise, as well as being an additional voice in the room for victims. I am aware that a query has been raised by the Committee about why the Department for Communities is not on the list of participants. We decided to limit the group to those with direct responsibility in the area of private family law, and it is a rather sizeable group at the minute. However, should we find in the course of our work that we need to reach out to any other agency, Department or organisation for input, we will do so.

Comparable approaches elsewhere show that, where early triage is built in, specialist expertise is available from the outset and when children's participation is properly supported, outcomes improve. For instance, the pathfinder model, which is now called child-focused courts, is being rolled out in England and Wales. It started as a limited pilot, implemented as a response to the harm panel report, which said that the courts needed to find a new way of doing private law business where domestic abuse was a factor. Child-focused courts begin with early identification of domestic abuse and place the child's voice at the centre of proceedings. Alongside the Domestic Abuse Commissioner for England and Wales, I had the benefit of attending proceedings under the Dorset model as part of the pilot, and I was very struck by the value placed on it from the outset by all the professionals in the room, particularly those from the domestic abuse sector but also the judges involved. By starting from the child's experience, cases are less likely to become adversarial disputes between parents and more likely to focus on welfare and safety from the outset. In the Northern Ireland context, our focus will be on translating the evidence that we have into practical options for reform rather than duplicating other models. In simple terms, we will be asking what such a system would best look like here and what it might cost to do it properly. The work is due to commence in June, and we are working on a briefing pack to provide evidence and an information base for all the members of the group. I have also drafted some terms of reference, which the members will have advance sight of so that we can hit the ground running on day 1.

Undoubtedly, you will have more questions about that work, and I will do my best to answer those questions. However, as we are in the early stages, I may not be able to give a comprehensive and certain response. I am committed to keeping the Committee updated on progress once the work of the group is under way. In fact, I encourage all members to continue to engage with us on this journey. I really cannot overemphasise the importance of political buy-in and of setting aside political conflicts to work together to make a real change for victims in this area. The coalition of the willing will be particularly important when it comes to taking action to change the private law system. The task and finish group will only scope out what a new system could look like. There is no commitment to deliver on whatever model is formulated by that group, and that is why I want to make a plea to all of you today. Making a difference for domestic abuse victims and children in the family courts will require really challenging conversations to be had. It will require cross-departmental and cross-party collaboration, and it will require our Assembly to make this a funding priority when the time comes.

Members, you already know about the severity of the issue from your constituencies. The report gives us the clearest evidence that we have had in Northern Ireland for some time of how the current system is being experienced by those who rely on it the most. The question now is not whether the problem exists but whether we are prepared to design something better, and I welcome your continued interest in the work. I hope that you will hold my office to account, as well as all the partners involved in the task and finish group, as this progresses. Children and victims have told us what is wrong. We now have the opportunity to show that we are willing to act.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thank you very much, Geraldine, for that. We are going to go straight into questions.

Mr Kingston: Thank you for your attendance today and for the copy of the report. Every case around this is a difficult case, and the circumstances of every case need looking at, but you are trying to draw some overall conclusions. I declared earlier that I am a member of the Finance Committee. When I joined the Finance and Justice Committees last September, I did not realise that there would be so much overlap on civil law and family law. For example, the consideration of Jade's law is primarily going through Finance, so it is useful for me to see these matters progressing.

I have a few questions. I think that you said that you interviewed 51 individuals — male and female victims and male and female children. Were any of those parents from the same relationship — from both sides, if you like — where there was a separation?

Ms Hanna: My understanding is no. The researchers were very clear that, when they engage with victims and survivors, support services need to be available, so those individuals will have been identified by either Women's Aid or the Men's Advisory Project.

Mr Kingston: Were they all the person who was retaining primary parental responsibility for the child, then?

Ms Hanna: Not necessarily. I do not have the specific details of all the individuals.

Ms Louise Kennedy (Commissioner for Victims of Crime Northern Ireland): I do not think that that aspect was broken down necessarily in the research report. I know that, obviously, there was a spread of female and male victims. Those circumstances are not necessarily the stereotypical circumstances, but the focus of the report was not on those specificities, if you understand what I mean.

Mr Kingston: Yes.

Ms Hanna: I do not believe that there would have been two parents, both saying that they were victims of domestic abuse, with one child, if that is what your question is.

Mr Kingston: All of us have spoken to people, and we as elected reps are approached by people, who are aggrieved with these circumstances. I always have to say to them that there is not much I can do by way of intervening. I can pass on concerns, but I cannot get involved in a legal matter. However, I often hear from parents who do not have access to their children, and also grandparents. My overall position — I have recently joined the Committee; I realise that it is a longer process — is that, on the whole, if contact can be maintained with both sides of the family, it is good for the child, if it can be achieved by agreement, rather than having children cut off from one side of their family unnecessarily. That is my general view. It is healthy, where has been a separation, if children can at least maintain contact. Therefore, I am cautious about a rush when you talk about a presumption against contact. I know that you are saying that in cases where domestic violence and abuse has been established. I wonder what the threshold is for establishing domestic violence and abuse. Most separations will have involved, probably, hurtful, abusive and angry words. Does it count as abuse if somebody says, "Something very angry or hurtful was said to me"? Every situation is difficult, but it is quite likely that things have been said and that both people feel that they have been hurt. That is my concern. Where is the threshold for an allegation of abuse that could result in contact with the child being lost?

Ms Hanna: The points that you raise are really important. As we break that down, we can distill this into what we are focused on here. Where we have two parents who have a disagreement — they are separating, and there is maybe disagreement around contact — where there is no domestic abuse, but, perhaps, there may have been harsh words said and hurt feelings, that does not equate at all to the threshold around domestic abuse, or coercive control in particular. That is nearly what our system was set up to deal with. We are talking about where domestic abuse is present. One of the things that we hear, both in this research and from other victim families speaking to me, is that that determination — really, the crux of your question around the threshold — is not being heard early on. The consideration of whether domestic abuse is present is not automatically looked at the beginning. The pathfinder model — what we hope to learn from — looks at, where there is an allegation of abuse, that that is determined at the outset. In determining that, it sets the pathway as to what will be followed next. Who determines that threshold? The judge. That will take into account the individual circumstances of everyone involved.

