When the Process Itself Becomes the Barrier
Happy New Year one and all,
This first blog for 2026 is made up of two parts.
It is written this way because I am compelled by the many stories of frustration shared by fathers who have been navigating the system with no visible end point, only the ongoing churn of processes that, over time, lead to exhaustion, anguish, and deep disconnection. For many of these men, the heart of the struggle is simple: the desire for quality time with their children, and for some, the hope of rebuilding connection with their family.
Part 1 reflects what fell out of our evaluation and review processes. It captures where we have landed as an organisation and identifies key pou: the barriers fathers face, their lived experiences, the legislative and operational processes at play, the reality of accountability without a clear horizon, and what meaningful change could look like if, as NGOs and as a sector, we had the courage to collectively push for it.
The intent of Part 1 is grounded in the story of a father who, over the last three years, fulfilled every obligation placed before him. Despite completing seven programmes, he continued to encounter dead ends rather than recognition of progress. What began as hope slowly turned into frustration — frustration that was, at one point, directed at Fathers For Families.
At the core of it all, his ask was simple: he just wanted to see his boy.
Part 2 builds on what has been raised, not to undo accountability, but to look more closely at what already exists within the system and how it is being held. In walking alongside fathers through assessments, programmes, and reviews, we have also observed something else: moments where genuine change is occurring, yet struggling to find recognition within formal processes.
This section is not about excusing past harm or minimising risk. It is about naming the mitigating factors that are already present, factors that indicate growth, responsibility, and sustained behavioural change, and asking how these are, or are not, being meaningfully considered.
If accountability is about more than compliance, then mitigation must be about more than acknowledgement. It must be able to influence outcomes.
When the Process Itself Becomes the Barrier
At Fathers For Families, we spend a lot of time listening.
Listening to men who are navigating separation, protection orders, Family Court and Family Group Conference processes, programme requirements, and long periods of uncertainty around access to their children. Over time, a consistent theme has emerged — not from ideology, and not from anger — but directly from our programme evaluations and reviews with fathers. Many men are not questioning the need for accountability.
They are questioning whether the process itself is capable of recognising change.
What Fathers Are Experiencing
Across our initial assessments, fathers spoke less about their past behaviour and more about their present reality. They described completing required programmes, complying with conditions, and engaging in support services, yet still being unable to understand:
what threshold constitutes “enough”
when assessment ends
or how demonstrated change is formally recognised within the system
What surfaced was not hostility toward accountability. It was desperation, born from uncertainty, delay, and a lack of visible progression.
How the Current Legislative Process Operates
Under current family violence and care-and-protection frameworks, decisions about children are rightly guided by safety and risk considerations.
However, in practice, this often means:
historical allegations remain the primary reference point
risk is managed conservatively and open-endedly
progress is assessed subjectively rather than against clear, time-bound criteria
As a result, fathers can find themselves moving between programmes, reports, and assessments without a clearly defined pathway toward restoration of relationship, even when there has been sustained behavioural change. The legislation is designed to prevent harm.
But it is far less explicit about how restoration is meant to occur once harm has been addressed.
This gap matters.
When Accountability Has No Horizon
From the perspective of the men we work with, the issue is not being held accountable, it is being held indefinitely. When the process has no visible end point, accountability begins to feel less like responsibility and more like permanent suspicion.
This creates a lived experience of:
being unable to move forward
being defined by past actions rather than present conduct
and being locked out of meaningful fatherhood without a clear path back in
Over time, this erodes hope and we know, hope once eroded, is difficult to restore.
A Question Shaped by Listening, Not Certainty
We raise this carefully, not to dismiss harm, not to minimise safety and not to claim we have all the answers but, it is reasonable to ask:
If legislation and practice are strong on managing risk, but unclear on recognising sustained change, how might the system evolve to hold both safety and restoration with integrity?
This is not a call to lower standards, it is a call to clarify them.
