In June 2026 we were all shocked and saddened to read about the heart-breaking events surrounding the tragic death of Henry Nowak in Southampton in December 2025.

Whilst this local tragedy was the catalyst for profound national political disagreement and unrest, below the partisan rhetoric, this case raised serious public policy questions about the way our public services and institutions approach racism.

In particular, the police’s anti-racism policy has been the subject of detailed scrutiny by politicians and the media, with many commentators being concerned about the notion of ‘over-correct’ – a phrase I will use to mean a genuine attempt by policy-makers to address a legitimate institutional or societal wrong, but which may inadvertently have led to a professional culture or approach that itself leads to injustice.

This article will not deal with the painful questions and lessons arising from Henry’s case, which will be the subject of an IOPC investigation in due course, but this notion of ‘over-correct’ did strike a chord with me in the context of my family law work, which warranted further consideration and reflection.

In the world of private law children, the Child Focused Court (‘CFC’), originally known as the ‘Pathfinder Pilot’, is being steadily rolled out around the jurisdiction, with Wales becoming the first of the home nations to fully adopt the reformed approach as from 3 March 2025. On 17 March 2026 the Ministry of Justice announced that the CFC would be implemented across the whole of England and Wales over the next 3 years. So, the CFC is here to stay.

The CFC is without doubt a radical reorganisation of the court processes. In a nutshell, the CFC approach provides an expedited way of dealing with disputes between parents, utilising the early involvement of CAFCASS officers (the court’s social workers) to identify areas of agreement and disagreement, and, crucially, obtaining the ascertainable views of the child from the outset. This front-loaded CAFCASS (or sometimes local authority) investigation is then recorded in a Child Impact Report (‘CIR’), which provides the parties and the court with a series of recommendations for the child’s arrangements.

Intrinsic to the CFC approach is the innovative use of IDVAs (Independent Domestic Violence Advocates), who become involved if either party, or both, make allegations of harm. The IDVAs undertake DASH RIC risk assessments (Domestic Abuse Stalking Honour Based Violence Risk Identification Checklist) with the relevant party and then provide the risk analysis to the author of the CIR. This will usually allow risk to be actively considered by the officer, and then if possible managed in the report’s recommendations, without the need for what can often be an emotionally and financially costly fact-finding process. Indeed, under the CFC approach, fact-finding hearings have become vanishingly rare.

The new approach does not end there: in the vast majority of cases, when the CIR is considered by the court at a ‘Gatekeeping 2 hearing’, undertaken by judges or legal advisers ‘on the papers’, the case is listed immediately for a short Decision Hearing. A Decision Hearing is a final hearing, which means that for most parents navigating the private law court process, there will be only one hearing.

If you are used to a traditional adversarial trial / final hearing, the Decision Hearings under the CFC also have a decidedly different look and feel. They start with ‘judge-led conciliation’, where using the ‘problem solving approach’, the judge or magistrates will engage the parties directly in discussion about the CIR’s recommendations and the existing areas of disagreement. Very often, this judicial conciliation exercise is enough to allow the parties to reach a full agreement, but if not, it will have served to narrow the issues that the court has to determine.

In CFC cases, the calling of any oral evidence has fast become the exception rather than the rule, and if any witness is cross-examined, it will usually only be the CIR author. For most cases, the remaining issues are determined on the basis of ‘submissions only’, with the court relying upon the written evidence of the parties in statement form.

When compared to its predecessor, the Child Arrangements Programme (‘CAP’), the process is certainly faster, cheaper and I would dare to suggest, kinder. So far, so good. So what is the problem, and how does the issue of over-correct arise in this approach?

We can probably all agree that, historically, the courts dealing with family cases have not sufficiently or appropriately dealt with the issue of domestic abuse, and in particular the more subtle, insidious forms of domestic abuse, which are now commonly captured by the term ‘coercive and controlling behaviour’. Whilst we can always do more, there has happily been a palpable change in approach and culture over recent years, which has led to important pieces of work such as the Harm report in 2020, the revised PD12J, and now more recently, the use of specialist IDVAs within the CFC.

However, perhaps counter-intuitively, it is not the question of ‘how could we do more?’ that concerns me in this article, but instead I want to consider the uncomfortable question of ‘have we gone too far?’

Under both the pre-existing CAP and the newer CFC approach, well-meaning professionals start by assuming the truth of allegations made by one parent against the other – or if not assuming, at least ‘taking the allegations at their highest’ – and then act protectively to limit contact between the alleged perpetrator and the child, or even stop it altogether.

