“I was told I needed to support my children's relationship with their father, which I understood. But everything changed when my children began telling me they were frightened of him...Soon, they began showing unexplained injuries and detailing incidents where their father had hurt them. I was terrified—not just for their safety, but terrified of getting it wrong, knowing what the system does to mothers perceived as interfering. I sought advice, support services got involved, and concerns were reported. My children were interviewed, disclosures were made, and then the trap snapped shut."
Victim-survivor
PROBLEMS & SOLUTIONS
Why is this happening and what should we do about it?
All of Aotearoa New Zealand wants a family justice system which protects child and adult victim-survivors from further violence and abuse, enabling them to heal and live free, independent lives.
However, the Family Justice System is failing child and adult victim-survivors in a number of ways outlined below.
We commend the judicial initiative Te Ao Mārama for taking some important steps towards “supporting children and families at greatest risk when engaging with the family and criminal justice systems” by partnering with iwi and communities. The initiative is a step in the right direction towards a more investigative approach and less adversarial approach. However, it operates in only eight of the fifty-nine District Courts at the discretion of local judges, and does not address most of the problems we identify below.
Seven proposed reforms
Focus on Safety proposes seven reforms to address problems (gaps and system limitations) outlined below. Proposed reforms were developed by our collaboration of violence experts, based on our knowledge of existing problems, our experience of what works to achieve safe outcomes for victim-survivors and children, and research from New Zealand and abroad.
Problems
The Family Court does not have access to information about families appearing in court in terms of the presence, history and impact of FV, SV, neglect, and exploitation, that is held by other agencies, organisations or individuals.
Currently the Family Court relies on information brought to the court by lawyers for adult parties, the Lawyer for Child or the Lawyer for Subject Person (adult at risk). Sometimes the court appoints psychologists who interview parties and children to try to understand family dynamics relevant to CoCA and PPPRA proceedings. The Court may also seek information from Oranga Tamariki about their involvement or request a social worker report.
None of these roles are specifically and routinely directed to gather information from other individuals, agencies and services that have interacted with the family. This information will often provide the clearest picture of the history of FV, SV, neglect or exploitation and clarify who is causing what harm to whom, the impact of that harm, and the risk of further harm.
Individuals, agencies and services may include Police, the Criminal Court, Community Probation, health providers, schools, family violence services, sexual violence services, disability services, other social services, family or whānau members, friends, neighbours and others.
This information needs to be gathered by people with enhanced to expert FV and SV capability, who know how to recognise signs of harm and risk, what questions to ask, and how to respond to someone in distress because of their experience of violence, i.e. where there are signs of PTSD, brain injury, etc.
There is a lack of access to FV, SV and adult safeguarding expertise with relevant cultural perspectives to analyse and interpret information for the court.
Lawyers and occasionally psychologists and social workers are currently the only professionals providing and interpreting information about children, adults at risk and their families and caregivers to the Family Court.
The nature of family violence, coercive control, grooming and entrapment may mean that abusers appear credible, calm and respectable, while victim-survivors appear disorganised, confused and emotionally volatile in a court setting. Children are less likely to share their experiences and views unless they feel safe, believed and understood.
Court professionals, including judges, do not have sufficient training and expertise in family violence, sexual violence, neglect and exploitation to assess harm and risk to children (Henaghan et al, 2021), whether based on talking directly to children and adult parties or from interpreting information from individuals, agencies and services involved with families. They also often lack cultural perspectives that help them recognise and understand family violence and sexual violence when it is perpetrated and experienced in different cultural contexts.
As a result, the Court often fails to believe or give sufficient weight to allegations of family violence and sexual violence, and instead relies on “pseudo-scientific mythologies” (Leonetti, 2025) such as the concept of parental alienation or related terms such as resist-refuse, enmeshment, over-anxious mothering, and reunification therapy, which portray the victim-survivor as psychologically abusive. There is a growing body of work demonstrating the harm caused by the use of these concepts in family justice system cases involving family violence and sexual violence. See “The use of ‘parental alienation’ on our Evidence page.
There is a lack of safe and effective processes for children and adults at risk to participate in decisions about them.
According to a Review of Children's Participation in the Family Justice System (Inder, 2022), children who experience family violence have a stronger desire to participate in Care of Children Act proceedings than children generally, and professionals working with children need an understanding of the effects and risks of harm from family violence. “A separate system of advocacy that ensures independent advice, allows for trusting relationships to be built, and gives the child ongoing support and information is what children repeatedly tell researchers is what they need.”
