Has He Really Changed? What Judges Look For

One of the hardest questions in family court is also one of the most common: has the other parent actually changed, or have they just learned what to say?

A recent judgment wrestled with exactly this. Years earlier, a judge had made clear findings of domestic abuse against a father. Since then he had done courses, engaged with support programmes, and told the court, more than once, that he accepted what had been found and had moved on from it. The question this time was whether that acceptance was real or whether it was, in the judge's words, a case of having learned the right lines without the underlying change.

Saying it is not the same as meaning it

The judge gave the father credit for a lot. He came across as calm in the witness box. He said the right things about wanting the best for his children and for their mother. He had completed programmes and could quote back what he had learned from them.

But listening carefully to how he answered questions, the judge noticed a pattern. Almost every acknowledgement came with a "but". He would accept something had happened, then immediately explain it away, minimise it, or pivot to something the other parent had supposedly done wrong. He referred to the children as "my children" rather than "our children". Small, unprompted comments crept into his evidence that were not needed to answer the question asked, and each one chipped away at the other parent in front of the court.

The judge's conclusion was that surface-level compliance and genuine internal change are not the same thing, and that a parent can present as reasonable, even likeable, while still not truly grasping the impact of what they did.

The behaviour that gives it away

Family courts do not expect perfection. What they look for is a pattern, not one bad moment taken out of context. In this case, the pattern included:

• Undermining the other parent's parenting decisions and house rules, even in small ways
• Treating disagreements as something to win rather than resolve
• An inability to separate what he wanted from what the children actually needed
• Repeatedly returning to the other parent's past conduct, even when it was not relevant to the question at hand
• Uncritically accepting a child's account of an incident without allowing for the other side of the story

None of these are dramatic on their own. Together, over time, they told the judge something more reliable than any single conversation could.

Why this matters if you are going through it

If you are on the receiving end of this kind of pattern, it can be exhausting and hard to name. You might feel like you are constantly being undermined in small ways that nobody else quite sees, or that every attempt to set a boundary turns into a fresh conflict. This judgment is a reminder that courts do notice these patterns, even when there is no single dramatic incident to point to.

It is also a reminder for anyone trying to show a court they have changed: change has to be visible in behaviour, not just in what is said. Courts look at consistency over time, not performance on the day.

A note on breathing space

In this case, the judge also made an order limiting either parent's ability to bring further applications for a set period without the court's permission first. This kind of order exists to give a family time to settle into arrangements without being pulled straight back into litigation, not to shut either parent out of court altogether. If you are worried about what such an order would mean for you, it is worth getting advice on how it applies to your specific situation.

This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. If you are dealing with a family court matter involving allegations of domestic abuse, Bridge The Gap's directory of independent McKenzie Friends can help you find support to prepare for a hearing.