Such protective steps can also include the parent and child moving home (perhaps into a refuge) and in some cases leaving the town/city altogether, or even moving countries e.g. from Wales to England.

The support for the child can range from emotional support in school, such as ELSA provision, to more intensive and intrusive forms of therapeutic direct work. In some cases, I have found that this therapeutic direct work is premised upon treating the child as a victim of domestic abuse, and ‘working through’ the allegations made by reporting parent. It must be remembered that all of this is likely to have been undertaken before the court has determined the truth of the allegations.

At an interim stage, these ‘protective’ steps are usually accepted by the court, or even positively endorsed. However, it is important to recognise that the protective measures themselves can also cause significant and lasting harm. The cessation or limitation of contact can often be confusing and distressing for the child. A change of home, school or town/city only serves to reinforce the child’s sense of instability and insecurity. Perhaps of greater concern, these changes can often lead to a reinforced perception of ‘danger’ for the child – that they are ‘escaping’ or being ‘saved’ from the other parent.

Of course, in plenty of cases that is exactly what the family justice system, child protection professionals and the reporting parent are doing. But importantly, sometimes they are not.

Most family practitioners can think of examples where the allegations were not proven, or perhaps even were positively found to be lies told by the reporting parent. In such circumstances, the child may have experienced turbulence, unexplained separation from one of the parents, and perhaps even trusted adults instilling in them a false narrative of what life was like with the other parent.

It is this well-meaning treatment of a parent’s allegations as ‘truth’ that resonated with me on the subject of ‘over-correct’. The Family Justice system has rightly and properly worked hard to protect victims of domestic abuse; taking their allegations seriously and acting promptly to minimise the wide-ranging effects of abuse, both on the parent and the child. However, without becoming Newtonian about it, every action has a consequence and well-meaning protective steps can themselves have a lasting impact.

This issue is all the more heightened in cases in CFC, where the court will usually be making important decisions in a single hearing, relying upon a single report (the CIR), which is itself informed by the risks inherent in unchallenged allegations made to IDVAs. Such is the speed of the CFC process that I have encountered CIRs and DASH RICs containing what appeared to be ad hoc extra-judicial ‘findings of fact’, or comments that could be interpreted as definitive findings of abuse, made by CAFCASS officers and/or IDVAs.

With the benefit of experienced advocates and judges, we can usually identify and avoid any inappropriate ‘findings’ or commentary. However, in a system that has seen increasing numbers of Litigants in Person and with the bulk of private law matters still listed before lay justices, it is less certain that any ‘straying outside the lane’ from CAFCASS officers or IDVAs will be recognised and circumvented.

So what can be done? As always, forewarned is forearmed. Raising the issue of ‘over-correct’ and discussing it publicly will allow family lawyers and judges to be on their guard for actions that, although well-meaning, may themselves cause harm before the facts are discerned by the court.

Nothing in this article is intended to suggest that the court or professionals should row back on the progress that has been made in respect of dealing with domestic abuse in the Family Court. However, in order to avoid the dangers of ‘over correct’, we all do need to ensure that we keep firmly in mind that allegations are not facts unless and until they have been tested and determined by the court. In particular, social workers and IDVAs need to ensure that they maintain their ‘professional curiosity’ and scepticism when working with parents making allegations of domestic abuse. Put another way, professionals working in this area need to tread the difficult path of being empathetic, supportive and protective, whilst at the same time ensuring that they remain aware that the allegations may not be proven. There is a very real difference between ‘risk assessment’ and ‘factual findings’ in social work documents, and the professionals drafting reports and assessments for the court need to be extremely careful in the language they use to highlight that key distinction.

I would suggest that the Family Court should not have to choose between protecting alleged victims and safeguarding procedural fairness. It must do both. Indeed, the legitimacy of the Family Justice system depends upon its ability to hold those objectives in balance. The CFC approach has brought welcome speed, conciliation and a sharper focus on children’s welfare, but those benefits should never come at the expense of critical analysis or evidential rigour. As the reforms become embedded across England and Wales, family lawyers, judges, local authority social workers, CAFCASS officers and IDVAs alike must remain alert to the distinction between risk assessment and fact-finding. The danger is not that we take allegations of abuse too seriously; it is that, in our determination to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past, we inadvertently create new forms of injustice. A child-focused system must remain a fact-sensitive system, because only decisions rooted in reliable findings can truly serve the long-term welfare of children and families.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author in an individual capacity.

 David Gareth Evans, 9 Park Place, Cardiff