Lawyers for Child do not have the professional training nor the time to build trusted relationships with children, nor to understand the effects and risks of harm from family violence, sexual violence, neglect and exploitation.
According to a New Zealand Law Commission Review of adult decision-making capacity law, “Decision-making support should be defined and incorporated within the role of a representative. A new role of formal supporter should be established to help people to make their own decisions themselves. Where it is necessary for a decision to be made on behalf of a person, three key decision-making rules should apply:
the decision should be centred on the person’s wishes and values and respect their rights;
the person should receive decision-making support for the decision and have the opportunity to participate in it; and
the decision should be based on relevant information.
Similarly, lawyers for Subject Persons under the PPPRA – do not have the professional training to understand how to best communicate with adults at risk who may have various forms of sickness, mental impairment, or disability, and be experiencing or at risk of family violence, sexual violence, neglect and exploitation.
These three problems are addressed by Reform #1.
Reform #1
NEW FV, SV SPECIALIST ROLES
These new roles will provide fuller and better information to inform court decisions that is analysed and interpreted with FV and SV expertise, and they will provide a safe voice for children and adults at risk to participate in decisions about them.
Investment in establishing and maintaining a new infrastructure will be critical to providing national consistency and quality assurance for these new roles, described more fully below. A Te Tiriti-based structure independent from government must be led by FV, SV, disability, and adult safeguarding specialists, including from Tangata Whenua, Rainbow, disabled, Pacific Peoples, Asian, and other ethnic and migrant communities. The infrastructure will support recruitment, training and quality control processes and ensure national consistency.
1.
FV, SV Child Specialist and FV, SV Adult Safeguarding Specialist roles with skills, expertise and sufficient time will explain court processes to, and gather views of, children and adults at risk, respectively.
1.a.
FV, SV Child Specialists will gather views of children to inform Care of Children (CoCA) and FV (protection order) proceedings. They will be trained in child development, trauma, FV, SV, coercive control and entrapment, grooming, post-separation abuse, disability (Disabled person means a person who is Deaf or blind, or who has a physical disability, a learning disability, a chronic illness, a significant mental health problem, Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, autism or other form of neurodivergence), culturally responsive practice, developmentally appropriate communication, and relevant legislation and systems. They will interpret and communicate children’s views within the broader context of their lived experiences and the impact of FV and/or SV on their safety, wellbeing, relationships and development.
They may specialise in working with tamariki (younger children) or rangatahi (young people or teenagers). Māori Specialists will work with tamariki/rangatahi Māori, and Rainbow/Takatāpui specialists with Rainbow/Takatāpui tamariki/rangatahi. The Child Specialist will explain court processes, ask about the child’s relationship with their parents/caregivers and about what they want to have communicated to the court. They will explain the child’s views within the context of child development and an understanding of the impact of FV and/or SV.
1.b.
FV, SV Adult Safeguarding Specialists will gather views of adults at risk to inform Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act (PPPRA) proceedings. They will explain court processes to the adult at risk, ask them about their relationship with their carer(s) or legal representative(s) and about what they want to communicate to the court. They will explain the person’s views within the context of any limitations on their ability to communicate their views and the impact of FV, SV, neglect and exploitation.
They will be trained in trauma, FV, SV, coercive control and entrapment, grooming, disability, capacity, culturally responsive practice, and relevant legislation and systems. They will interpret and communicate views of adults at risk within the broader context of their lived experiences, capacity and the impact of FV, SV, neglect and exploitation on their safety, care, housing, financial dependence, wellbeing, relationships and capacity.
2.
FV, SV/Safeguarding Expert Report Writer. This expert will gather, analyse and interpret information about the use of FV, SV, neglect and exploitation, and resulting harm and risk. They will gather this information from:
The FV, SV Child Specialist report re views of child or FV, SV Safeguarding Specialist report re views of the adult at risk.
A standardised FV and SV risk analysis (designed by independent Focus on Safety experts) focusing on the history and pattern of FV and/or SV behaviours and the impact of those behaviours on adult and child victim-survivors. Both adult parties will be asked the same risk questions, and responses will help to differentiate who is using harmful behaviour against whom, and the impact of those behaviours on both the adult and the children.
