Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

‘Like Gold Dust These Days’: Domestic Violence Fact-Finding Hearings in Child Contact Cases

  • Published:
Feminist Legal Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Fact-finding hearings may be held to determine disputed allegations of domestic violence in child contact cases in England and Wales, and can play a vital role for mothers seeking protection and autonomy from violent fathers. Drawing on the author’s empirical study, this article examines the implications for the holding of fact-finding hearings of judges’ and professionals’ understandings of domestic violence and the extent to which they perceive it to be relevant to contact. While more judges and professionals are developing their understanding of domestic violence, the ambit of when and how it is considered relevant to contact has grown increasingly narrow, which suggests that many disputed allegations of domestic violence are disregarded and women and children continue to be put at risk from violent fathers. This bifurcated approach is likely to have significant implications for recent developments in this area of family law which are considered in this article.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The Children Act 1989 has been amended by Section 12 of the Children and Families Act 2014 which came into effect on 22nd April 2014 and replaces ‘residence’ and ‘contact’ orders with ‘child arrangements orders’.

  2. Section 11 of the Children and Families Act 2014, which came into effect in October 2014, incorporates the presumption in the new Sections 2A and 2B of the Children Act 1989.

  3. A total of 29 barristers, solicitors and Family Court Advisers (FCAs), drawn from 5 of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) areas, were interviewed. Broader information on this project, including the study sample and methods, can be obtained from the author’s PhD thesis (Barnett 2014).

  4. Humphreys refers to a study by Stanley et al. (2009).

  5. Anderson (1997), Women’s Aid (1997), Bailey-Harris et al. (1999), Kaganas and Piper (1999), Radford et al. (1999), Barnett (2000), Piper (2000), Aris et al. (2002) and Humphreys and Thiara (2002).

  6. See, eg, Re M (A Minor) (Contact: Conditions) [1994] 1 FLR 272; Re F (Minors) (Contact: Mother’s Anxiety) [1993] 2 FLR 830; Re O (Contact: Imposition of Conditions) [1995] 2 FLR 124; Re P (Contact: Supervision) [1996] 2 FLR 314. See also Hester and Pearson (1997) and Kaganas (1999).

  7. Re S (Care Proceedings: Split Hearing) [1996] 2 FLR 773, 775 per Bracewell J.

  8. Re L, V, M, H (Contact: Domestic Violence) [2000] 4 ALL ER 609, [2000] 2 FLR 334, CA.

  9. See e.g. Re M and B (Children: Domestic Violence) [2001] 1 FCR 116; K and S (Children) (Contact: Domestic Violence) [2006] 1 FCR 316; Re C (Children Proceedings: Powers of Transfer) [2008] EWCA Civ 502, [2008] 2 FLR 815.

  10. A summary of the FJC findings and recommendations is provided by Jane Craig (2007); see also Masson (2006).

  11. N = 16 (including all the 5 family lawyers interviewed in 2010), comprising: Solicitors = 11; Barristers = 5.

  12. See e.g. Re R (Family Proceedings: No Case to Answer) [2009] EWCA Civ 1619, [2009] 2 FLR 82; Re Z (Unsupervised Contact: Allegations of Domestic Violence) [2009] EWCA Civ 430, [2009] 2 FLR 877.

  13. See SS v KS [2009] EWHC 1575 (Fam), S v S (Interim Contact) [2009] 2 FLR 1586; Re C (Domestic Violence: Fact-finding Hearing) [2009] EWCA Civ 994, [2010] 1 FLR 1728.