The other key part of that model, alongside determining any allegations of domestic abuse at the outset, is the voice of the child: getting their views, thoughts and experiences captured early on. What we see, through the research and other feedback, is that, where there is domestic abuse alleged, it does not happen until later. Children's voices are sometimes not being captured at all in that. This new proposed way forward will be child-centred and trauma-informed. Those cases that do not meet the threshold for domestic abuse, or where there is a judgement made that domestic abuse is not involved, go down another pathway. What is so important is ensuring that we have that determination from the outset, because that will really help to inform the judge, particularly where we see repeated applications and we are straying into potential litigation abuse.

Mr Kingston: So the judge would make that judgement, based on evidence.

Ms Hanna: Yes, including the child's voice.

Mr Kingston: I have heard from people who feel that unsubstantiated claims have been made and that they have been punished by not having access to the child or by having very limited access to the child. Having access to the child, if that is the right word to use —. Sorry?

Ms Kennedy: Contact with the child.

Mr Kingston: Contact with the child, yes. Is that made by social workers in any cases, or in extreme cases?

Ms Hanna: The child's court officer will make a recommendation, following a meeting with the child and looking at a range of circumstances, meeting the parents and potentially, perhaps, engaging with the child's school and other influential people in the child's life. Ultimately, however, the decision about contact is determined by the judge. What I hear from people, however, is that domestic abuse allegations are not being explored but are being dismissed or set aside. Your opening remark was that contact with both parents is beneficial. Everyone will agree with that, as long as that contact is safe. Where there is domestic abuse present, there needs to be a question of whether that is safe. It is for the judge to determine. We are not saying that, where domestic abuse is present, children should never see the abusive parent. There needs to be a shift where, rather than working towards building up to contact with the parent, we work on the presumption that, where domestic abuse is identified, it is not safe until the individual concerned, who has been judged to be a perpetrator of domestic abuse, can demonstrate how they can maintain safe contact with their child or children and that there is not an ongoing pattern of abuse of the non-abusive parent.

Mr Kingston: The other question that I want to ask is about the child-centred process. That sounds positive, but I wonder whether there is a conflict. Do parental rights exist anywhere in this framework? It may be that there is potential for a child to be encouraged by a parent to say that they did not want contact with the other parent. Is that enough to prevent that contact, where there has not been proven abuse?

Ms Hanna: If there has not been proven abuse — if we are taking domestic abuse out of the equation — it is obvious that the child's wishes and views should be considered. The child's wishes and views are the child's wishes and views. When we talk about this being child-centred, that is about engaging with children from the outset so that they have a voice and a space to share that voice and that they are kept informed. However, it is never their responsibility when it comes to decision-making. That would put an awful lot of responsibility on a child —.

Mr Kingston: And pressure could be brought to bear.

Ms Hanna: Pressure could be brought to bear. The role of judges, and of social services where they are involved in making recommendations, will be to consider what is in the best interests of the child. Their voices should influence that, but it is not that a child has a veto, if that is helpful.

Mr Kingston: I am thinking about circumstances. It has been said to me that allegations have been made, but they say that what was alleged had not happened and that the child had been persuaded to speak against contact.

Ms Hanna: The models in England, Wales and Australia that we have looked at do not remove parental responsibility for the children involved. It is about having the child's voice more central in the process. The legal professionals indicated that children's court officers do not see the child in half of cases. It was quite shocking for me that it was as high as that. What is clear, however, is that we want children to be consulted.

What is really promoted throughout the report is the Lundy model, whereby the child is given space and seen in an environment that is comfortable for them so that they have a voice and there is an audience for that voice, which is the court and the judges.

Of course, age and maturity play into that. There also needs to be an influence. When a decision is taken — more importantly, when a decision is taken that goes against the wishes of the child — it should be explained to them through a formal process, via the court, and not left to a parent, teacher or whomever to explain it. That could be done through the judge writing to the child or meeting the child. Again, however, we do not want children to feel that everything rests on their shoulders. We want them to be appropriately consulted and involved, because, ultimately, it is about their well-being in life. When that decision does not go with their wishes, and also when it does, that should be explained to them. That is particularly important when very young children are involved. If a child is one or two, there is not the same opportunity to explain to them the rationale behind the decision, but judges can write a letter to the child to explain why they made that decision so that the child can then read it when they are older. Those are examples of best practice that we want to explore in order to improve the model. That is really what is meant by having a child-centred, trauma-informed model of contact.

Mr Kingston: I will be very brief, because I appreciate that I have been allowed a lot of time. What are you seeking to achieve at the end of this? Is it legislative change or just guidance?

Ms Hanna: I am seeking to have a wholly revised model for our private law family court system.

Mr Kingston: Will that require legislation?

Ms Hanna: It may require legislation, but it will not require legislation to be piloted. Interestingly, the whole pathfinder, or child-focused, model that exists in family courts in England and Wales came in on the back of a practice direction by the head of the family courts, so it happened without legislation. I would like to think that, if we get as far as getting the pilot funded and being able to roll it out, we will look to update the legislation, but that legislation will then be much better informed. The legislation that underpins a lot of this is quite dated. It is from 1995, 1996 and 2001, when an awareness and understanding of domestic abuse was not on the radar anywhere nearly as much as it is now. Think about how far we have come even in the past five years in our understanding of coercive control. For a lot of this, coercive control is what we are talking about. We are talking about cases in which the parents have separated, so the victim has managed to separate from their partner, but there is ongoing coercive control. The court system, in its current format, is being used to help facilitate that. A review of legislation is therefore required, but it is not the starting point, because there is an opportunity for us to take a belt-and-braces approach, first through a pilot to test how a child-focused model would work and then through legislation.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Those of us who are steeped in this know what coercive control is as part of domestic abuse. Coercive control is not always obvious, however, and some people do not always understand what it is. We can all see the black eye or the broken arm. That is the simplest way in which to put it. When you talk about domestic abuse in your report, do you really mean coercive control? Are you confident that the judiciary and the family court system also view it like that?