What Change Could Look Like
From what fathers themselves are telling us, meaningful change would include:
clearer, time-bound expectations for progress
consistent recognition of demonstrated behavioural change
defined transition points from risk management to relationship repair
and pathways that allow fathers to move forward without endlessly re-litigating the past
These are not radical ideas, they are structural ones.
They require legislative courage, sector collaboration, and a willingness to ask whether current processes are producing the outcomes they were designed for.
Our Thoughts on What Fell Out
At Fathers For Families, we do not stand outside the system, we work within it, we respect its intent and we acknowledge the complexity of protecting children while supporting change.
Our role is not to posture or provoke, it’s to reflect back what we are consistently hearing from fathers and to ask whether the processes meant to help families heal are, at times, unintentionally prolonging harm.
We believe accountability and restoration are not opposites. They are meant to work together.
Closing Reflection (Part 1)
If men are willing to change, willing to be held accountable, and willing to do the work, then the system must also be willing to clearly show how change is recognised and how restoration becomes possible.
We offer this reflection with humility and with respect, and with a hope that listening, truly listening can lead to wiser pathways forward.
PART 2: Mitigating Factors Worth Holding With Care
If we are serious about both safety and long-term wellbeing for children, then the sector must be willing to engage with mitigating factors not as excuses, but as indicators of change. Mitigating factors do not erase past harm, they contextualise present reality.
From our work with fathers, some of the most consistent mitigating indicators include:
sustained programme engagement beyond minimum compliance
demonstrated behavioural consistency over time, not just insight in assessment
independent corroboration of change, including facilitator observations, attendance records, and structured evaluations
willingness to remain under accountability, even when outcomes are uncertain
active participation in counselling, parenting education, and cultural or faith-based supports
absence of further incidents alongside improved emotional regulation and relational awareness
These are not abstract claims, they are observable, documentable, and reviewable. Yet too often, such factors sit on the margins of decision-making acknowledged informally but rarely weighted clearly or consistently within formal pathways. When mitigating factors are not visibly recognised, fathers experience the system as static rather than responsive not because safety is prioritised, but because change is not translated into progress.
When Systems Lag Behind Human Change
Children benefit when systems can distinguish between historical risk and current capacity.
A father who remains indefinitely assessed through the lens of who he was despite evidence of who he is becoming does not experience accountability as growth. He experiences it as erasure.
This matters, because prolonged exclusion without a pathway back:
weakens motivation for sustained change
increases disengagement from services
and can entrench shame rather than responsibility
Most importantly, it can unintentionally deprive children of a re-emerging relationship that is safer, more regulated, and more emotionally present than what existed before.
The question is not whether caution is necessary its whether caution has become permanent by default.
A Shared Responsibility, Not a Sector Divide
This is not about fathers versus systems, it’s about alignment.
Providers, assessors, statutory agencies, and Courts all operate under pressure, risk, and scrutiny. We recognise that. But shared pressure should not mean fragmented pathways.
If a man is being asked to demonstrate change, then the system has a responsibility to:
articulate what change looks like
specify how it will be measured
and show how it will be acknowledged
Without that clarity, we are not managing risk, we are managing uncertainty and uncertainty, sustained over years, becomes its own form of harm.
A Gentle Challenge to the Sector
Our invitation to colleagues across the sector is this:
Let us strengthen — not weaken — our frameworks by making room for:
clear thresholds for progression
transparent recognition of sustained change
and defined transition points from protection to restoration
This is not a lowering of the bar, it’s a clarification of the pathway.
Children need safety, they also need hope, repair, and, where possible, restored relationships with fathers who have done the work to change in which there are many.
Closing Thought
Most of the men we work with are not asking to be trusted blindly, they are asking to be seen accurately.
If we believe change is possible and our programmes, policies, and investments suggest that we do then our systems must be capable of recognising it when it occurs. True accountability does not freeze a person in their worst moment, it holds them firmly, while allowing them to move forward.
We offer this reflection in partnership, not opposition — and with the belief that better listening can still lead us to better outcomes.
For fathers.
For mothers.
And most importantly, for children.
Restoring Mana, Building Legacy