Family/whānau members, friends, neighbours and people in the community who know the parties/children/adult at risk.
Organisations/services which have engaged with the parties/children/adult at risk, e.g. specialist FV and/or SV organisations, Police, healthcare providers, schools, disability or other social services, and particularly for adults at risk – legal representative(s), advocate(s), carer(s), etc.
In FV, SV Specialist Family Court processes, the Lawyer for Child and Lawyer for Subject Person will communicate with their client via the FV, SV Child Specialist or FV, SV Safeguarding Specialist. They will represent their client’s views and best interests as informed by these roles and by the FV, SV / Safeguarding Expert Report. This will ensure that children and adults at risk are supported by professionals with specialist skills in eliciting and conveying their views, while also reducing pressure on an already overstretched legal workforce.
Similarly, court-appointed psychologists will no longer be needed in Family Court proceedings involving FV and SV, as the FV, SV/Safeguarding Expert Report Writer will better meet the need for information about the history and risk of further FV and SV and other relevant information. This will also reduce pressure on another overstretched workforce.
Problem
The policies & processes to consider and address violence are inappropriate.
The Family Court currently uses an adversarial system, where each party in CoCA proceedings provides evidence to support their case, can challenge the other party’s evidence and arguments, and can be represented by a lawyer who advocates for their position. This process can be intimidating, unsafe and traumatic for victims-survivors and enable abusers to manipulate the system to cause further harm. “Reviews of the New Zealand Family Court have repeatedly identified its adversarial legal culture as a major problem for its ability to produce child-focused outcomes” (Henderson et al, 2022, p.3).
On the other hand, the Family Court Act 1980 section 9A requires lawyers to “so far as possible, promote conciliation,” which can result in victim-survivors being pressured to settle or mediate with their abuser, agree to unsafe orders by consent, and to keep silent about abuse:
“While the legislation...explicitly prioritises children’s safety, there is concern that in practice shared care has become the primary focus and objective, with the result that safety becomes a rebuttal argument, and a barrier to be overcome on the road to the optimal post-divorce arrangement.
“..any attempt to limit contact is immediately prima facie “bad” parent behaviour. This doubles the burden on any parent wanting to raise safety concerns: They must not only prove the allegation but must also overcome the presumption of unfriendliness or desire to cut the child off from the parent, even though the evidence from mothers who raise abuse allegations is that they are actually supportive of fathers’ ongoing relationships. In other words, a shared care paradigm encourages additional scepticism of abuse allegations” (Henderson et al, 2022, p.21).
Neither an adversarial nor a conciliatory approach is appropriate in CoCA and PPPRA proceedings involving family violence, sexual violence, neglect or exploitation. In these cases, the court must have appropriately trained court staff and professionals who use an investigative approach to fact-find and make decisions that focus on safety for children, adults at risk and victim-survivors. This is the direction being taken in other countries, in particular Australia and the UK, to address similar problems.
This problem is addressed by Reform #2
Reform #2
FV, SV SPECIALIST FAMILY COURT & FAMILY DISPUTE RESOLUTION (FDR) PATHWAYS
FV, SV Specialist Family Court and FV, SV Family Dispute Resolution Pathways will be created by introducing processes and policies that enable the court to identify and safely respond to FV, SV, neglect and exploitation.
TRAINING & PROCESSES:
ALL court staff and professionals, including Judges, will have regular specialist FV and SV training to Enhanced-Expert level FV capability and SV capability, and training to understand the needs of disabled children and adults at risk.
Within the FV, SV Specialist Family Court:
Decisions will be informed by the FV, SV Child Specialist report OR Safeguarding Specialist Report AND FV, SV / Safeguarding Expert Report. Judges can ask these specialist roles to gather further information or to explain anything in their report.
Judges will be accredited to sit in this specialist Court
Victim-survivors will be proactively offered options for safe participation, e.g. alternative ways of giving evidence, support person in Court, communication assistant, etc.
Within FV, SV Specialist FDR (Family Dispute Resolution):
Processes will be informed by the FV, SV Child Specialist report AND FV, SV / Safeguarding Expert Report. If no agreement is reached and the case proceeds to FV, SV Specialist Family Court, these reports will then be used to inform the Court proceedings.
Safe options for victim-survivor participation, e.g. online shuttle mediation, will be proactively offered.
If an agreement is reached between parties, a court official will make the agreement an enforceable consent order, as a matter of course.