Ms Hanna: Some of the victims involved will have experienced domestic abuse in its fullest form, including physical violence, financial abuse, emotional abuse and psychological abuse. Coercive control is a key component in all of that, however, and it is the coercive control element that continues to be perpetrated through the family court system.

Am I confident that all the practitioners, from the judiciary right the way through, are as well versed in understanding what coercive control is as they need to be? My answer is no. I do not mean to disparage any of the professionals involved, but there is a significant learning curve for society to understand what coercive control is, how it manifests and how our systems can be used to help facilitate it.

A significant piece of work needs to be done on training, involving social workers, children's court officers and judges, so that we can effectively spot coercive control. Our legal professionals and society itself also need to be involved. That broader piece of work is therefore needed. It is vital that anyone who makes decisions about child contact or who is involved in the decision-making process be well versed in the most up-to-date best practice and learning.

Ms Egan: Thanks for coming to the Committee today. Your evidence is so important. It gives us a really good evidence base to push for change. I will pick up on something that you said. The task and finish group has a large workload in front of it, but its work is so welcome. Am I right in saying that I heard that the judiciary said that it would like to be kept informed about the group's the progress? Are there any judges or representatives of the judiciary on the task and finish group?

Ms Hanna: No, there are not. When I met the Lady Chief Justice, the main reason that she gave for their not engaging at this point was to do with capacity. There was no capacity to free up a judge to attend the group. It is fair to say that the Lady Chief Justice is also keen to ensure that any pilot that we run that is to do with reform needs to be appropriately resourced. The judiciary is therefore mindful that potentially significant change is involved and that the resources need to be in place.

I am really pleased that the Lady Chief Justice has offered to look at what we have suggested. She said that she has guidance for that area, which is very welcome. The judiciary is running a pilot on family resolution, which excludes domestic abuse cases, but I hope to connect with that to see whether there is any learning to take from it that will help inform our proposed model.

When I say "our proposed model", let me be very clear that I am not an expert in family court law. I am very open about saying that. We are facilitating the group because of the range of agencies and Departments involved. The experts in the room are the people who are sitting around the table, which is why I am so pleased to have received such a great range of commitment from Departments and other agencies to be involved. We will feed back to the judiciary, and, again, any progress on the pilot will require judicial buy-in and support, but, hopefully, the funding will be committed to, after which we will be able to secure it.

Ms Egan: It is disappointing to hear that there is no representative on the task and finish group, because it is doing extremely important work. It is something on which the Committee is focused, as are individual MLAs.

I know that the Lady Chief Justice issued guidance in 2025 on domestic abuse in family proceedings. As part of your research, have you looked at that guidance? Do you think that it has made much of a difference?

Ms Hanna: We have not undertaken any significant analysis of it, so I cannot speak to whether it is making a difference daily. First and foremost, I will say that the guidance is welcome. It is really important for the head of our judiciary to have that commitment to, understanding of and recognition of domestic abuse. Some really great principles are outlined in the guidance, so that is really important. What we are talking about, however, is fundamental reform of the processes, so guidance is not enough.

The model was developed literally 20 or 30 years ago, before we had the benefit of the understanding that we now have of domestic abuse and coercive control. It is clear that we need a model that works in today's environment, and, for that, we require a system change. Judicial guidance is very welcome and helpful, but we need to see meaningful change here. That will require a whole process and a structural piece, which will, no doubt, be accompanied and supported by the judicial guidance.

Ms Egan: Finally, on your recommendations, a presumption against contact is extremely welcome. The culture of a presumption against contact is so strong that, when England and Wales were looking to remove it, people contacted me asking how we can do that in Northern Ireland, without their even realising that that was not the case here. Do you think that the reason that we need a presumption against contact here is because that culture of contact with abusive parents is not working in the best interests of children and their safety?

Ms Hanna: I think that everyone accepts that, regardless of whether parents are together, children will benefit from having both of them in their lives, even if the parents are not necessarily in agreement. Where we have domestic abuse, however, it is about recognising its impact on children, and even that is evolving. Even in the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021, we recognise children as being an aggravating factor. We are learning more and more, because those children have now grown up and are lobbying. By doing so, they are changing our understanding of the impact that domestic abuse has on children.

Although we have never had a statutory presumption of contact, we have almost inherited it and embedded it in our practice. I re-emphasise that, where domestic abuse is present, we propose that there be a presumption against contact until it is proven safe for children to have contact, rather than presume that it is safe for them to have contact only to find out afterwards that it was not; that the onus be placed on the abuser to demonstrate to the court why they can safely be in contact with their child or children; and that there be clear recognition that any coercive control of the non-abusive parent is not continuing.

Ms Egan: You have made it clear that this is not about a presumption against contact with both parents but about the safety of children through having contact with an abuser. Thank you for your work on this. It is really welcome.

Mr McGlone: Thank you for all the work that you have done. I would like to talk you through the process, although perhaps a better term would be the experiences of some people. I am sure that all of us in the room have encountered, in most of the cases, a female with a big, shining black eye who has walked into a door. We all know that that was not the case. How do you foresee there being an increase in awareness and in people having the confidence to come forward? What possible role is there for the Department of Health to play through involving psychologists, psychiatrists and the like?

This is something that I have laboured over. If a person has opened up and identified a pattern of harm, and they or their children get to court — you mentioned children giving evidence — what issues have you raised with, say, the Courts and Tribunals Service? There is a thin line between discerning facts to establish them and re-traumatising an individual or their children as a result of having to give evidence. That relies a lot on the judge's understanding and sensitivity and on their direction to rein things in. I have thought quite a bit about people being re-traumatised by the re-enactment of what they went through.

Connie touched on the issue of contact with an abusive parent. Is it your case that, where it is established that there is a sole abusive parent in a relationship, contact be prevented between children and that parent? Is that the direction that you are proposed that we go in to ensure that children either do not become a victim or pick up the worst habits of that parent and subsequently become an abuser? There can often be a pattern of the worst bad habits being learned by the child. I am interested in hearing your thoughts on that.

Ms Hanna: That was a lot. [Laughter.]

