Children's hearings redesign

Scottish Women’s Aid response: key messages
Overall, we want to see better domestic abuse competence, awareness and understanding throughout the Children’s Hearings system. Even the consultation paper itself lacks sufficient mention or acknowledgement of domestic abuse.

The Hearings system must consider:
• The safety and trauma implications when requiring a survivor of domestic abuse to be present in the same Children’s Hearing as an abuser.
• The use of the Hearings system, as well as civil court processes, by abusers as tools to engage in post-separation abuse, particularly with regards to child contact.
• The need for proactive responses to prevent and address abusive and disruptive behaviour from abusers during Hearings.
• The impact of domestic abuse on young women who experience abuse in their own intimate relationships, which is no less traumatic than that experienced by adults. The Children Care and Justice (Scotland) Act 2024 widens access to the Children's Hearings system to all 16- and 17-year-old. Young survivors within the Children’s Hearings system do not benefit from the same protections of the adult system (such as bail conditions).
• The importance of children’s views throughout proceedings.
• The particular support needed for women and children from Asian, Black and minoritised ethnic backgrounds, as well as disabled survivors.

The redesign can begin to address this by:
• Establishing minimum standards of understanding and training for panel members and all professionals involved, to improve competence around: domestic abuse; trauma-based responses; child development; children’s participation.
• Ensuring sufficient support and protections within the system for young survivors of domestic abuse.
• Focusing the need for intervention around the behaviour of the abuser and the risk they pose, preventing inappropriate, victim-blaming responses.
• Ensuring timely and adequate access to interpreters, translated documents, and specialised support where needed.



Full answer
Scottish Women's Aid (SWA) is the lead organisation in Scotland working to end domestic abuse and plays a vital role in campaigning and lobbying for effective responses to domestic abuse. SWA is the umbrella organisation for the 32 local Women’s Aid organisations across Scotland; they provide practical and emotional support to women, children and young people who experience domestic abuse. We also deliver Scotland’s Domestic Abuse and Forced Marriage helpline.

We have data, insight, and feedback from our helpline, from staff across our network of 32 local Women’s Aid groups, and from the SWA Survivor Reference Group.

We welcome the opportunity to respond to this consultation. SWA recognises the important role the Children’s Hearing system plays in its approach to protecting the wellbeing and upholding the rights of children and young people.

Domestic abuse perpetrated by parent or carer against a child and their non-offending parent is consistently the second and third highest ground of referral to the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration (SCRA) under s. 67(2)(f) of the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 on care and protection grounds. [https://www.scra.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/SCRA-full-statistical-analysis-2021-22.pdf] However, responses from the Children’s Hearings System are neither domestic abuse-competent nor suitably trauma-informed when a child is referred to the Reporter and Hearing proceedings commence. These responses must protect the child at risk and the non-abusing parent, and focus the attention of the intervention on the perpetrator’s behaviour.


Awareness of domestic abuse within consultation documents
The 2023 “Hearings for Children: Hearings System Working Group's Redesign Report” states, on page 84 “This should be a system grounded at all levels by compassion, kindness, respect and an understanding of the complexity of family circumstances, child development and attachment, the impact of trauma and inter-generational trauma and the way it can affect behaviour and the dynamics of domestic abuse.” Domestic abuse is referred to numerous times in other areas of that document in relation to training for sheriffs, lawyers, SCRA and everyone involved in the Children’s Hearing System (pages 88, 89, 136, 215, 240) to ensure the safety of the parties involved (page 159 and 169, 187).
“As outlined in the promise, everyone involved in the Children’s Hearing System (for example, Sheriffs, Reporters, Panel Members, Advocacy Workers, Safeguarders, etc.) must be “properly trained in the impact of trauma, childhood development, neurodiversity and children’s rights.”34 This includes domestic abuse, attachment and child communication, the particular developmental needs of younger children, the impact of poverty, the rights of children in conflict with the law, child sexual and criminal exploitation, trafficking, and grooming. This training must be comprehensive and regularly reviewed, and training is also required for all the different members of the workforce who appear at Hearings, including legal representatives.”

