Bias distracts judges from properly assessing risk and putting children first
72.5% of analyzed family court judgments contained victim-blaming language, with 530 total instances primarily directed at mothers by court professionals. Mothers' behavior was intensely scrutinized while fathers' conduct was contextualized or minimized, reflecting embedded gender bias across family justice agencies.
- 72.5% of 91 analyzed family court judgments contained victim-blaming language
- 530 total instances of victim-blaming made by court professionals, primarily judges
- Mothers' behaviour scrutinized intensely while fathers' conduct was contextualised or minimised
- Report to be presented to MPs on Tuesday by Right to Equality organisation
A report analyzing 91 family court judgments in England and Wales found 72.5% contained judicial victim-blaming, with mothers scrutinized more intensely than fathers, raising concerns about bias influencing child safety decisions.
A new analysis of family court judgments in England and Wales has documented what researchers describe as systemic and pervasive bias against mothers, with troubling implications for how judges assess risk and protect children in abuse cases.
The report, titled Scratching the Surface: Victim-Blaming and Bias in Family Court Judgments, examined 91 published decisions and found that nearly three-quarters contained at least one instance of judicial victim-blaming. Across those judgments, court professionals—primarily judges—made 530 separate instances of victim-blaming language. The nonprofit organisation Right to Equality, which conducted the analysis, will present its findings to MPs on Tuesday at a parliamentary event.
What distinguishes the bias is its gendered character. Mothers' actions and credibility were subjected to intense scrutiny, while fathers' behaviour was often contextualised, minimised, or overlooked entirely. The report's authors flagged a concerning pattern: judicial language and attitudes suggested reliance on rape myths, gender stereotyping, and deep scepticism toward mothers' accounts—factors that could directly shape decisions affecting child custody and safety.
Rose, a woman who has navigated family court repeatedly since 2014, described the experience as profoundly unequal. Her ex-partner was permitted to laugh and mock during hearings without consequence, she said, while she faced constant scrutiny. Most galling to her was a Cafcass barrister's recommendation that her ex-partner be praised for his courtroom conduct—this despite the court having made findings of child abuse and rape. "The standards are entirely different," she said, "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." She pushed back against a persistent myth: that mothers automatically win everything in family court. "It couldn't be any further from the truth," she said.
Marie, another woman interviewed for the report, described the entire culture as victim-blaming. She characterised her ex-partner's use of the court system as a weapon—and an effective one. She also critiqued the judiciary's lack of accountability. "They still mark their own homework," she said. "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."
The report recommends several reforms. Family courts should publish 20 percent of judgments each month, randomly selected, with particular attention to cases involving domestic or sexual abuse allegations. Judges should receive mandatory training in gender bias and victim-blaming. The report also suggests exploring whether artificial intelligence tools could help identify and flag bias in judicial reasoning.
Dr Charlotte Proudman, a co-director of Right to Equality and a barrister herself, spoke from direct experience. "I have stood in family courts and watched judges normalise abuse, trivialise trauma and silence survivors," she 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 backing the report, framed the stakes plainly. Too many women have told her the family courts felt like an extension of the abuse they were trying to escape. "Bias distracts judges from properly assessing risk, their obligation to safeguard, and putting the needs of the children first," she said. The path forward, she argued, requires transparency, accountability, and training—tackled directly and without delay.
Notable Quotes
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.— Rose, a mother who has navigated family court since 2014
I have stood in family courts and watched judges normalise abuse, trivialise trauma and silence survivors. This report gives voice to what victims have been telling us for decades: bias is real, it is embedded in the family justice system.— Dr Charlotte Proudman, co-director of Right to Equality
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
What does victim-blaming actually look like in a judgment? Can you give me a concrete example?
It's language that questions a mother's credibility or suggests she's somehow responsible for the abuse directed at her. A judge might note that she "provoked" her ex-partner, or express scepticism about her account of events, or use language that implies she's exaggerating. The report found 530 instances across 91 judgments—that's roughly six per judgment.
And the fathers—what was different about how they were treated?
Their behaviour was contextualised. If a father was aggressive in court, a judge might note he was "stressed" or "reacting to false allegations." The same behaviour in a mother would be read as instability or unreliability. It's not that fathers weren't scrutinised at all—it's that the scrutiny came with built-in excuses.
Does this actually change the outcomes? The custody decisions, the money, the access?
That's the core concern. If a judge is operating from a place of scepticism toward the mother's account, they're less likely to believe her about abuse. They're less likely to restrict the father's access to children. The report suggests this bias is shaping decisions that affect child safety.
What struck you most about what the women said?
The exhaustion. Rose and Marie both described a system that felt rigged against them from the start. And the isolation—judges making decisions "in an absolute void," as Marie put it, with no accountability, no feedback, no mechanism for improvement.
Is there any pushback to this report?
Not yet—it's being released to MPs on Tuesday. But there will be. The judiciary will likely argue that individual judges are fair, that this is cherry-picking published judgments. The real test is whether the recommendations—transparency, training, accountability—actually get implemented.