top of page

Family Court Reform Survey.

We’re collecting experiences from parents and professionals to identify patterns in family-court decision-making—especially around the Silver Bullet tactic, tactical non-mol/protective orders, and child routine blackmail (money-for-contact leverage)—to support reform and improve training.

60 questions • typically 15–30 minutes • you can skip any question.

Optional: You may name a judge and court/region to help identify patterns. Names will not be published

Privacy: Do not include identifying details about children or private case information (names, addresses, schools, photos, case numbers).

Anonymity: You can respond anonymously. If you do not leave contact details, we cannot follow up, clarify points, or seek consent to consider your account for 100 Parents v The Family Court.

SURVEY

1. Before today, had you heard of the “Silver Bullet tactic”?

The Silver Bullet tactic refers to serious allegations raised at a key

moment which can quickly influence outcomes before being fully

tested.

2. Based on this, do you believe something similar occurred in your case?
Yes
No
Not sure
3. When did the allegations first arise?
After requesting more time with my child
After separation/divorce began
After a financial disagreement or money demand (including early divorce-related money expectations)
Explicit demand for money in exchange for agreeing a fair and equal routine.
After a new partner was introduced
After limiting communication
Other:
4. What happened shortly after the allegation?
Yes
No

PROTECTIVE ORDER & EVIDENCE

A non-molestation order (non-mol) is a court order to prevent

harassment or harm and can be made quickly, sometimes before full

evidence is tested.

5. Was a non-molestation or similar protective order used?
6. At the time it was applied for, how strong was the evidence?
Clear evidence
Limited evidence
No clear evidence
Not sure
7. Did you have evidence that contradicted the allegations at that stage?
Yes
No
Not Sure
8. If yes, was that evidence considered by the court?
Yes
Mentioned but not meaningfully considered
Not considered
Not sure
9. At that time, were any of the following already active or recently dealt with in the family court arena?
10. If so, did any of these contradict the allegations?

EARLY DECISIONS

A fact-finding hearing determines whether allegations are true based

on evidence.

11. Was a fact-finding hearing held before longer-term decisions were made?
Yes
No
Not Sure

PROFESSIONAL INPUT

A Section 7 report is prepared by CAFCASS and often carries

significant weight.

12. Were CAFCASS or similar professionals involved?
Yes
No
13. How was your evidence handled in forming conclusions?
Clearly reflected
Acknowledged but given little weight
Largely ignored
Option Not considered
Not sure
14. If you challenged the report, what happened?
I was able to question the report author
I was unable to question the report author
The report author was unavailable (e.g. long-term absence)
The court gave little weight to my challenge
The court was open to challenge
Not sure

STATUS QUO

15. How long was contact disrupted after the allegation?
None
Under 3 months
3–6 months
6–12 months
1–2 years
Over 2 years
Never restored
16. Was the original level of contact fully restored?
Yes
Partially
No
17. Did the court maintain the reduced arrangement as the “status quo”?
Yes
Partially
No
18. Did the other parent show willingness to restore or increase contact?
Yes
No
Only after court pressure
Contact remained blocked

ENFORCEMENT & BREACHES

19. Were there breaches of court-ordered contact by the other party, and how were they handled?
20. Did the court’s handling of the situation resolve the issue or make it worse?
Helped resolve the issue
Made no difference
Exacerbated the issue

RESTRICTIONS & BARRING ORDERS

A Section 91(14) order under the Children Act 1989 restricts further

applications to court without permission for a set period of time,

often 24 months. It is intended to reduce conflict And help protect

Victim of domestic abuse which can come in the form of vexatious

court applications. Some times these orders often block a child’s

right to court intervention and help where there is no other option.

21. Was a Section 91(14) order imposed?
Yes
No
Not Sure
22. Before the section 91 (14) barring order was imposed. What issues took place?
Breaches of a previous,family court order giving rise to enforcement preceding.
Issues that could be labelled as parental alienation.
Evidence of an incapacity to co Parent.
23. If imposed, did it resolve or worsen the issues within parent child contact or contact breaches?
Helped resolve
No difference
Exacerbated breaches
24. After the barring order, did either party attempt to change arrangements and go around it?