Mr McGlone: I know, but it is the reality.

Ms Hanna: I will talk through what you have raised, but if I miss something, do tell me. Louise will keep us right as well.

The broader piece on how we encourage people to come forward extends beyond just the family courts.

The more that we do to raise awareness and public understanding of the issues, the better. Campaigns are happening, and we have the ending violence against women and girls strategy and the domestic and sexual abuse strategy. All of that work is important, and everything that we can do to increase understanding is essential. In the week that is in it, in which the review of the tragic Katie Simpson case has outlined an incomprehensible litany of failures, a light has been shone on our understanding of domestic abuse and coercive control. There is therefore that broader awareness piece. In the family court, ensuring that all practitioners are appropriately trained is key, and that includes members of the legal profession. Solicitors need to understand the dynamics of coercive control, because, they will inevitably be the first point of contact for both parties. The training that they receive from specialist organisations will help inform their understanding and approach.

It is important to note from the report that some people were concerned about raising issues to do with domestic abuse, and that is sad. For numerous reasons, they did not want to highlight domestic abuse. Reasons include fear of counter-allegations and advice from solicitors not to raise it, which is a concern. Shame and not wanting it to be known are further reasons. Although the proceedings are private, people are still having to share information with someone else. As a society, we therefore need to do a lot of work to break down those barriers. We have to start with the legal profession, which judges are part of.

As part of the child-centred process, the trauma-informed piece is essential because of some of the children in particular who were involved in the research were disturbed by some of the engagement that they had had with children's court officers. The reason for that is that it was perhaps a one-off. There was no sense of building a rapport with them, and that can be a difficulty that can cause further harm and re-traumatisation.

One of the key things that we need to consider when it comes to adult victims engaging with the process is the accommodation. An issue that came up in the report, as well as with me in other conversations with judges, was that of having to bring people together in one room. I am a strong advocate of our being able to facilitate SightLink a lot more. Where we have two parties come together, and there are allegations of domestic abuse — even where those allegations have not yet been investigated — we should facilitate people to be able to give evidence from other locations. There are special measures in the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act to enable that, but I do not think that they should be considered special measures. If there are any allegations, particularly where there has been a finding of abuse, the victim should be offered the option to give evidence from another location so that we are not having to bring people together. Again, where domestic abuse has been determined and coercive control exists, if an abuser is determined to continue to abuse their partner, they are going to want to get into the same room as that person. We therefore need to offer victims opportunities to prevent that happening.

I am not sure whether this will answer your last question, but I will make a point about advocating contact with the abuser. I want to be really clear that I am not saying that, where someone has been found guilty or where there has been a determination in the family court that there has been domestic abuse, they should never have contact with their child. Rather, what I am saying is that, for some of the reasons that you have highlighted about potential patterns and the impact that domestic abuse has on children, we start with the presumption that contact is going to be unsafe and then put the onus on the individual to demonstrate to the court how they can safely be in contact with and parent the child. That is not impossible. We have, for example, perpetrator programmes. I do not believe that people will never be reformed. If someone has been a domestic abuser, they may abuse again if there is no intervention, but if there is a successful intervention, contact with a child is then not necessarily precluded. The onus, however, should be on the individual to demonstrate how they can ensure that they are reformed, and we should certainly be checking to make sure that they are not continuing to abuse their partner, or ex-partner at that stage.

Mr McGlone: Thank you for that. I have just one other question, and it concerns the courts. As you all well know, where there has been a separation, particularly an acrimonious one, one partner or the other, or both, may be up for being adversarial. I return to my point about there being a thin line between simply stating the facts and re-traumatisation. What course do you see a case taking for the judiciary if the legal representatives for either side are up for a fight, for want of a better word, on the instruction of their client? How do you ensure that the process moves from being adversarial or re-traumatic to having a conciliatory resolution?

Ms Hanna: That is a really helpful question, Patsy, as it is one of the things that struck me most about the Dorset model when I visited there in 2023. Judge Simmonds was the lead judge, and he began the session. What was really powerful from my perspective was that he outlined how he was averse even to beginning that pilot. He had just inherited the patch, and it was the judge before him who had signed up to the pilot. Judge Simmonds was so cynical. He believed that the pilot was not going to work, but he became a total convert. He said that the biggest difference was that the process started with the child, not with the parents. That is how it was turned around from being so adversarial. Rather than start with a he said, she said situation, the process started with the child. Where there is an allegation of abuse, that first has to be identified. With the pathfinder process, the papers come in, and there is then an identification done by a paralegal. Questions are asked about whether any domestic abuse is involved. If there are allegations that there is, a children's court officer in England and Wales from the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, or CAFCASS, meets the child to capture their views.

What Judge Simmonds was struck by was how many cases were resolved at that point, because when both parents heard the views of the child, it changed from being a Mummy said, Daddy said situation to being about what Johnny said. Some cases, although not all, were then able to be handled via papers, and an agreement was reached. The Dorset pathfinder therefore reduced the number of cases having to come before the court. What that left was the more complex cases, so the process then moved to fact-finding about the domestic abuse. Again, it is about dealing with the adversarial piece up front and then taking it from there. All the outcomes and evaluations from the pathfinder indicate that it reduces the number of hearings and is less adversarial.

One of the challenges for us will be to bring our legal profession along on the journey. That is why it is so important that we have the profession represented on the task and finish group. We need them to understand the driving factor, which is to have an understanding and awareness of coercive control, but we also need to ensure that we develop systems for hearings, legal aid and so on that work for the child. That all needs to work smoothly and ensure that there are no incentives to come into a room. We want to de-incentivise all parties involved from having to come into a room. Does that answer your question?

Mr McGlone: Yes. Thank you for that.

Ms Finnegan: A lot of the questions have been answered. Thank you for your presentation today. I also thank you for taking the time to do that research, because, over the past number of years, we have unfortunately seen that there are massive gaps in accessing justice and that the culture in the courts is very poor. That is not to say that there is not very good work going on. There are very good people working in the courts. It is not a tied-up system, however. The courts are still working in silos, and the more that we read, the more that we realise that that is the case. It is very evident that the family courts do not tie in with the criminal courts, and that is a huge frustration.