It goes on to say that “The Hearing should have a sound and evidence-based understanding of the impact of domestic abuse and the way in which contact arrangements and processes can be used to perpetuate domestic abuse.”

These multiple references make it clear that the HSWG Report places an importance on correct, informed understanding of and responses to domestic abuse in Hearings proceedings. In this context, therefore, given that the consultation paper indicates “This is a chance to consider how the system can again adapt, to continue to meet babies’, infants’, children’s and young people’s needs for the years to 2030 and beyond; and to be bold and positive in doing so”, listing as policy aims “…To ensure that the children’s hearings system meets the needs, and respects the rights, of all the children and families it serves” and “ To ensure that the children’s hearings system and the professionals operating within it have the capacity to deliver what each child needs”, it is extremely disappointing and worrying that there is no reference to domestic abuse in the consultation paper.

It is also deeply concerning to us that in its paper “‘Hearings for Children’ Scottish Government Response –Policy Responses”, the only mention of domestic abuse is in relation to that explicitly referred to by the HSWG in their “Recommendation 2.3: Consideration must be given to the specialisation of Sheriffs for involvement in Children’s Hearings Court hearings and other proceedings relating to children and families. Sheriffs must have a clear understanding of trauma, childhood development, neurodiversity and children’s rights and the dynamics of domestic abuse.”


Domestic abuse competence and trauma-based responses
There is a significant issue with lack of domestic abuse competence within the Hearings system. Any legislation relating to Children’s Hearings should contain clear requirements around minimum standards of understanding and training on trauma-based responses and domestic abuse for all those involved in the process. Shrieval responses are the responsibility of the Lord President but measures similar to those in the Victims and Witnesses, Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill could address this.

Our local Women’s Aid services regularly express dismay about how Children’s Hearings respond to domestic abuse, particularly in relation to contact decisions, and therefore that the Children’s Hearings process does not offer a trauma informed service according to Scottish Government’s advice in its Trauma Practice Toolkit. Women’s Aid managers cite the lack and inconsistency of awareness and understanding of domestic abuse and trauma among panel members. They question the effectiveness of training received by panel members. When domestic abuse training does take place, it might only be a one-off, hour-long session, which is clearly insufficient, given the prevalence and severity of domestic abuse in cases.

As a result, the current system will often:
• Ignore or minimise risk of harm to women and children during Hearings;
• Fail to consider the safety and trauma implications when requiring a survivor of domestic abuse to be present in the same Children’s Hearing as an abuser;
• Fail to provide proactive responses to prevent and address abusive and disruptive behaviour from perpetrators during Hearings.

Panel members need a sound understanding of how Hearings are so often used to control, coerce, threaten, and punish mothers and their children; how behaviour from abusers within Hearings (such as expressions or gestures) might be threatening to women and children; how the presence of abusers in the same room might prevent women and children from speaking freely and truthfully. Training for panel members, and all professionals within the system, must be detailed and thorough; it must include, for instance, the reality of post-separation abuse, and abuser behaviour and manipulation.

Women’s Aid managers have also queried the absence of special protective measures for survivors of domestic abuse within the Hearings system, such as the ability to give video evidence, or separate waiting rooms. These critical measures are rarely applied in practice.


Child contact orders
The Children’s Hearings System, as well as civil court processes, are used by perpetrators as tools to engage in post-separation abuse. [https://www.napier.ac.uk/research-and-innovation/research-search/outputs/section-11-orders-and-the-abuse-provisions-family-lawyers-experience-and-understanding] In addition to the abundant research evidence, we routinely hear stories of the emotional and financial toll on survivors of ongoing engagement with the Hearings System and civil processes.