  14. N = 12 of 22 useable responses, comprising equal numbers of solicitors, barristers and FCAs.

  15. For similar views expressed by judicial officers, see Hunter and Barnett (2013, 23).

  16. N = 13, comprising: Barristers = 4; Solicitors = 7; FCAs = 2.

  17. Paragraph 2.

  18. N = 21, comprising Barristers = 7; Solicitors = 6; FCAs = 8.

  19. N = 14, comprising Barristers = 5; Solicitors = 4; FCAs = 5.

  20. Re S (A Child) [2012] EWCA Civ 1031; see also Re W (Children) [2012] EWCA Civ 528.

  21. Scott schedules are itemised tables setting out the dates and brief descriptions of the specific allegations that the victim seeks to prove, together with the alleged perpetrator’s response. The revised Practice Direction specifically requires courts, for the first time, to consider directing Scott Schedules—Paragraph 19(c).

  22. Revised Practice Direction paragraph 19.

  23. The term, ‘non-resident parents’, is used in this context to reflect the fact that it was used in the question on this issue to which participants responded.

  24. N = 12.

  25. Paragraph 16 sets out the amended version of this provision, which still provides for the court to determine whether it is ‘necessary’ to conduct a fact-finding hearing.

  26. See e.g. Re E (Contact) [2009] EWCA Civ 1238, [2010] 1 FLR 1738; Re C (Domestic Violence: Fact-Finding Hearing) [2009] EWCA Civ 994, [2010] 1 FLR 1728.

  27. N = 22, comprising almost equal numbers of barristers, solicitors and FCAs.

  28. There may also be an element of response-bias in family lawyers’ self-reports.

  29. These reports are now termed ‘safeguarding letters’ and are reports of Cafcass’s initial safeguarding checks, comprising information from local authorities and the police, and a telephone interview with each party.

  30. For similar findings see Thiara and Gill (2012, 13).

  31. These respondents, particularly the barristers, were extremely pro-contact and held very negative views of mothers involved in contact proceedings generally.

  32. For similar findings see Thiara and Gill (2012, 13) and Watson and Ancis (2013). See also the judgment of Mostyn J in A v A (Appeal: Fact-finding) [2010] EWHC 1282 (Fam) and the trial judge’s criticism of the mother in Re R (Family Proceedings: No Case to Answer) [2009] EWCA Civ 1619, [2009] 2 FLR 82.

  33. Similar findings were made by Hunter and Barnett (2013).

  34. N = 13, comprising: Barristers = 5; Solicitors = 8.

  35. Re S (A Child) supra n 18.

  36. See, eg, Re A (Residence Order) [2009] EWCA Civ 1141, [2010] 1 FLR 1084; Re W (Children) [2012] EWCA Civ 528.

  37. See e.g. Re A-T (Children) [2008] EWCA Civ 652; Re P (Children) [2008] EWCA Civ 1431; Re M (Children) [2009] EWCA Civ 1216, [2010] 1 FLR 1089; Re S (A Child) [2012] EWCA Civ 617; Re W (Children) [2012] EWCA Civ 1788.

  38. Paragraph 17 of the revised Practice Direction.

  39. The importance that courts may attach to parents’ oral evidence was highlighted by Lady Hale in Re B (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) [2008] UKHL 35, [2008] 3 WLR 1.

  40. See e.g. Re P (Children) [2008] EWCA Civ 1431, [2009] 1 FLR 1056; Re K (Appeal: Contact) [2010] EWCA Civ 1365, [2011] 1 FLR 1592; Re W (Direct Contact) [2012] EWCA Civ 999, [2013] 1 FLR 494.

  41. These observations arise out of comments made about parents during the interviews by many family lawyers and a few FCAs.