I want to make an additional, very important point. Women come to me and say, "Look, I'll tell you my story, because I believe that changes can happen. I know that those changes won't help me, but they will help other women and children". Women telling those real stories of their lives shows amazing strength.

On coercive control, we have heard people ask, "How do we identify what coercive control is? There is no physical evidence: there is no black eye or wound". For a person who is a victim or survivor of coercive control, the wound is as deep as a physical wound. That wound is made even deeper by those who do not understand it, and that is the re-traumatisation. A clear theme throughout the report is that coercive control and post-separation abuse are not always fully understood by professionals. I would say that, in some cases, they are not understood or recognised at all in the system. From your perspective, how significant is the gap in understanding among judges, legal professionals and court officers? What specific changes are needed in training, guidance or practice to ensure that these dynamics are properly reflected in decision-making?

Ms Hanna: Thanks, Aoife. You thanked us for looking at the matter. Our interest in it, and my focus on it in my term, is driven by the people who have engaged with us. Every person who has been involved, particularly the children and young people, has been involved because they want to improve the system for those who come after them. That is a credit to them, and the report is for them. That is why I am so determined that we have to do something. It cannot end with just the report. We are here, and we will keep championing and shouting about it.

How good the understanding is varies. That is echoed throughout the report. There is inconsistency at every level. There is inconsistency in the approach to some of the processes. There is definitely a journey to be undertaken in the understanding of coercive control across society, including amongst some of these practitioners: social workers, judges and legal professionals. That is why it is so important that we, as the group, look at that. The report recommends, which I support, mandatory training for everybody: judges, social workers and legal professionals. Anyone working in the area should have a certain level of understanding of coercive control and domestic abuse. As you say, in many ways, coercive control is more damaging than physical abuse. So many victims — far too many — have told me that they would have preferred to endure physical abuse, because coercive control is ongoing. Some victims manage to escape an abusive relationship but the coercive control continues to be perpetrated. The further harm is facilitated and caused by their engagement with a system that is supposed to help protect them and their children.

It is paramount that we get this right. Part of the work of the task and finish group will be identifying what that training looks like, how often it should take place and how we make it mandatory. How do we get to the point that anybody working in this has the training? Should solicitors or judges who work in the family courts have to have done a certain level of training? That is where the real work of the group will come in, and there is a lot of work to be done.

Ms Finnegan: I agree. Women have come to me and said, "Do you know what? I now understand that that was coercive control. I understand now that that is what I was going through, but I did not at the time that I was sitting in court with my abuser feet away from me".

The people who are involved in a case, particularly solicitors, need to be educated. It is timely that you are giving your brief today, because, this week, Katie Simpson's family very bravely came into the Chamber, and we debated a motion on protecting victims of coercive control. Women have come to me and said, "I now understand it, but the people around me did not understand it. Therefore, it was not recognised as domestic abuse". We know that there is good guidance in place on the legal aid waiver, but there are a couple of different reasons why the waiver is not being offered. The first is the complexity of it, and the second is that it is not understood that a woman is suffering abuse and that litigation abuse is a very real thing. I am sure that you agree — you mentioned this in your comments — that education is absolutely needed across the board, and it needs to be tied together.

I could go on forever, but I will stop there, because I know that other members need to ask questions. Thank you very much.

Ms Hanna: You can bring us back to answer more questions as we progress. [Laughter.]

Ms Sheerin: Thanks to you both for coming in and for the report, which is tough reading. This whole area is tough. Aoife and you referred to what we learned this week from the investigation of Katie Simpson's murder and all of that. What struck me, both from reading the report and in the chat that we had about it, is how convincing that person was and how charming he appeared to others. There are a couple of parts to it, and this relates to what Patsy asked. I am really glad to see a focus on it, because the response across our public services is piecemeal and reactionary. The truth is that, an awful lot of the time, hurt people hurt people. You find that abusers came from households where abuse happened and that people suffer from addiction and mental health issues as a result of behaviours that they watched or were a victim of in childhood. If all that trauma is not dealt with, it will always re-emerge later in life. That causes an awful lot of the problems. We have the justice response: people are criminalised when what they need is support. It is a massive conversation and a massive piece of work. For that reason, I salute you and what you are trying to do here, and I hope that it is taken seriously.

You talked about mandatory training for all the people who are engaged in the judicial system and the family courts specifically. I was delighted to hear you say that you have buy-in from the health trusts. How do we normalise that across the board? Others have mentioned this. As an elected rep, I am contacted by people, and there can be claims and counterclaims. A lot of the time, my gut tells me who is telling the truth, but I am not sure. I am not trained; I am not a professional; and I am not equipped with the skills to identify who is and is not telling the truth, but I come into contact with those people in my role. I would have hoped that the professionals in the judicial system or the health service are trained, but that does not seem to be the case. Sorry.

Ms Hanna: No, you are OK. Let me put on record that this is not easy. It is clear from the questions and the report that it is a really complex area. Coercive control is particularly so, because it is not as visible as a physical assault. Of course people have a right to defend themselves when allegations are made against them, and that is all really important. That is why it is so important that we get the right training in place.

With regard to how to ensure that everybody gets the training and how to make it mandatory, which I think is what you are asking me —

Ms Sheerin: Yes.

Ms Hanna: — that is a challenge that we will need to think about as a group. How do we ensure that it is rolled out and embedded? Obviously, there is an issue around getting a pilot up and running and getting the resources for that. A pilot is about learning. From my perspective, there is an expectation that, if there is a commitment to a pilot, there should be a commitment to reform the system using the learning from the pilot. That will require funding, first and foremost, and then legislation. This picks up on Brian's point about legislation. If we change the legislation to support a reformed model of family courts, we can start to build in things around the level of mandatory training that should be available for everyone. Once you put that in statute, you are more likely to get there. In the shorter term, we will work with the goodwill of the agencies involved. It is about engaging with the universities, given that they deliver social work training, and the Judicial Studies Board, given its work with the Law Society and the Bar. That is why I am hopeful that we have the right people in the group. I am ambitious about how long I would like it to take, but it will probably take a bit longer. At the first meeting, they will probably laugh at me, but I want to keep it is as time focused as possible.