Parenting Order applicants who are identified as FV and/or SV victim-survivors, or as protective caregivers for children who have experienced FV and/or SV, will be able to freely opt for FV, SV Specialist FDR OR FV, SV Specialist Family Court.
Cases will enter the FV, SV Specialist Family Court or FV, SV Specialist FDR pathway when:
A Parenting order application OR an application under the PPPR Act OR a response to one of these applications, is accompanied by supporting evidence of FV and/or SV. Evidence can be a copy of the first page of a Protection Order, a Police Safety Order, a Police charging document, a statutory declaration from the applicant, or a written statement in prescribed form from a range of approved people, including a health professional; social worker; employer; lawyer; landlord; religious leader; family violence, sexual violence, whānau ora, disability or other social service provider (similar to evidence required for early withdrawal of tenancy due to family violence). This evidence will not be admissible nor shared with the other party. The applicant may opt for the FV, SV Specialist FDR pathway or the FV, SV Specialist Family Court pathway. If they opt for FV, SV Specialist FDR and the other party does not agree, the case will proceed to the FV, SV Specialist Family Court pathway.
Family Justice professionals (FDR provider, party lawyer, Lawyer for Child, Lawyer for Subject Person, Judge, Oranga Tamariki) who recognise signs of FV and/or SV from affidavits, testimony etc. will be able to provide information (non-admissable, not shared with parties) to trigger a FV, SV-informed pathway. At that point, the protective parent/caregiver may opt for the FV, SV Specialist FDR pathway or the FV, SV Specialist Family Court pathway.
An Oranga Tamariki or other professional who identifies a child victim of FV, SV, neglect or exploitation when there are CoCA proceedings but there is no adult victim nor protective parent will be able to trigger the FV, SV Specialist Family Court pathway.
A statutory Adult Safeguarding professional who identifies an adult at risk when there are PPPR proceedings will be able to trigger the FV, SV Specialist Family Court pathway. (Note: there is not yet a statutory adult safeguarding body, as we are calling for below)
FV, SV Specialist Family Court monitoring:
Responsive: Anyone aware of a breach of Family Court orders that are in place (FV Specialist FDR consent orders or FV, SV Specialist Family Court orders), or who has evidence of further FV, SV, neglect or exploitation of a child or Adult at Risk, will be able to notify the court to enact monitoring proceedings. Notifications will be forwarded to the FV, SV/ Safeguarding Expert Report Writer (if possible, the one who wrote the original report for the court) who contacts the notifier for more information and if needed, updates report and submits to court for review. (Note: the Family Violence Act definition of ‘family violence’ includes a child witnessing violence towards a family member)
Pro-active: If there are no notifications of concern within six months, the FV, SV / Safeguarding Expert Report Writer will contact the victim, and the FV, SV Child Specialist will contact the child, or the FV, SV Adult Safeguarding Specialist will contact the adult at risk. If necessary, both specialist reports will be updated and submitted to court for review.
PRINCIPLES: Principles for FV, SV Specialist Family Court proceedings:
1. Children/adults at risk will not be forced to have contact with an alleged or confirmed abusive parent/carer/legal representative.
Instead the child/adult at risk will have support and time to heal, and will be able to decide for themselves if they want to have contact with the parent/guardian/carer who has used abuse, once that parent has demonstrated behaviour change (via standardised assessment developed by FV, SV experts). To support this principle:
the presumption that a FV perpetrator is not to be granted unsupervised contact with children will be reinstated in law,
an accreditation process will be created and implemented to ensure supervised contact centres have enhanced-expert level FV and SV capability and use safe practice, and
section 73 of the Care of Children Act, which allows children to be uplifted by police or a social worker and handed to the other parent for contact/access, will be repealed.
2. The use of discredited concepts, theories and interventions that are harmful in cases involving family violence and sexual violence will be prohibited, e.g. parental alienation, resist-refuse, enmeshment, over-anxious mothering, and reunification therapy.
3. Participation in a non-violence programme, sexual violence programme, or other perpetrator intervention will not, and must not, by itself, be taken as evidence of behavioural change or reduced risk.
Any assessment of behavioural change will consider the person’s demonstrated acceptance of responsibility, sustained behavioural changes over time, patterns of coercive, abusive or grooming behaviour, independent corroborating information, the safety and experiences of affected adults and children, and any other relevant evidence.