SCHOOLS & EXTERNAL PROFESSIONALS

25. How did schools or nurseries handle information in your case?
Acted fairly and impartially
Provided balanced information to both sides
Appeared to favour one parent
Reflected a narrative that did not change over time
Withheld or limited information

REFLECTION

26. If a lion is considered a predator by often hunting an animal smaller than itself and unable to defend itself. Do you believe deliberately using false and or exaggerated allegations for advantage in a divorce or child custody preceding could also be c
Yes
No
Not Sure

ACCOUNTABILITY

27. Did you raise concerns about the Silver Bullet tactic in court or with CAFCASS?
Yes — to both court and CAFCASS
Yes — to court only
Yes — to CAFCASS only
No
28. How were you treated when raising this concern?
29. If recognised, how was it addressed?
Immediate restoration of contact
Gradual increase of contact
Allegations tested through fact-finding
Direction given but no meaningful change
No clear action taken
Not applicable
Other, please specify..........
30. Were there CAFCASS, ICFA professionals including judges who recognised and addressed the issue effectively?
(Name / role optional): _______
No

ACCESSIBILITY & FAIR TREATMENT

32. Do you identify as having any disability, condition, or additional need that may affect how you engage with the court process?
Neurodivergent (e.g. ADHD, autism, dyslexia)
Mental health condition (e.g. anxiety, depression, PTSD)
Physical disability or mobility issue
Sensory impairment (e.g. hearing, vision)
Learning difficulty or communication need
Long-term health condition or fatigue-related condition
Other: _______
No

(Select all that apply)

33.Did the court or professionals recognise and take your needs into account?
Yes — fully
Partially
No
Not sure
34. Were any reasonable adjustments or support measures put in place?
Yes — and effective
Yes — but not effective
No support provided
Not sure
35. Did you feel your needs or communication style were misunderstood or used against you?
Yes clearly
To some extent
No
Not sure

TRUST & EXPERIENCE OF THE SYSTEM

36. Before entering the family court system, did you trust it to resolve your situation fairly?
37. Before applying, had you heard any warnings or experiences about the system?
No
I was told I might see my child less after applying
I was told the system may not recognise certain tactics (e.g. Silver Bullet)
I was told outcomes can favour those who mislead the court
Other: _______

(Select all that apply)

38. Which of the following best reflects your experience after applying to court?
My situation improved
No significant change
I saw my child less after applying
My situation became more difficult
39. After your experience, would you recommend the family court system to a friend to resolve separation or parenting disputes?
Yes
Maybe / depends
No

ESCALATION, COMPLAINTS & CHALLENGES

40. Did you need to challenge a decision or raise concerns (e.g. appeal, judicial review, or complaint)?
Yes
No
41. If yes, what actions did you take?
Appeal
Judicial review
High court appeal
European court appeal
Complaint about court administration
Complaint about judicial conduct
Other: _______

(Select all that apply)

42.What issues led you to raise concerns or complaints?
Delays or applications not processed in time
Documents recorded incorrectly (e.g. wrong dates)
Missing or mishandled evidence
Decisions that did not reflect the evidence presented
Fabricated evidence that did not exist within court hearings .
Hearing handling and management
My right to a fair hearing.
Other: _______

(Select all that apply)

43. In your opinion did raising concerns affect how you were treated or listened to the nest time ?
I was treated more fairly
No change
I felt treated more negatively
Not sure
44. In your view, did raising concerns help resolve the issue or make it worse?
Helped resolve it
Made no difference
Made the situation worse

REFORM

47. Consent to anonymous use in research/publication
Yes
No

GENDER & PERCEPTION OF TREATMENT

48.What is your gender?
49. Do you feel your gender influenced how you were treated within the court process?
Yes — significantly
Yes — to some extent
No
Not sure
50. If yes, how do you feel it influenced your treatment?
My concerns were taken less seriously
Assumptions were made about my role as a parent
I felt disadvantaged compared to the other parent
Decisions appeared to favour the other parent
Other: _______

(Select all that apply)

Thank-you for taking the time to fill out this survey.

​

Your responses help us identify patterns in family-court outcomes
and professional/judicial behaviour, and strengthen the evidence
needed for meaningful reform and training.
What happens next
•We review and analyse responses in anonymised form to identify trends and themes.
• We use this to produce research outputs, summaries, reform proposals, and training priorities.
• If you left contact details, we may get in touch to clarify points or (with your consent) discuss whether your account could be included (anonymised) in 100 Parents v The Family Court.


Help others find the survey
If you know someone with relevant experience—parent,
professional, or supporter—please share this survey link.

share this survey

bottom of page