The troubling evidence about the safety of children in Family Court

This opinion piece was first published here in The Post on 18 March 2025. For Backbone’s own research about the Lawyer for the Child, see our 2017 report “Seen and Not Heard”.

“We have told him and told him that we don’t feel safe and he just says dad is a nice guy.”

“Didn’t listen to what I wanted. Made me feel horrible. Told the exact opposite to the court about what I wanted. Tried to put words in my mouth.”

“No I don’t want [a lawyer], they’d put me on jail for telling on Dad... You know, for telling about Dad hurting me and stuff.”

These are quotes from children who have experienced family violence - about their own lawyers.

The “lawyer for child” is appointed to represent the child’s best interests – not the adults’ – in the Family Court for cases regarding the child’s care. But the above quotes are typical of those collected by the Backbone Collective: many children conclude their lawyer didn’t listen or didn’t believe them, or didn’t care.

Research here and overseas backs up their impressions. In Ireland, courts were found to be listening only to children who wanted contact with both parents (and overruling others); in the UK, it was found children’s voiced experiences of violence were not routinely included in family welfare reports.

In Australian research released just last month, one young person responded to the “firm voice” of family law professionals by giving it to them straight: “You don't always know what's best. You haven't gone through what I've been through.”

While law professionals struggle to confront, accept and respond to the alarming prevalence of family and sexual violence, at best they ignore its young victims and at worst they force them into ongoing contact with the people who have abused them.

Now, here in Aotearoa New Zealand, it is just coming to light that the Ministry of Justice covered up a significant 2022 commissioned report – lawyer Deborah Inder’s Review of Children's Participation in the Family Justice System of Aotearoa New Zealand – for years. It is only public now because the Backbone Collective requested it under the Official Information Act.

The Inder report found that the Family Court’s treatment of children “is falling short of best practice and risks placing children in harm’s way” and that the practice of lawyers for the child “is highly subjective and at times dangerous”.

We expect some children have positive experiences and outcomes thanks to their lawyers – but this is far less likely to be the case for children who have experienced family violence and/or sexual violence at the hands of one of their parents.

As Backbone has been publicising for years, there are three fundamental issues. First, there is very little oversight and monitoring of lawyers for the child – no independent way for children to make a complaint about their representation.

The second is that judges and lawyers often belittle or do not believe disclosures of violence (clinging instead to discredited, disproven and misogynistic theories that mothers often alienate their children from their fathers with made-up stories of violence). The result is that the Family Court often serves the interests of abusers rather than the children who seek the court’s protection.

The third and significant issue – raised here and internationally – is that lawyers do not have the skills nor training necessary to work safely with traumatised children, listen to them, understand the significance of what they’re saying, respond properly to them and accurately report the children’s concerns to the court.

Lawyers are trained in adversarial litigation – to fight and argue for a client’s position based on precise points of law. These are highly-prized skills, but they are very different – perhaps diametrically opposed – specialised skills from listening to children supportively, empathetically and accurately reporting their views.

So this brings us to the heart of the matter: the people whom the state pays to listen to traumatised and victimised children – and ensure they feel heard and accurately report what they say to the court – should be child specialists, trained in child development, family and sexual violence dynamics and impact, and trauma. They should be selected for empathy and compatibility with the child’s circumstances and cultural background. They should not be lawyers.

The Backbone Collective strongly supports the Inder report’s recommendations that the key contact for the children involved should be independent child specialists. Family violence expert Professor Mark Henaghan has also said the Inder report recommendations are “outstanding” and he is “deeply disturbed” that the report was buried.

If children interacted with child specialists rather than litigation specialists, this would shift power away from lawyers. We understand many family lawyers appreciate the workflow of acting as lawyer for the child. The state is currently paying around $50 million a year for lawyers for the child – paying an expensive skill-set that is not fit for purpose.

The Care of Children Act, reflecting the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, states that children have the right to be given reasonable opportunities to express views on matters affecting them and their views must be taken into account.

And this right is vitally important for children who are at risk of experiencing (further) violence. The Inder report clearly shows how to change Family Court processes to uphold the rights, safety and mana of the child, as is the court’s responsibility.

Children at risk need to be listened to by appropriately-skilled and qualified child specialists as soon as possible.

COMMENTS

Comments are closed on our website. If you'd like to talk about this story please go to the post on our Facebook page. Thank you.

about the backbone collective

New Zealand has the highest rate of women experiencing violence and abuse in the developed world, which is due in part to our broken response system.

The Backbone Collective is an independent body taking action to change New Zealand's dire statistics by examining the response system through the eyes of its users - women who have experienced violence and abuse.

Please join us as either a woman who has experienced violence or abuse, or as a volunteer who wants to help by volunteering your time, services or expertise.

Many reports have been written about where the system is broken but they have fallen on deaf ears. We think that Government and others in a position of power will start listening when hundreds, and potentially thousands, of women speak up about what needs to change.