4. The court, and court representatives (Lawyer for Child, Lawyer for Subject Person, Lawyer for parties, Psychologists, Oranga Tamariki Social Workers, etc), will not, and must not, take action on behalf of one guardian to deny children or adults at risk access to counselling and healing therapies for the purpose of supporting them to heal from their experience of FV, SV, neglect or exploitation.
Note: Reunification therapy to “re-build” a relationship between an abusive parent and their child is harmful to the child, and not a healing therapy. Following child sexual abuse, any reconciliation meetings will only occur if a child is ready for this and such meetings will only be run by the SV specialist services providing rehabilitation and therapy.
5. Protective parents, children, young people and adults at risk will not be prevented by the Family Court from talking (verbally) with friends, family, whānau or support services about their experiences of FV, SV and court proceedings.
6. Rights of guardians/legal representatives:
In cases where a guardian has perpetrated FV (as defined in the Family Violence Act, this includes any behaviour that is coercive or controlling), SV, neglect or exploitation of the child, there will be a presumption in favour of limiting guardianship rights to protect the rights of the child to: have their best interests prioritised; be safe from harm and heal from harm they have experienced; and to develop, grow and flourish as a whole person, including through access to stable care, cultural identity, education, health and meaningful participation in decisions affecting them. Limitations on guardianship will be able to be reassessed following a standardised risk assessment showing demonstrated behaviour change (see principle i and iii above).
In cases where a welfare guardian (PPPR Act) or EPOA (Enduring Power of Attorney) has perpetrated FV, SV, neglect or exploitation towards an adult at risk, there will be a presumption in favour of removing their representative rights to protect the rights of the adult at risk to: be safe from harm, abuse, neglect, exploitation, and coercion; have the least restrictive intervention applied, consistent with their level of capacity; and be enabled and supported to exercise and develop their decision-making capacity to the greatest extent possible, including through access to appropriate support, advice, and information. The FV, SV Safeguarding Specialist will assist in finding a safe and appropriate alternative welfare guardian (PPPR Act) or EPOA (Enduring Power of Attorney).
Problem
New Zealand’s immigration and family law systems operate in harmful isolation. Migrant women whose visa status is dependent on an abusive partner face numerous hurdles in trying to protect their children and themselves by navigating FV Visa processes and Family Court proceedings, particularly because these two systems are completely disconnected from each other.
“ When family lawyers don’t understand immigration implications, immigration officers don’t recognise family violence dynamics, and the Court doesn’t see visa status as relevant to protection order applications, women fall through the gaps—facing deportation despite experiencing violence, or remaining in abusive relationships to retain visa status” (Nightingale, 2026).
When these hurdles are insurmountable, children are at risk of being put in the care of the abuser and losing contact with their protective parent if she is deported. Stories like these have been documented as long ago as 2007 (Robertson et al, 2007), and as recently as 2026 (Nightingale, 2026).
This problem is addressed by Reform #3
Reform #3
FV VISA PROCEEDINGS CONNECTED WITH THE FV, SV SPECIALIST FAMILY COURT
In order to coordinate the approach of the Family Court and FV Visa systems, a victim-survivor involved in Family Court proceedings without NZ residency, and/or with a visa that depends on their relationship with an abusive partner or family member, will have interim visas granted for them and their dependent children, and FV Visa proceedings will be informed by reports from the FV, SV Specialist Roles.
The FV, SV / Safeguarding Expert Report Writer will routinely gather information about victim-survivors’ visa/immigration status. This will remove the burden from victim-survivors of gathering evidence that is more appropriately gathered and interpreted for authorities by an expert report writer. If a victim-survivor parent or protective caregiver in CoCA proceedings, or adult at risk in PPPR proceedings, does not have residency and/or has a visa that depends on their relationship with the abuser, then:
The victim-survivor parent/caregiver or adult at risk will be granted an interim visa, with work rights if needed, and their FV Visa process is delayed until the FV, SV Child Specialist or Safeguarding Specialist Report AND the FV, SV/Safeguarding Expert Report are available to inform the FV Visa process. There will be no further requirements on the victim-survivor to provide evidence of FV and/or SV to Immigration. Immigration Officers will be able to contact the Report Writers with questions.
Applicants’ dependent children will automatically be included in the FV Visa application and issued an independent student visa (if age 5 or older) or visitor visa (if younger than 5 years old). The respondent will not be informed and will not have the right to override inclusion of the children.