The system must be designed to:
• appropriately protect and meet the needs of children and young people who interact with the system on care and protection grounds due to risk of domestic abuse, forced marriage, or other gender-based violence (GBV) from a parent.
• appropriately protect the non-abusing parent (overwhelmingly the mother), who is required to engage with a Hearing and participate in the proceedings in a referral where the other parent is perpetrating domestic abuse. Survivors routinely highlight the importance of having access to information about what to expect when reporting abuse, why something is happening, who is involved, reasons for the decisions made, and how they will be implemented. They also want to have information as early on as possible in the process, a finding supported by Lady Dorrian’s Review into the management of sexual offence cases. [https://everydayheroes.sps.ed.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/everyday-heroes-briefing2-Justice.pdf; https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/default-document-library/reports-and-data/Improving-the-management-of-Sexual-Offence-Cases.pdf?sfvrsn=6]
• focus the need for intervention around the behaviour of the abuser and the risk they pose, preventing inappropriate, victim-blaming responses.

We would also like to highlight the particular support needed for women and children from Black and minoritised ethnic backgrounds when children are referred to a Hearing on grounds of domestic abuse, or for children and young people referred under forced marriage grounds. Some of the issues raised by our local services include: access to interpreters, the need for translated documents and support to participate in a confusing process for women, children and young people whose first language is not English.


16- and 17-year-olds
The Children Care and Justice (Scotland) Act 2024 widens access to the Children's Hearings system to all 16- and 17-year-olds, aligning with the UNCRC’s definition of a child as being under 18 years old. While supporting the strengthening of children’s rights brought about by this change, SWA has expressed deep concern that this will also likely result in more young perpetrators of domestic abuse-related offences, stalking, and sexual abuse entering the Hearings System on offence grounds, with all the risks and concerns this brings to young women experiencing GBV in their own intimate relationships, within a system that was not designed to cope with this type of offending or, indeed, victim of that offending.

Research carried out by SWA and Young Women’s Movement (YWCA) found that 36% of surveyed young women have experienced domestic abuse by a partner or ex-partner. [Scottish Women’s Aid (SWA) and Young Women’s Movement Scotland (YWCA), 2022. The Rise Report: Supporting young women & girls facing abuse in their intimate relationships. Publication forthcoming.] NSPCC research also suggests that young women are at a greater risk of experiencing sexual violence and report higher incidents of coercive control and stalking than their male peers.[https://library.nspcc.org.uk/HeritageScripts/Hapi.dll/relatedsearch?CookieCheck=45590.5638929282&SearchTerm=~[!C1739]~&PlainTerm=C1739%20[Std.%20No.]&SortOrder=Y1&Offset=1&Dispfmt=F&DataSetName=LIVEDATA]

The impact of domestic abuse on young women who experience abuse in their own intimate relationships is no less traumatic than that experienced by adults. Abusive, coercive and controlling behaviours are as present and as impactful in the relationships of young people. Young survivors of domestic abuse are experiencing the same risks and trauma, without the same protections of the adult system (such as bail conditions).

The rights and wellbeing of children and young people who have been harmed must be balanced fairly with the rights and wellbeing of children who have caused harm. When seeking to protect the wellbeing of children who have contact with Children’s Hearings, we must avoid creating a hierarchy of rights, whereby the needs and rights of the victim are less visible within the system.

Protecting children’s right to live free from harm and their right to recovery should be central to a child-friendly and rights respecting system.


Separately, we would like to briefly comment on the accessibility of consultation questionnaires like this one. We have heard that the length and detail of the questionnaire can make it difficult for people to share their views. It is important that consultations on vital issues like this are made as accessible as possible.

Discussion papers produced by the Scottish Government commented that “There would have to be a way to connect the grounds of referral with the supporting concerns. That would necessarily use language with a negative connotation, for example, “That the child has not been and/or is unlikely to be cared for in such an environment because… “ followed by statements of fact, containing sufficient specification. If a new ground of referral were to state- simply and clearly- the standard to which the family should be adhering and gives them and their lead professional/team around the child a goal to work towards, then that may improve both experiences and understanding.” (Our emphasis in bold)

The consultation paper, in section 5.1 Statutory Referral Criteria, notes that “In Chapter 3, the Hearings for Children report recommended that “Changes to the
statutory referral criteria and to updating and modernising the language of
‘protection, guidance, treatment or control’ in section 60(2) of the 2011 Act must be
considered.” The report goes on to state that “referral processes should be
underpinned by the key principles of rights-based proportionality, consistency, and
timeliness”.

The proposed Hearings for Children report suggests language around “safety, protection, care, guidance or support”. Apart from “safety”, this does not evidence consideration of young victims of GBV and their rights.

We would also object to any rewording of the 2011 Act ground relating to domestic abuse (section 67(2) (f)- “… the child has, or is likely to have, a close connection with a person who has carried out domestic abuse…”) that would minimise the impact of this behaviour by directing the focus of that ground away from the conduct and actions of the abuser and suggest the complicity of the non-abusing parent. We believe that domestic abuse should not be situated as a “family”-based problem, but solely a consequence of an abuser’s behaviour. It is harmful to suggest that the non-abusing parent is not adhering to some “standard” set by the Hearing and/or “professionals” and so should be working toward a “goal” of achieving this.

The current definition means that a biological parent qualifies as a relevant person, regardless of the level of their involvement in the child’s life. This is a significant issue in relation to referrals due to domestic abuse perpetrated by an abusive parent, who, especially in the case of post-separation abuse, may not currently have any involvement in the child’s life, or may have involvement which is fundamentally detrimental to the wellbeing and safety of the child, siblings and non-abusive parent.

We often hear of disruption caused to the process by abusers, and of their ability to manipulate the process. This is not conducive to the participation of children and their mothers. SWA would support a Hearing having the power to remove relevant person status in domestic abuse situations like these and more broadly where the involvement of an individual in Hearings proceedings may not be compatible with the rights of the child or others.

We have commented above on the ability, and determination, of abusers to use Hearing proceedings as a means of continuing coercive and controlling abuse and negative involvement in children’s lives through securing contact with children and their mothers.

Therefore, we caution that creating an additional class of person with certain rights to provide their views at an early stage, and to participate appropriately as the case proceeds, would allow abusers the ability to further disrupt and influence proceedings through involvement of their parents or relatives. If the abuser themselves were to be excluded from proceedings, it is entirely possible that these additional persons, and their legal representative, could serve as a vehicle for the abuser to continue to channel the abuse into the proceedings, inappropriately challenging and minimising allegations of domestic abuse.

However, we could support the inclusion of clearly and cautiously defined additional persons, such as the child’s advocacy or support worker, to enable the child’s views to be more accurately conveyed within the Hearing.

While supporting flexibility in this matter, in relation to offence grounds, (“67(2) (j)the child has committed an offence” and “67(2) (m) the child's conduct has had, or is likely to have, a serious adverse effect on the health, safety or development of the child or another person” particularly where this involves the perpetration of GBV, we note and support the Scottish Government’s comments that completely removing the obligation to attend would have concerning rights implications.

We refer to our response above and this should also extend to 67(2) (j)the child has committed an offence.

Mechanisms of good practice used in courts and children’s services (e.g., Women’s Aid Children’s Support Workers, specialist children’s rights officers) to gather children’s views may be instructive. Where the child has a specialist support worker, they may be supported by them to participate. All avenues should be explored, including video and audio recording of children’s views.

All professionals involved in the Children’s Hearings system need a minimum level of understanding of child development, the impacts of trauma (and specifically domestic abuse), and best practice for enabling children’s participation. Local Women’s Aid staff have expressed that too often, children’s voices are not heard within proceedings.

As far as possible, consistency of professionals working with children should be ensured, to enable building of trusting relationships. In PowerUP, PowerDOWN, our joint project with the Children’s Commission, child survivors of the child contact system made very clear that the single most important action needed to support their input was a trusted advocate. They designed a graphic description ['Super Listener' image, available to view at https://womensaid.scot/project/power-up-power-down/].

Children’s participation should be conducted in environments that feel safe and comfortable to the child. Professionals should allow children enough time and space to fully convey their views, without rushing them or seeing the gathering of their views as a tick-box exercise. In situations of domestic abuse or GBV, it is worth considering that children may be less comfortable speaking with male professionals.

The system should better utilise the expertise, skills, experience and domestic abuse competency of Women’s Aid workers supporting children and young women who are referred to a Hearing as a consequence of experiencing domestic abuse by a parent or in their own intimate relationship. Given their specialist knowledge of the issues and risks facing the child or young person, these Women’s Aid workers should have the status of advocacy workers and be able to represent the views of the children and young people they support. Local Women’s Aid staff have reported that too often, Women’s Aid practitioners are not invited to meetings or asked to leave meetings, treated dismissively, and not seen as important professionals within the young people’s lives. Young people are often expected to share their views and experiences with professionals who they do not know or do not hold a trusting relationship with.

We are not sure what information exactly is proposed to be shared. Where domestic abuse is an issue, there would be safety and confidentiality concerns in relation to free and wide sharing of information regarding: the child and mother’s whereabouts; the nature of the abuse; safety planning; and criminal intervention by the police that could impact on criminal proceedings. This information could be disclosed or find its way, inadvertently or otherwise, to the perpetrator.

We would also not want to create a situation where advocacy workers’ notes and records could be accessed by perpetrators and/or their legal representative, or where this information became automatically disclosable as a consequence of this extended sharing.

The consultation paper suggests that “there may be value in creating a statutory process, undertaken by the Children’s Reporter which:-
• Records what has been done up to the point of referral to gather the child’s
views, including confirming that they have been offered advocacy.
• Applies a “best interests” test regarding appropriate participation prior to a
hearing being arranged. This would account for the child’s views on how they
wish to attend/participate, their age and stage of development, and the nature
of the matters due to be considered by the hearing.
• Makes any necessary further arrangements to gather the child’s views and
support their ongoing participation. This would include additional offers of
advocacy and bespoke and enhanced forms of participation depending on the
age and stage of the child, or any other needs they may have.”

While the above sounds positive in principle, the “best interests” test could be a barrier to the appropriate participation of children. It could prevent those who do actively want to participate. It could also inappropriately facilitate the avoidance of participation for those who have committed an offence, particularly one related to GBV.

The wording of this should be cognisant of these potential consequences.

We reiterate our comments made above:

• In relation to young perpetrators of GBV, it is important that the ground is not watered down in any way that minimises the impact of the offending on the (likely also young) victim.
• The impact of domestic abuse perpetrated by a parent cannot be lessened by directing the focus of that ground away from the conduct and actions of the abuser, thereby implying the complicity of the non-abusing parent (primarily the mother). In these cases, it is not the “family” that is responsible and not the “family” who should be the focus of the Hearings system, but the perpetrator himself and his behaviour.
• Domestic abuse must be named. Behaviour of this nature, whether perpetrated against children and their mothers or by young people against their own partners within intimate relationships, cannot be ignored and replaced by nebulous "unmet expectations around wellbeing indicators.” Given all the work undertaken to raise awareness and understanding of domestic abuse, this would be a backward step in the protection of the rights of women, children and young people.
• These comments are also apposite in relation to referral grounds relating to forced marriage and sexual offending.

The approach to this matter highlights our concern around domestic abuse being absent from this consultation paper, as the proposals are not framed with an understanding of this behaviour. The unforeseen consequences of taking a mainstream approach that does not cater for domestic abuse have not been understood.

Similarly, this highlights the absolute importance of Reporters, panel members, and all professionals involved in the process being fully domestic abuse competent.

In relation to referrals on grounds relating to domestic abuse perpetrated by a parent, and forced marriage, there are clear and obvious safety implications of the Reporter having a conversation with the family as a whole.

It is not clear how appropriate this would be for young people coming before the Hearing on offences ground relating to GBV.

We do not see the advantages of this change, and the process described in Question 30 above could act as a new “fact finding hearing”, presided over by the Reporter.

In relation to proceedings to determine statements of grounds:
• It effectively represents a duplication of court processes outside the court.
• There are no obvious cost savings, as training the legal members and setting up a completely separate process will require new rules of procedure, and effectively only result in the current costs and work being shifted elsewhere to another process.
• It is not clear how “complex” cases would be dealt with, whether the “legal member” would be able to refer to a sheriff, and how the procedural rules for this would interact with Rules of Court.
• The legal member cannot replace the sheriff. It is not clear how the legal member would be given powers to protect parties such as women experiencing domestic abuse and have perpetrators removed from the hearing room and premises during proceedings to determine statements of grounds. Currently, if abusers behave threateningly and inappropriately during court-related grounds hearings, the sheriff has the power and means to seek the intervention of police within the court premises, and have the abuser removed and/or arrested and taken to the cells.
• We have no confidence that “legally qualified members” would be competent to deal with children’s and mothers’ experiences of domestic abuse, given the lack of that competence in the legal services that survivors routinely receive.

This person is not a “consistent specialist sheriff”. Excluding sheriffs from having experience of such matters would reduce their exposure to cases involving domestic abuse and the learning they could glean from such cases, which could be useful in other civil and criminal proceedings.

We understand that there is currently no involvement for the Children’s Hearing system before the child is born, referrals to the Reporter can only be made after a child’s birth, and a Child Protection Order cannot be applied for until after a child’s birth. Therefore we are unsure how any increased role for the Reporter in this matter would improve outcomes for women, children and young people experiencing domestic abuse.

The consultation paper refers to information sharing between the Reporter and professionals already working with expectant parents, and the potential negative consequences for the parents, particularly expectant mothers. Escalation of domestic abuse in pregnancy is well-documented. Given the lack of domestic abuse-competent responses toward women, the continued existence of women-blaming attitudes, and the lack of focus on the behaviour of abusers, we would be concerned that any intervention and action would concentrate on the mother’s actions, as opposed to those of the abuser, with few or no steps to ensure the safety of the mother, baby and existing children and to remove the abuser from the home.

As the consultation paper states, “Any move to enhance or expand the role of the children’s reporter prior to referral must not complicate experiences, or cause confusion or duplication between the roles of the various professionals involved in supporting the child. In such sensitive and critical systems, there must be justifiable trust for, and between, the professionals and decision makers in each of the separate processes, along with clear understanding of, and respect for, their roles.”

We understand that the Children’s Hearing, in reviewing a CSO, has the option to introduce new measures of care which potentially carry more restriction on the freedoms of a child, or may even add directions (particularly concerning where this relates to contact with an abusive parent).

A CSO may also need to be varied due to additional child welfare concerns, and a review hearing arranged where the relevant person, child, or other person who has a statutory right to do so, requires it. This review can currently only take place after three months of the CSO having been made, continued or varied.

There are advantages and disadvantages to reducing the time period:-
• On the one hand, given the safety problems that continually arise in relation to inappropriate contact decisions in domestic abuse related cases, and in those involving forced marriage, any review at the request of a child, relevant person or other entitled person because of safety or other issues, could be positive in allowing a review to happen soon as possible, without waiting for further harm to be caused through having to endure the three month waiting period.
• On the other hand, reducing the time period could increase perpetrator abuse of the process. We have heard a multitude of accounts from survivors of abusers regularly and repeatedly challenging and seeking a review of contact direction. In these cases, removal of the three-month period will allow them to manipulate and disrupt the process more often.

When and if any revised period is put in place, this must be accompanied by legislative change that allows the Hearing to refuse repeated vexatious review applications.

We would also support the right of young victims of domestic abuse and other GBV to seek a review where the offending young person is not adhering to the conditions of a CSO and is continuing the harmful behaviour.

In relation to question 51: One of the outcomes of redesigning the panel should be to make the panel (as well as the entire system) more inclusive. If payment for panel members is a mechanism to achieve this, we would support it – but other mechanisms must also be considered alongside this.

In relation to question 54: As indicated above, it is extremely concerning that panel members have so much power over families’ futures but so often lack understanding of the dynamics of domestic abuse. All panel members, including the Chair, must have the benefit of training around domestic abuse, and be able to evidence competence.

The consultation paper suggests “Examples of where ‘procedural’ decisions could be taken, and where there is no requirement for the referred child to be in attendance including:
• Pre-hearing panels covering:
o Deem or un-deem a relevant person, subject to the existing routes of appeal.
o Excusal of child or relevant person from attending.
o Attendance by electronic means.
• Advice hearings.
• Review of a Child Protection Order.”