Another thing that is important to have on the record is that this will not be the panacea to domestic abuse. It is about trying to improve one aspect: our family courts' handling of domestic abuse. There is so much more that we need to do in that area. Ensuring that our family court practitioners, regardless of their profession, have a mandatory level of training is one aspect, but there is so much that we need to do in the criminal sphere as well. In our health trusts — we heard this week about the missed opportunities in Katie's case — there is a lot of work to be done.

One of the challenges in this area is that there has not been one lead Department. I find that frustrating, because, at times, I feel as though I am being batted off to other Departments, which is why I am so happy that all the relevant Departments have agreed to be part of this. Whilst that lack of a lead Department has meant that domestic abuse possibly has not had the attention that it should have had over the decades, you will see that, on the criminal side, we have done so much more on developing the response to domestic abuse. There is more work to be done, but we have done so much more there, whereas, on this side, we have not done that, and, again, that is because there has not been one lead. Whilst I will criticise and point out the negative side, the positive is that, hopefully, we have cross-party and cross-departmental buy-in and recognition of the fact that the issue cuts across all Departments. It goes back to your point about the impact of domestic abuse on the behaviours of others and how children can learn harmful behaviours. If we get this right, it will cut across the Department of Education, the Department for Communities and the whole piece.

The short answer is that, if we get the pilot, we get the roll-out, and then we get the legislation. Once it is mandated, it is harder to run away from. There is a willingness there; we just need to work on resourcing and capacity.

Ms Sheerin: Yes. I have one more question. I do not want to make you uncomfortable here, but, in the past week, we have heard that there were inherently misogynistic attitudes in the PSNI. I know that there is reference in the report to the fact that we live in a culturally patriarchal society, and Ireland as a whole has had that. There is a fear among people who may suspect that something is going on, whether it is physical violence or domestic abuse in some of its other forms. We have a culture that you do not talk about what goes on behind somebody else's door and you do not call it out. Then, we have a situation where a woman is killed. The whole country knew what was going on, and everybody said, "Ah, sure. Aye". It was common knowledge after the fact. I find it frustrating, because you cannot make judgements or accusations or get involved in other people's personal business, but, oftentimes, that allows abusers to act with impunity and get away with it.

Does the same misogynistic attitude exist in other public services and our court system? You talked about the fact that a pro-contact attitude is always advised or striven for, even when, at times, that is damaging to children. Is that the root cause of the problem that we are working with?

Ms Hanna: It is inevitable that misogyny exists across all professions and the public. I do not think that it is unusual that we have identified this week that there are misogynistic attitudes in the PSNI. It needs to work really hard to vet people in order to make sure that those attitudes are not there, because, if the PSNI does not get that right, heaven help the rest of us. It is inevitable that misogyny will be there. The pro-contact culture has been driven by a sense of people's wanting contact with both parents and seeing the benefit of a child having a relationship with both parents. I am not sure that I would equate that with misogyny.

There are such levels of unconscious bias in all of us that we are not always alive to it. It is not that people are acting maliciously against someone, but there is a bias there. There has been a lot of minimising of victim experience and a lot of victim blaming, and that can feed into our judgements. It is so important that anybody who is involved in decision-making around someone's life has the right training, that there is refresher training and that we keep up to date with that. We are all still learning, and there is work to be done.

Ms Sheerin: Yes. Thanks.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you, Geraldine. As someone who worked for many years in the field of family support, I know that the report is long overdue. I want to recognise the family support hubs in our neighbourhoods and communities, because they have been doing a lot of the heavy lifting. The ETHOS hub that we won had to mentor people, men and women, through the system because no one else was assisting those people. I am quite emotional, because the report is long overdue for so many people.

The system has been failing, and we need a root-and-branch review of it. I welcome the Lady Chief Justice's guidance in relation to the courts system. That will go a long way. In her guidance, she said that there would be a review in six months. It is now five months later, and I have not seen a review. We can follow up to see how that is going. As I said, a root-and-branch review is needed. I welcome the pilot. I am cautiously optimistic about the ongoing work. The judiciary is not involved. I do not know whether any other partners are not in it that should be. Bodies that are not in from the start will not feel ownership of the model, and it is then difficult to implement it. We need all the willing partners to be around the table from the start to buy into the significant changes that need to happen. The expressed opinions of 51 men, women and children fed into the report. How can we ensure that those voices continue to be embedded in the overall change?

We cannot wait on a model. The Lady Chief Justice has given guidance in relation to the courts, which is good. Have there been changes on the Health side? I am not disparaging social workers, as I know that they have a tough workload and are under pressure, but all those other professionals are critically important, even prior to a case getting to court. They feed through under the Children Order and make a representation to the court. Among all the professionals who have engaged with the family and the individuals, including those who are tied up in the criminal courts — there has long been a disconnect — a culture change needs to happen. We do not need to wait for a new model. What are your thoughts about a culture change, whereby Health and Justice make the changes without waiting for a model or legal changes? How embedded is the report? Have they read it?

Ms Hanna: If only I knew. On your first point, let me be clear and say that we cannot do this without the judiciary. I would love a judge to be on the group, but I will work with what we have, and we will continue to engage with the judiciary. The Lady Chief Justice has a keen focus in this area, so I am really hopeful that, if we get a commitment to fund a pilot, we will get judicial support and buy-in. With the people who we have in the group, we have covered every base that we can think of. To come on to another of your questions, I took an active decision not to have victims and survivors as part of the group, because it is very operationally focused. The practitioners in the room will have to design a model, but, alongside that, I want to have consultative groups involving victims and survivors, adults and children. As we develop a draft, we will bring it back to those groups for their feedback. We will continue to ensure that the voices and experiences of victims and survivors shape the final proposal. If anyone in the group thinks that a key body is missing from the process, we will invite that body along at that point.

You asked about how far the process is embedded. I do not want have to wait for a pilot either. I am hearing people talk about the report, which is positive and, hopefully, an indication of change. I will ask Louise to talk a little about the Health side and the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA).