  42. See also Trinder (2010), Fehlberg (2012, 711).

References

  • Anderson, Leslie. 1997. Contact between children and violent fathers. London: Rights of Women.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aris, Rosemary, and Christine Harrison. 2007. Domestic violence and the supplemental information form C1A, Ministry of Justice Research Series 17/07. London: Ministry of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aris, Rosemary, Christine Harrison, and Cathy Humphreys. 2002. Safety and child contact: An analysis of the role of child contact centres in the context of domestic violence and child welfare concerns. Norwich: TSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey-Harris, Rebecca, Jacqueline Barron, and Julia Pearce. 1999. From utility to rights? The presumption of contact in practice. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 13: 111–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bancroft, Lundy, and Jay Silverman. 2002. The batterer as parent: Addressing the impact of domestic violence on family dynamics. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, Adrienne. 2000. Contact and domestic violence: The ideological divide. In Feminist perspectives on child law, ed. Jo Bridgeman, and Daniel Monk, 129–150. London: Cavendish.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, Adrienne. 2014. Contact at all costs? Domestic violence, child contact and the practices of the family courts and professionals. Brunel University http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/8753. Accessed 10 December 2014.

  • Bell, Calvin. 2008. Domestic violence and contact: 10 reasons why. Family Law 38: 1139–1143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bossy, Jeannine, and Stephen Coleman. 2000. Womenspeak: Parliamentary domestic violence Internet consultation. Bristol: Women’s Aid Federation of England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, Susan. 2004. Demonizing mothers: Fathers’ rights discourses in child custody law reform processes. Journal of the Association for Research in Mothering 6(1): 52–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryan, Penelope. 2005. Constructive divorce. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, Anne, H.Bretherton Joan Hunt, and V. Bream. 2001. Families in conflict: Perspectives of children and parents on the Family Court Welfare Service. Bristol: The Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collier, Richard. 1995. ‘Waiting Till Father Gets Home…’: The reconstruction of fatherhood in family law. Social and Legal Studies 4(1): 5–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowan, Sharon, and Jackie Hodgson. 2007. Violence in a family context: The criminal law’s response to domestic violence. In Family Life and the Law: Under One Roof, ed. Rebecca Probert, 43–60. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coy, Maddy, Katherine Perks, Emma Scott, and Ruth Tweedale. 2012. Picking up the pieces: Domestic violence and child contact. London: Rights of Women.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, Jane. 2007. Everybody’s business: Applications for contact orders by consent. Family Law 37: 26–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crown Prosecution Service. 2012. Violence against women and girls: Crime Report 2011–2012. London: CPS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) and Department for Education and Skills (DfES). 2004. The government’s response to the children act sub-committee (CASC) report: Making contact work. London: DCA, DfES.

  • Dobash, R.Emerson, and Russell P. Dobash. 1992. Women, violence and social change. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, Heather, and Tamara Walsh. 2010. Mothers, domestic violence and child protection. Violence Against Women 16(5): 489–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edleson, Jeffrey. 1999. Children witnessing of adult domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 14: 839–870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elizabeth, Vivienne, Nicola Gavey, and Julia Tolmie. 2010. Between a rock and a hard place: Resident mothers and the moral dilemmas they face during custody disputes. Feminist Legal Studies 18: 253–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksson, Maria, and Marianne Hester. 2001. Violent men as good-enough fathers? A look at England and Sweden. Violence Against Women 7(7): 779–798.

  • Featherstone, Brid. 2010. Writing fathers in but mothers out!!! Critical Social Policy 30(2): 208–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Featherstone, Brid, and Sue Peckover. 2007. Letting them get away with it: Fathers, domestic violence and child welfare. Critical Social Policy 27(2): 181–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehlberg, Belinda. 2012. Legislating for shared parenting: How the Family Justice Review got it right. Family Law 42: 709–713.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleury, Ruth E., Chris M. Sullivan, and Deborah I. Bybee. 2000. When ending the relationship does not end the violence. Violence Against Women 6(12): 1363–1383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hague, Gill, and Ellen Malos. 1993. Domestic violence: Action for change. Cheltenham: New Clarion Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, Christine. 2008. Implacably hostile or appropriately protective? Women managing child contact in the context of domestic violence. Violence Against Women 14(4): 381–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hester, Marianne. 2009. Who does what to whom? Gender and domestic violence perpetrators. Bristol: University of Bristol.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hester, Marianne, and Chris Pearson. 1997. Domestic violence and children—the practice of family court welfare officers. Child and Family Law Quarterly 9(3): 281–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hester, Marianne, and Lorraine Radford. 1996. Domestic violence and child contact arrangements in England and Denmark. Bristol: The Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hester, Marianne, Chris Pearson, and Lorraine Radford. 1997. Domestic violence: A National Survey of Child Welfare and Voluntary Sector Mediation Practice. Bristol: The Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • HM Inspectorate of Court Administration (HMICA). 2005. Domestic violence, safety and family proceedings: Thematic review of the handling of domestic violence issues by the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) and the administration of family courts in Her Majesty’s Courts Service (HMCS). London: HMICA.