FV Visa applicants will be eligible for legal aid (See #6) and MSD benefits, even if the applicant is dependent on an abuser who is a temporary migrant and doesn't have residency.
The Immigration Act 2009 will also be amended to require children’s best interests be the paramount consideration, rather than a primary consideration, in all immigration decisions where family violence is a factor, to align with the Care of Children Act 2004.
Problem
There is a lack of transparency and oversight of Family Court processes and decisions to address issues and inform future improvements.
There is a dangerous lack of transparency for Family Court proceedings. It is a crime to publish a report of Family Court proceedings that might identify a child or ‘vulnerable person’ without permission from the court. This holds true for journalists and academics, and also for court participants who are gagged from talking about their personal experiences with the court.
A recent example is the glaring omission about the role of the Family Court in allowing Tom Phillips' continued access to his children in light of concerns and evidence about his unsafe behaviour – both in the inquiry and in media coverage of this story.
The judiciary publishes only a selection of Family Court decisions, and published judgements often contain only selected facts and reasoning. Researchers cannot study the full body of Family Court decision-making, patterns may be invisible, and systemic failures remain hidden.
In 2024, Chief Justice Helen Winkelmann published a report on Open Justice and Engagement, explaining the importance of public scrutiny to hold judges and courts “to the ideal of a fair hearing” and outlining a work programme overseen by two judicial committees. While laudable, this programme has not yet made any inroads into increasing transparency in the Family Court.
In 2025 the Judiciary published the first two of its 12 bench books (manuals on legal procedure that guide judicial decision-making). However, bench books for the Family Court and specialist areas of family violence and sexual violence are not yet published, and there’s no information about when this will happen.
This problem is addressed by Reform #4 and Reform #5
Reform #4
OVERSIGHT BY INDEPENDENT FV, SV PREVENTION & RESPONSE COMMISSIONER
An independent FV, SV Prevention & Response Commissioner will provide expert oversight and systems level recommendations to ensure that the Family Court and adjacent systems respond to FV and SV safely.
The Commissioner will have a specialist FV, SV background, and also an Adult Safeguarding background or be trained in Adult Safeguarding by FV, SV Adult Safeguarding specialists. The Commissioner will work towards a vision of a family justice system that has processes and a culture that supports safety and protection from harm, with central considerations being the needs of children and adults at risk, the impact of family violence, sexual violence, neglect, and exploitation, and where victim-survivors feel they are respected and their safety is prioritised.
The Commissioner’s duties will include (but not be limited to):
Driving meaningful change to make the Family Court safer for children, adults at risk and victim-survivors of FV and/or SV.
Meeting regularly with key stakeholders including the judiciary; representatives from the new independent NGO that employs the new FV, SV specialist roles described above; family violence, sexual violence, adult safeguarding and disability service providers, and researchers; and victim-survivors.
Analysing court records and gathering views from court participants and FV, SV-informed court professionals to assess how new FV, SV Specialist Family Court, FDR and FV Visa pathways are impacting on adult victim-survivors, children, and adults at risk, as well as other potential impacts on the system, and making recommendations for further improvement.
Analysing FV Visa records and gathering views from applicants to assess how effectively the Family Justice and Immigration systems are integrated through the lens of FV, SV victim-survivors.
Working with complaints bodies for professionals involved in the Family Court to ensure responses to FV and SV-related complaints are fair and there are safe outcomes for children, adults at risk and FV and/or SV victim-survivors, including the Judicial Conduct Commission, the Law Society, Psychology Board and MBIE (which employs immigration officers).
Reform #5
A TRANSPARENT FAMILY COURT
Continuous improvement and safety of the Family Court will be enhanced by enabling access to all Family Court data and processes for designated FV and SV specialist researchers, accredited media and the Family Violence and Sexual Violence Prevention & Response Commissioner, with strict requirements for confidentiality/anonymising for use of data.
Researchers will gain access to court proceedings and court records either via a formal data-sharing agreement with appropriate entity such as Vine (the NZ national centre for family violence and sexual violence research and information hosted by Auckland University) OR via Transparency Orders allowing ‘accredited’ researchers and accredited media access.
All court parties will have digital access to court-commissioned reports and access on request to transcripts of court proceedings, with strict controls to safeguard from unauthorised access.