Ms Kennedy: We have spoken to Department of Health officials, and the Health Minister has asked RQIA to conduct a review, across the five trusts, of the role of court children's officers in family court cases, which is really positive. Through our preliminary work to gather together the task and finish group, we have been made aware that some really passionate, activist social workers are also looking at the issue. We hope that the task and finish group will become a lightning rod whereby we can bring everything together and help to build the model.

Ms Ferguson: That is great, because a lot of those professionals have been stifled. They have had to operate in a system rather than doing what is right.

Ms Hanna: There is an opportunity for us to test as the task and finish group is developed, if people can start to do things in their areas. I referenced the family resolution pilot that the Lady Chief Justice is looking at. I will hopefully speak to Judge Bagnall, who is leading on that pilot. I said that I would connect with her after she has got up and running a bit. That pilot is looking at reducing the adversarial piece. It excludes domestic abuse cases, but there may be lessons from that pilot that we can build into our work. We certainly should not wait. There seems to be positive —.

Ms Kennedy: There is positive movement in a lot of different pockets, and we should galvanise that.

Ms Hanna: Totally. I am conscious that it will not be fixed if we do not reform the whole thing. It is not about tweaking around the edges; it is about radically reforming the process map that someone goes through if a domestic abuse allegation comes into the equation.

Ms Ferguson: I know that it is difficult to say, but do you have a timescale in your head? You are working towards getting it up and running by the end of June, but is there a timescale of a year or 18 months? Will you just not know until you get started?

Ms Hanna: I would like us to have some sort of proposal within six months. They will all laugh when I say that, but we will do our best. It should not be rocket science. The fact that it is a pilot means that we can adapt. We can take learning from other places, and I want to keep the momentum going. I am conscious that we will start in June and that there will be summer leave and so on. My term ends in June next year, so, hopefully, this will be my parting shot. Hopefully, we will be a good way forward by the end of the year. The Committee will be saying, "What's coming out of that thing? There should be something by now". If there is not, please write to us.

Ms Ferguson: Finally, what is the current system for children's voices to be heard, particularly in cases of domestic abuse?

Ms Hanna: It is up to the judge to determine whether a court children's officer is involved. The legal professionals who were involved in the report indicated that a court children's officer is involved in only 50% of cases. That is an indication and not a qualitative figure, but it surprised me because I thought that it would have been higher. Some of it may be about resources, which is one of the challenges. If we are trying to capture children's voices at the outset in any pilot or reformed model, we will need social services to be available to do that work. That will be a change to what we do now.

That tends to be how their views are brought in at the moment, and, if the child is not directly spoken to, they hear back via the parents. Children's court officers, if they have not spoken to the child, may speak to a school. I am not missing anything, am I?

Ms Kennedy: No.

Ms Ferguson: I have one final question. Is any specific training currently available to support professionals, whether they be a schoolteacher, social worker or whatever, to communicate effectively to give a child a voice, particularly if a child has gone through trauma?

Ms Hanna: Different people do different things. Louise has written "toolkit" down for me. During the pathfinder pilot in England, children and young people developed a letter-writing toolkit. In responding to Brian earlier, I said that judges might write a letter to particularly young children. Children and young people involved in the pathfinder project in England and Wales have developed a toolkit for judges on how they communicate with children. I have no doubt that anybody who reads the report of this session or who is watching now will be screaming about how there are loads of different models. There is a lot of expertise, particularly in Northern Ireland. The Lundy model that is referenced a lot in 'Totally Invisible' was proposed and developed in Northern Ireland. It is an internationally recognised model that was developed in our very own Northern Ireland. We will not be stuck for how we do it. It is just a question of the ability and willingness to do it.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you.

Mr Beattie: Geraldine and Louise, thank you very much. It is fascinating. Given the length of time that we have had you here, you can see that we are all really engaged in this. One of the things about going nearly last is that you end up covering ground that has already been covered, so apologies for that.

I have a real frustration about training. We have been banging on about training for such a long time, whether it is police training, which is not up to the required standards; the Public Prosecution Service, which is not as open as it should be about the training that it is doing; or our judiciary, which is not doing training at all. The Judicial Studies Board mandates training for judges. Why can the Lady Chief Justice not be told to create a module in the Judicial Studies Board and make it compulsory for the judiciary? That is a quick fix. It is not a long and difficult one. She should say, "Here is a module. You will do it". Why will she not be as proactive as she should be in that regard?

Ms Hanna: It is a difficult question for me to answer, Doug.

Mr Beattie: Sorry.

Ms Hanna: I am not sure that the Lady Chief Justice has refused to do that per se. When it comes to mandatory training for judges, I understand that there are some things that they have to be trained on. In England and Wales, judges are ticketed, as it is called, to work on certain cases. That could come out of this as a recommendation on training. Your point is well made. We need all the relevant bodies to have a level of training. I am aware that the Judicial Studies Board has had presentations recently from organisations such as Women's Aid, Victim Support etc. I am certainly seeing greater involvement and engagement with the community and voluntary sector and tapping into its expertise when it comes to training, as well as bringing in experts from other areas. There is definitely work to be done there. How do we ensure that anything will be mandatory? I will go back to the legislation piece. I am not sure, legally, whether the Lady Chief Justice can mandate other judges to go to training. The Judicial Studies Board piece seems to be that it is a matter of whoever signs up, regardless of the organisation, whether it is the judiciary, the PPS or the police. There are certain requirements that, I think, are mandatory, and this is one of the areas.

Mr Beattie: I totally agree. Connie made the point that the judiciary is not on the task and finish group. That is right, is it not? That, I have to say, is a key failing by the judiciary. We can give leeway across the board because we know that people are busy, but to deliver what you want to deliver, it is key that the judiciary sit on that group. It is not about you briefing the judiciary on the outcomes; it needs to inform the outcomes. I am frustrated about that, to be honest.

I am also frustrated, Geraldine, about the legal aid waiver. I am looking at the figures for the legal aid waiver. What is going on that so many are out of scope or withdrawn? There are more out of scope and withdrawn than there are approved.