  • Home Office. 2010. British Crime Survey. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphreys, Cathy. 1999. Judicial alienation syndrome—failures to respond to post-separation violence. Family Law 29: 313–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphreys, Cathy. 2006. Domestic violence and child abuse. London: DfES.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphreys, Cathy. 2007. Domestic violence and child protection: Exploring the role of perpetrator risk assessments. Child and Family Social Work 12: 360–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humphreys, Cathy. 2010. Crossing the great divide: Response to Douglas and Walsh. Violence Against Women 16(5): 509–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humphreys, Cathy, and Christine Harrison. 2003. Focusing on safety—domestic violence and the role of child contact centres. Child and Family Law Quarterly 15(3): 237–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphreys, Chris, and Ravi Thiara. 2002. Routes to safety: Protection issues facing abused women and children and the role of outreach services. Bristol: The Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, Joan, and Alison Macleod. 2008. Outcomes of applications to court for contact orders after parental separation or divorce. Oxford and London: Ministry of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, Rosemary and Adrienne Barnett. 2013. Fact-finding hearings and the implementation of the president’s practice direction: residence and contact orders: Domestic violence and harm (London: Family Justice Council). https://kar.kent.ac.uk/35678/. Accessed 6 January 2015.

  • Jaffe, Peter, David Wolfe, and Susan Wilson. 1990. Children of battered women. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaganas, Felicity. 1999. Contact, conflict and risk. In Undercurrents of divorce, eds. Shelley Day Sclater and Christine Piper. Dartmouth: Ashgate.

  • Kaganas, Felicity and Christine Piper. 1999. Divorce and domestic violence. In Undercurrents of divorce, eds. Shelley Day Sclater and Christine Piper. Dartmouth: Ashgate.

  • Kaspiew, Rae, Matthew Gray, Ruth Weston, Lawrie Moloney, Kelly Hand, and Qu Lixia. 2009. Evaluation of the 2006 family law reform. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaye, Miranda. 1996. Domestic violence, contact and residence. Child and Family Law Quarterly 8(4): 285–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaye, Miranda, Julie Stubbs, and Julia Tolmie. 2003. Domestic violence and child contact arrangements. Australian Journal of Family Law 17: 93–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, Joan, and Michael Johnson. 2008. Differentiation among types of intimate partner violence: Research update and implications for interventions. Family Court Review 46(3): 476–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, Liz. 1999. Domestic violence matters. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitzman, Katherine, Noni Gaylord, Aimee Holt, and Erin Kenny. 2003. Child witnesses to domestic violence: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consultative Clinical Psychology 71(2): 339–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lord Chancellor’s Advisory Board on Family Law: Children Act Sub-Committee. 2000. A Report to the Lord Chancellor on the Question of Parental Contact in Cases where there is Domestic Violence. Norwich: TSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord Chancellor’s Advisory Board on Family Law: Children Act Sub-Committee. 2001. Guidelines for good practice on parental contact in cases where there is domestic violence. Norwich: TSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macdonald, Gillian. 2014. Domestic violence and private family court proceedings: Promoting child welfare or promoting contact? Violence Against Women forthcoming. http://opus.bath.ac.uk/. Accessed 2 December 2014.