The current Family Violence, Sexual Violence and Family Court Judges’ Bench Books will be published online immediately, and an updated evidenced-based FV, SV Family Court bench book will be created in collaboration with Focus on Safety experts and made publicly available.
Problem
Problem: Victim-survivors are forced to pay to try to protect themselves and their children through the Family Justice system, resulting in debilitating debt.
Legal aid is a loan, not a grant; it normally has to be repaid. Applications for protection orders are often exempt from this requirement, but this is not the CoCA nor PPPRA proceedings.
Eligibility for legal aid is assessed against income, assets, prospects of success, and whether the likely benefit justifies the cost. Because legal aid must be repaid, whether or not a protective parent is eligible for this aid, Care of Children proceedings often leave that parent with debilitating debt in the tens of thousands, and occasionally hundreds of thousands of dollars worth.
Victim-survivors should not have to pay to keep themselves safe. Protective parents should not have to pay to keep their children safe. This is a fundamental injustice.
In addition, there is a shortage of legal-aid lawyers, with RNZ reporting in 2023 a tripling of self-represented litigants over the previous decade while legal aid grants had fallen over the same period.
This problem is addressed by Reform #6
Reform #6
ACCESS TO LEGAL AID
FV and/or SV victim-survivors will have access to legal aid for FV/protection order proceedings, as well as CoCA, PPPRA, and FV Visa proceedings, regardless of ‘official’ income in order to have equitable access to justice and safety.
Similar to legal aid for protection orders, this aid will also be non-recoverable, except when the applicant is or becomes known to have perpetrated FV, SV, neglect or exploitation, such as litigation abuse by an abuser applying for a Family Court order against their victim. FV Visa lawyers will be listed as a sub-specialty in refugee and immigration law in the MoJ website legal aid lawyer register, to make it easier for applicants to find a lawyer.
Implementing our proposed reforms will relieve some pressure from lawyers, including legal aid lawyers, because specialist roles will gather information for the court, which will lessen or remove the need for lawyers to provide and speak to evidence on behalf of victim-survivor clients. We would also expect to see repeat litigation abuse reduce, with a consequent reduction in the need for legal-aid lawyers to represent these victim-survivors.
Problem
Problem: There is a lack of statutory Adult Safeguarding authority responsible for protecting adults at risk (similar to the role of Oranga Tamariki for children).
New Zealand does not have a statutory adult safeguarding system responsible for protecting adults at risk, unlike children and young people, who are protected through a dedicated statutory care and protection framework. While the Crimes Act 1961 contains offences relating to ‘vulnerable adults’, these provisions are focused on prosecuting harm after it has occurred and do not establish a statutory framework for prevention, early intervention, assessment, protection, or coordinated adult safeguarding responses.
Existing protections are fragmented across multiple agencies and legislative frameworks, resulting in inconsistent and often reactive responses. Adults at risk experiencing abuse, neglect, exploitation, coercion, or other forms of harm can fall through gaps between health, disability, social services, justice, family violence, sexual violence and community systems.
While Te Aorerekura, the national strategy to eliminate family violence and sexual violence, includes adult safeguarding, implementation to date has largely focused on integrating adult safeguarding within local multi-agency family violence response models. Much of this work has centred on disabled people who may also be adults at risk, rather than establishing a safeguarding framework for adults at risk more broadly. Evidence from the 12-month Waitākere (West Auckland) Safeguarding Adults from Abuse (SAFA) pilot highlighted the limitations of this approach, with participants identifying the absence of a specialist statutory adult safeguarding organisation as a key barrier to effective safeguarding responses (Roguski & Hager, 2026)
This problem is addressed by Reform #7
Reform #7
ADULT SAFEGUARDING STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
New Zealand needs a dedicated adult safeguarding framework with statutory powers to identify, protect, and support adults at risk.
This statutory framework will complement Family Court Adult Safeguarding processes by:
a) Protecting adult autonomy, legal capacity and human rights, in particular by shifting away from a framework enabling ‘substitute’ decision-making on behalf of adults at risk towards ‘supported’ decision-making in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,
b) Supporting early intervention when adults at risk are experiencing or are at risk of family violence, sexual violence, neglect or exploitation,
c) Strengthening system accountability to ensure safety and wellbeing of adults at risk and oversight,
d) Clarifying agency roles and duties, and
e) Centring lived experience evidence.