Ms Hanna: I share that frustration. The legal aid waiver looks fantastic on paper: it looks as though we have made a great step forward. The reasons why there has not been uptake of the waiver are multiple, including lack of awareness, the complexity of the process and the threshold that needs to be passed. With the access to justice review, we are on a journey to seeing that improved. As part of that, proposals have been put forward on the level of information that needs to be provided. The legal aid that is available for it has to make it worth a solicitor's time to complete; otherwise, it will be immediately disregarded. Solicitors are self-employed, not volunteering their time, so it is an issue if it does not pay them to complete the form. That has, I think, been recognised and is being looked at.

It is also about the complexity of the process and the level of information that people are asked for. I know that this may be seen as outrageous, but my perspective is that, where there is any domestic abuse allegation, we should just have legal aid, regardless of a person's means. If someone has been a victim of domestic abuse, we should remove any potential for litigation.

Mr Beattie: The fact that it is called a "legal aid waiver" gives the sense that that would be the case, but it actually is not; it is a damn big process that people have to go through, and that is frustrating.

Ms Hanna: It involves an awful lot of complexity. For example, if someone has ever had even a Paddy Power account that they use to have a flutter on the horses or whatever, that and all other such things have to be looked at and submitted. The information needed to pass the threshold is so comprehensive that it is off-putting not only for victims but, because of the level of work that needs to be done, for solicitors. I think that that is recognised and is in hand. That work is to be progressed as part of the access to justice review.

Mr Beattie: Did I hear you say that you recently met a domestic abuse victim who has been in the family court process for 10 years?

Ms Hanna: I met them this morning, yes.

Mr Beattie: Explain that to me. How can that be right? Ten years? Is somebody — not the victim — gaming the system?

Ms Hanna: Well, I am due to meet her —.

Mr Beattie: Not the victim — let me just say that.

Ms Hanna: That is the length of time that the case has taken, which includes delays in proceedings and them being brought back with new applications. That is the —.

Mr Beattie: Ten years?

Ms Hanna: Ten years.

Mr Beattie: Ten years?

Ms Hanna: It always hangs over people until the child gets to adulthood. They live with the fear hanging over them that someone will potentially bring them back. Do not get me wrong: parents wanting to have safe, meaningful contact with their children is to be welcomed, but I want to be clear and re-emphasise that we are talking about domestic abusers —

Ms Kennedy: Yes, it is.

Ms Hanna: — and people who are using the system. The system needs to be reformed to eliminate or, at the very least, reduce the potential for that to happen.

Mr Beattie: In that instance, there could be children who were aged eight when the process started and are now adults —

Ms Hanna: Yes, aged 18.

Mr Beattie: — aged 18. It is scandalous.

I have another very quick question for you, if I may. Have you come across any cases where there have been extremely young abusers — in other words, a domestic abuser is using the child as a surrogate abuser? Do you understand what I mean? Have you not come across an abuser using coercive control over their own children in order to abuse?

Ms Hanna: We hear of examples where the abusive parent is using contact to feed information and messaging back to the non-abusive parent via the child. In such a case, the child is being used nearly as a tool to help to facilitate that. That can be done subtly. That is one of the dynamics of coercive control: people bringing in something that looks quite innocent on the face of it; however, when someone has a broader understanding of the dynamic between the ex-partners, they may see how that messaging may be given and how other family members can also be brought in to facilitate that. That dynamic is understood as part of the training around coercive control.

Mr Beattie: You can see the difficulties when young kids are becoming the abusers because they are being coerced into it, particularly if you are going through family court proceedings and children are the ones who, unwittingly, are perpetuating that. Thanks very much.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): We are struggling for time, Geraldine, so I have only a wee quick question. First, we all recognise that this is the direction of travel, but how can you assure us that there is nothing in this movement, which is going towards where we need to be, that will not make it easier for people, whether they are domestic violence perpetrators or not, to practise parental alienation?

Ms Hanna: Even the term "parental alienation" is debatable. Does it exist? How do we define it? Particularly in England and Wales, you see it manifest itself a lot. You will see it mentioned in this research as well. What is really important is that we have appropriate guidance and training for judges and social workers on what alienating behaviours might look like. The guidance developed by the Family Justice Council in England and Wales on that disregards the concept of parental alienation and advocates on the risks associated with it and the potential pseudoscience around it. However, it recognises that, in certain circumstances, someone may be using the child, I suppose, and alienating them as part of the abuse. We cannot disregard that, and that is where it is important that there is training. My understanding is that the shadow Family Justice Board here is also developing training on that. The question of how you try to mitigate that is in any new model almost as much as it is in the current one. We need to ensure that people have an understanding of what that is and what that looks like and that there is guidance on how to respond.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): How can we have an understanding of and provide training on that when it is still disputed in many quarters?

Ms Hanna: The disputed piece is that of parental alienation as a syndrome. Is there any indication that a parent can try to use a child against another person? About three years ago, I spoke to judges about that, and I was told that it was as old as motherhood and apple pie. It will inevitably happen in some circumstances, and we will always be alive to that. What, unfortunately, has crept into our family court system is that it has been used nearly as a litigation abuse response: when someone says that there is domestic abuse, a counter-allegation of parental alienation comes in, albeit, in Northern Ireland, we tend to use the phrase "implacable hostility" more. That is one of the reasons why some victims fear even raising it and why some solicitors, I have been told, have advised against raising it.

One of my hopes is that, through a system that, first and foremost, deals with the allegation of domestic abuse, we can reduce the potential for there to be a counter-allegation of parental alienation, or whatever it may be called or presented as by the individual party. In that way, if there is any allegation of domestic abuse, that is determined from the outset. If the finding is that there is domestic abuse and there is then a counter-allegation of parental alienation, implacable hostility, alienating behaviours or whatever it may be framed as, that should be judged in light of that finding. At the minute, in some of our cases — it goes back to that adversarial piece — a lot of mud is slung by either party. When we are dealing with an allegation of domestic abuse, we should start with the child and work from there.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thank you very much. That was very good. Sorry that that took so long, but it was a very informative session. All members are very interested in this work, so thank you very much for that. I wish you a good day.