  • Mahoney, Martha. 1991. Legal images of battered women: Redefining the issue of separation. Michigan Law Review 90: 2–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masson, Judith. 2006. Consent orders in contact cases: A survey of resolution members. Family Law 36: 1041–1044.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Justice. 2012. Judicial and court statistics 2011. London: Ministry of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Justice. 2014. Quarterly court statistics. London: Ministry of Justice. http://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/321352/corut-statistics-jan-mar-2014.pdf. Accessed 9 July 2014.

  • Mirrlees-Black, Catriona. 1999. Domestic violence: Findings from a new British Crime Survey self-completion questionnaire. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mooney, Jayne. 1994. The hidden figure: Domestic violence in North London. London: Islington Police and Crime Prevention Unit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moorhead, Richard, and Mark Sefton. 2005. Litigants in person: Unrepresented litigants in first instance proceedings. London: DCA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullender, Audrey. 2004. Tackling domestic violence: Providing support for children who have witnessed domestic violence. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullender, Audrey, and Rebecca Morley (eds.). 1994. Children living with domestic violence. London: Whiting and Birch.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Association of Probation Officers (NAPO). 2002. Contact, separation and the work of family court staff. London: NAPO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, Chris. 2010. Expert Domestic Violence Risk Assessments in the Family Courts. Respect. www.respect.uk.net/data/files/domestic_violence_risk_assessment_in_family_court.pdf.

  • Office for National Statistics. 2013. Focus on: Violent crime and sexual offices 2011/2012. London: ONS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ornstein, Petra, and Johanna Rickne. 2013. When does intimate partner violence continue after separation? Violence Against Women 19(5): 617–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, Sarah. 2014. How do Cafcass reporters reach their conclusions? Evidence informed practice. Family Law 44: 1119–1123.

  • Perry, Alison, and Bernadette Rainey. 2007. Supervised, supported and indirect contact orders: Research findings. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 21: 21–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piper, Christine. 2000. Assumptions about children’s best interests. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 22(3): 261–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potter, Sir Mark 2008. Practice direction: Residence and contact orders—domestic violence and harm [2008] 2 FLR 103, reissued at [2009] 2 FLR 1400; reissued on 22 April 2014 as Practice Direction 12J—Child Arrangements and Contact Orders: Domestic Violence and Harm https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/family/practice_directions/pd_part_12j. Accessed 22 April 2014.

  • Radford, Lorraine, and Marianne Hester. 2006. Mothering through domestic violence. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radford, Lorraine, Sarah Sayer, and AMICA. 1999. Unreasonable fears? Child contact in the context of domestic violence: A survey of mothers’ perceptions of harm. Bristol: Women’s Aid Federation England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhoades, Helen. 2002. The ‘No Contact Mother’: Reconstructions of motherhood in the era of the ‘New Father’. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 16: 71–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhoades, Helen. 2012. Legislating to promote children’s welfare and the quest for certainty. Child and Family Law Quarterly 24(2): 158–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rights of Women, Women’s Aid and Welsh Women’s Aid. 2013. Evidencing domestic violence: a barrier to family law legal aid. London: Rights of Women. http://rightsofwomen.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Evidencing-DV-a-barrier-2013.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2014.

  • Rights of Women, Women’s Aid and Welsh Women’s Aid. 2014. Evidencing domestic violence: a year on. London: Rights of Women. http://rightsofwomen.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Evidencing-DV-a-year-on-2014.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2014.

  • Saunders, Hilary. 2004. Twenty-nine child homicides: Lessons still to be learnt on domestic violence and child protection. Bristol: Women’s Aid Federation of England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, Hilary and Jackie Barron. 2003. Failure to protect? Domestic violence and the experiences of abused women and children in the family courts. Bristol: Women’s Aid Federation of England.

