When a Domestic Abuse Course Is Not Enough: Lessons from a Recent Family Court Judgment

If findings of domestic abuse have been made against a parent, the usual next step is some form of domestic abuse work before contact can move forward. A recent Family Court judgment shows that not every course will satisfy the court. It also shows what the court is really looking for.

The background

A judge made wide-ranging findings against a father at a fact-finding hearing. These included:

• physical abuse of the children
• emotional harm to the children
• sexual and physical abuse of the mother
• coercive and controlling behaviour

The two young children had not seen their father in person for some time. They had indirect contact only.

Cafcass recommended the father complete a domestic abuse perpetrator programme before direct contact was considered. The recommendation was specific. The programme should be:

• RESPECT accredited
• at least 24 weeks long
• a mix of individual and group work
• include contact with the victim
• give the course leaders access to the fact-finding judgment
• produce a professional report with a risk assessment at the end

What the father did

The father completed a lengthy course that was delivered largely by group video call.

The judge accepted that the father had learned something. He showed some insight, gave his evidence considerately, and had made positive changes to his lifestyle.

Why the court said it was not enough

The judge found the course fell short of the Cafcass recommendation in substance, not just in style.

1. It only dealt with what the father accepted. He was not required to confront the findings he still denied. The judge noted that an accredited course would likely have challenged him on everything, and might have refused him entry without broader acceptance.
2. It was delivered remotely with no meaningful one-to-one work. The judge said sitting in a room with others carries more weight than appearing as a thumbnail on a screen. He added that individual sessions matter for testing whether learning has taken hold.
3. It was not accredited. This left the court with no gauge of the course's quality. The end-of-course report did not mention the gap between the findings and what the father admitted, even though the course had the full judgment.

Why partial acceptance mattered so much

The father accepted some findings but continued to deny several of the most serious ones.

The judge drew a distinction. Disputing one finding out of nine might not stop progress. Here, entire categories of finding remained denied. The admitted matters also appeared to be the ones that were emotionally easier to accept. For the court, this raised a real question about how far the father had looked inwards.

The outcome

• A final order that the children live with their mother
• Indirect contact to continue, with no direct contact for now
• No adjournment for a further assessment. The judge said what was needed was what Cafcass had recommended in the first place.
• A two-year non-molestation order. There was little evidence of recent misconduct, but the judge was concerned about tension in the period after the case ended.
• No prohibited steps order, as it added nothing further

The father can apply again once he has completed an accredited programme. The judge noted this may take around 18 months, as people are generally expected to be outside proceedings before starting such a course.

Other points worth knowing

• An early contact order does not carry weight later. Supervised contact had been ordered straight after the fact-finding, then stayed. The judge said it was premature and placed no weight on it.
• Separation is not automatically a protective factor. The father argued the abuse was unlikely to recur because the relationship had ended. The judge was not persuaded the case law supports that.
• Children's wishes still count, with care. The judge accepted the children genuinely wanted to see their father. Their age, their mixed feelings and the risk of them blaming themselves meant those wishes had to be approached with caution.
• The resident parent's security matters. Under Practice Direction 12J, the court must consider whether the parent the children live with can be kept physically and emotionally safe. The judge said contact might not be possible even where some progress has been made.

The gap: assumption and reality

Assumption: "If I complete a domestic abuse course, contact will move forward."

Reality: The court will look at which course, how it was delivered, and whether it made you confront everything the court found. That includes the findings you do not accept.

If you are in a similar position

If Cafcass has recommended a specific type of programme, follow that recommendation closely. If you are unsure whether a course qualifies, check with the Cafcass officer or the court before you start. The father here spent time and money on a course that did not meet the standard. He now has to start again.

If you are the parent the children live with, this judgment confirms that you can raise concerns about the quality and content of any work the other parent relies on.

Find support

Facing child arrangements proceedings on your own can be overwhelming. You can search the Bridge The Gap directory for an independent McKenzie Friend near you at familycourtbridge.org.

This article is general information only and is not legal advice. Every case turns on its own facts.

Source: Re O & J (Welfare Judgment) [2026] EWFC 276 (B), available on BAILII.