Deeming or un-deeming a relevant person, particularly a perpetrator of domestic abuse, would undoubtedly come under even more scrutiny and challenge when such decisions were not taken by the full Panel. We would be concerned about the delays and consequences of adopting such practice.

It is extremely disappointing that that the consultation paper chooses not to name domestic abuse as an issue, relying instead in the more nebulous wording from the Hearings for Children Report: “The (Hearings for Children) report made it clear that this includes recognising the potentially challenging relationships between attendees which may affect participation, even when there are no outward signs of violence and disruption.”

There may, indeed, be existing powers to manage attendance at a Children’s Hearing, under the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 (Rules of Procedure in Children’s Hearings) Amendment Rules 2021. Rule 20D in particular gives the Chair of a Hearing explicit powers to exclude someone from a hearing in certain circumstances. This rule covers violent, abusive and disruptive behaviour, but it also specifically includes instances where a person’s presence is causing, or is likely to cause, significant distress to a relevant person attending the hearing.

There is abundant evidence that these Rules are not sufficient to protect women experiencing domestic abuse, perhaps because the rules are not being routinely and consistently used. Additionally, the lax approach around attendance by perpetrators subject to bail conditions and the lack of any response to abusive behaviour during Hearings is of significant concern.

We understand that SCRA also has a detailed Practice note with additional questions for Reporters looking at / considering Domestic Abuse situations. While there are Rules in place to allow a Hearing to take action, appropriate preparation can be done on a voluntary basis by SCRA in planning for a Hearing, preparation that recognises and protects child and adult victims of domestic abuse.

We would like to see this set out in legislation and in statutory guidance for Chairing Members and Panel, setting out their duties and responsibilities to protect those coming before them, and to report any abusive behaviour to the police. This is particularly important in proceedings involving domestic abuse where there are also criminal investigations and/or proceedings underway around current or previous abusive behaviour, since such actings by the perpetrator will constitute further criminal offending, where they are subject to bail conditions or there has been a breach of bail.

Any abusive behaviour on the part of an abuser would be recorded and would be evidence in reports to the police.

In addition, we know that these Hearings are extraordinarily stressful for survivors. The trauma involved might make confident recall of the Hearing difficult to impossible. If access to the recordings is adequately protected, survivors might benefit from being able to revisit recordings of sessions and remind themselves of the details of the proceedings.

Officials should undertake further consultation with domestic abuse survivors on this particular point before making a decision either way.

In relation to Question 75 below: Recording of the decision element of the Hearing, showing only contributions from the Panel Members and Chair, could be helpful to explain the rationale behind written decisions, particularly for those who find written materials difficult to interpret for a variety of reasons including language barriers.

For cases involving domestic abuse, there are clear data protection, safety and evidential issues.
• Upsetting and personal details of women’s lives could be shared and scrutinised.
• Perpetrators and their legal representatives may seek to obtain these and also use in other legal proceedings.
• Unauthorised recordings could be leaked onto social media.
• It is unclear who would have rights of access, and how this would be restricted; where recordings would be stored and for how long; how this information could be used and accessed by other organisations involved in the Hearing.
• We are concerned at the prospect of sensitive information about women and children’s whereabouts and safety planning being divulged and on record – as well as confidential information about specialist support organisations, and the identity of other participants such as Women’s Aid workers.

This depends on the identity of the other family members.

Siblings, for instance, may have different views and wishes around having contact with an abuser (coercive control may be a factor in such matters). This should not result in a blanket decision to award or deny contact for all children involved being made by the Hearing. Needs of children will also vary depending on age.

For the non-abusing relevant person, it will be crucially important that the Hearing take the impact of domestic abuse on her and her relationship with her children into account when considering contact determinations and when issuing reasons.

SWA oppose the use of both FGDM in civil cases involving domestic abuse and restorative justice of any form either in civil or criminal cases. These are wholly inappropriate processes for dealing with this issue, may actually facilitate the continuation of the abuse, and are not reliably safe for women and children.

Greater protection for victims of crime, especially young victims of GBV.