  • Scourfield, Jonathan, and Mark Drakeford. 2002. New labour and the ‘problem of men’. Critical Social Policy 22: 619–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shipway, Lyn. 2004. Domestic violence: A handbook for health professionals. New York: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smart, Carol, and Bren Neale. 1997. Arguments against virtue—must contact be enforced? Family Law 27: 332–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smart, Carol, Vanessa May, Amanda Wade, and Clare Furniss. 2005. Residence and contact disputes in court, vol. 2. London: DCA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sokoloff, Natalie, and Ida Dupont. 2005. Domestic violence at the intersections of race, class, and gender: Challenges and contributions to understanding violence against marginalised women in diverse communities. Violence Against Women 11(1): 38–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanley, Nicky, Pam Miller, Helen Richardson Foster, and Gill Thomson. 2009. Children and families experiencing domestic violence: Police and children’s services responses. London: NSPCC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stark, Evan, and Anne Flitcraft. 1985. Woman-battering, child abuse and social heredity: What is the relationship? In Marital violence, ed. Norman Johnson, 147–171. London: Routledge Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sturge, Clare, and Danya Glaser. 2000. Contact and domestic violence—the experts’ court report. Family Law 30: 615–629.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiara, Ravi and Ruth Breslin. 2006. Black and minority ethnic children and domestic violence. Community Care 32–33.

  • Thiara, Ravi, and Aisha Gill. 2012. Domestic violence, child contact, post-separation violence: Experiences of South Asian and African-Caribbean women and children, executive summary. London: NSPCC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trinder, Liz. 2010. Shared residence: A review of recent research evidence. Family Law 40: 1192–1197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trinder, Liz, Jo Connolly, Joanne Kellett, and Caitlin Thoday. 2004. Families in contact disputes: A profile. Family Law 34: 877–881.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trinder, Liz, Jo Connolly, Joanne Kellett, and Caitlin Notley. 2005. A profile of applicants and respondents in contact cases in Essex. London: Department for Constitutional Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trinder, Liz, Rosemary Hunter, Emma Hitchings, Joanna Miles, Richard Moorhead, Leanne Smith, Mark Sefton, Victoria Hinchley, Kay Bader, and Julia Pearce. 2014. Litigants in person in private family law cases. London: Ministry of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walby, Sylvia, and Jonathan Allen. 2004. Domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking: findings from the British Crime Survey. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wall, Nicholas 2010. The President’s Guidance in Relation to Split Hearings [2010] 2 FLR 1897. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/related-offices-and-bodies/advisory-bodies/fjc/guidance/familycourtguide/publiclaw/other-guidance/fcg-split-hearings-guidance/. Accessed 5 January 2015.

  • Watson, Laurel, and Julie Ancis. 2013. Power and control in the legal system: From marriage/relationship to divorce and custody. Violence Against Women 19(2): 166–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westmarland, Nicole, and Marianne Hester. 2006. Time for change. Bristol: University of Bristol.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, Jacqueline, Mary Koss, and Alan Kazdin (eds.). 2010. Violence against women and children. Volume 1: Mapping the terrain. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, Kim. 2011. Litigants in person: A literature review. London: Ministry of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, Margo, and Martin Daly. 2002. Homicide. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Women’s Aid. 1997. Women’s aid federation briefing paper on child contact and domestic violence. Bristol: Women’s Aid Federation of England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Worrall, Anne, Jane Boylan, and Diane Roberts. 2008. Children’s and young people’s experiences of domestic violence involving adults in a parenting role. London: Social Care Institute for Excellence.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Brunel Law School, Elliott Jacques Building, Brunel University, Kingston Lane, Uxbridge, Middlesex, UB8 3 PH, UK

    Adrienne Barnett

Authors
  1. Adrienne Barnett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adrienne Barnett.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Barnett, A. ‘Like Gold Dust These Days’: Domestic Violence Fact-Finding Hearings in Child Contact Cases. Fem Leg Stud 23, 47–78 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-015-9278-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-015-9278-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation