Exclusive: Analysis shows 72.5% of 91 judgments in England and Wales contained judicial victim-blaming, with mothers scrutinised more intenselyA report has found “widespread and concerning evidence” of bias and victim-blaming in the family courts – primarily disadvantaging women.The report, Scratching the Surface: Victim-Blaming and Bias in Family Court Judgments, by the nonprofit organisation Right to Equality, will be shared with MPs on Tuesday at an event in parliament. <
The report by the non-profit organisation Right to Equality will be shared with MPs on Tuesday.
Photograph: kieferpix/Getty Images/iStockphoto The report by the non-profit organisation Right to Equality will be shared with MPs on Tuesday.
Photograph: kieferpix/Getty Images/iStockphoto Family courts show ‘widespread’ gender bias and victim-blaming, report finds Exclusive: Analysis shows 72.5% of 91 judgments in England and Wales contained judicial victim-blaming, with mothers scrutinised more intensely A report has found “widespread and concerning evidence” of bias and victim-blaming in the family courts – primarily disadvantaging women.
The report, Scratching the Surface: Victim-Blaming and Bias in Family Court Judgments, by the nonprofit organisation Right to Equality, will be shared with MPs on Tuesday at an event in parliament.
Its analysis of 91 published family law judgments in England and Wales found “widespread and concerning evidence of victim-blaming language and attitudes – often directed towards mothers”.
It found that 72.5% of all judgments contained at least one instance of judicial victim‑blaming, and also evidence of gender bias, with “mothers’ behaviour scrutinised intensely while the fathers’ conduct was contextualised or minimised”.
Across the 91 judgments, 66 contained victim-blaming language, with 530 instances of victim‑blaming in total made by court professionals, primarily judges.
The report’s authors expressed concern the data suggested harmful attitudes could influence judicial decision‑making, “including reliance on rape myths, stereotyping, or overt scepticism toward mothers”.
Rose*, who has been in and out of family court since 2014, said she “absolutely, without a doubt” felt she had been treated differently because of her gender, while her ex-partner “wasn’t scrutinised at all”.
“He was allowed to sort of laugh and scoff and mock while we were in court, so he wasn’t in any way held to account for the behaviours that he exhibited,” she said.
“The Cafcass [Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service] barrister said that my ex-partner should be praised for how he handled himself and conducted himself in the hearings, which is just beyond a joke. They’ve made findings of child abuse and rape, and then he’s to be praised for how he’s conducted himself is beyond belief.” She added: “So the standards are entirely different, but it’s embedded throughout. It’s not just the judiciary; it’s embedded throughout all of the agencies that are associated with the family court.
“ There’s this false view that women, and mothers especially, get anything that they want in the family court – they get all the money, they get all their kids’ time, they get everything they like – and it couldn’t be any further from the truth .” Another woman, Marie*, said: “The whole culture is victim-blaming. We’ve just been treated completely differently, actually. My whole experience has just been that my ex has just used it as a weapon, and it’s been a very effective weapon.
” She added: “The judiciary, it’s just … stuck. They still mark their own homework, and you get judges making decisions in an absolute void.
“There’s no reflective feedback, there’s no learning from the decisions they’re making, so they’re never going to improve. So somebody that’s getting it wrong is just going to carry on getting it wrong.” The report has put forward a number of recommendations, including that the family judiciary should publish 20% of their judgments, randomly selected each month, with specific targets for judgments in which domestic and sexual abuse is raised. It also recommends judges receive mandatory training in gender bias and victim-blaming, and that the potential use of AI tools to identify bias and victim-blaming in family courts should be explored.
“As a barrister, I have stood in family courts and watched judges normalise abuse, trivialise trauma and silence survivors,” Dr Charlotte Proudman, a co-director of Right to Equality, said.
“This report gives voice to what victims have been telling us for decades: bias is real, it is embedded in the family justice system, and it is shaping decisions that affect children’s safety, resulting in irreparable harm.” Kirith Entwistle, the MP for Bolton North East, who is supporting the report and sponsoring the launch, said: “Too many women have told me that the family courts felt like an extension of the abuse that they were trying to escape.
“The persistent and routine undermining of victim-survivors found in published judgments demonstrates why victims of abuse have such low confidence in being treated fairly in our family justice system.
“Bias distracts judges from properly assessing risk, their obligation to safeguard, and putting the needs of the children first. It is essential that this is tackled head on with transparency, strong accountability, and training.” *Names have been changed Explore more on these topics Family law England Wales news Share Reuse this content
