Terms of Reference

Are Fathers and Their Children Treated Justly?

The question

That question is the whole of what this Inquiry asks. It is a question rather than a claim, and it stays one. A record that opens with its own conclusion is read as an argument, and an argument is judged by whether you already agree with it. This is meant to be checkable by someone who does not.

What is examined

Fathers' Inquiry collects and publishes first-hand accounts from fathers about:

the interruption or loss of their relationship with their children,
how family courts handled their proceedings,
how police responded to matters involving their family,
how child protection and child intervention services acted,
what role expert assessment played,
and what the process cost them, in work, health, money and the people around them.

Alongside the accounts it publishes written analysis of what public data shows about the same questions. Every figure carries its primary source, the year of the data, the population it counts, and a plain statement of what it does not show.

What is not examined

Individual guilt or innocence. This Inquiry cannot decide who was right in any case, and does not try to. It does not test accounts the way a court would, and it makes no finding that any account is true.

Named individuals. No judge, lawyer, officer, caseworker, expert or other parent is identified in anything published here. Accounts are generalised so that what remains describes a process rather than a person. Where that cannot be done, the account is not published.

Children. No child is identified, in any way, in anything published here. This holds regardless of what a parent consents to. A child cannot consent to being written about, and the record is permanent.

Family law as a whole. This Inquiry has no view on what the law should say. It records what happened to the people who came to it and what the published data shows. What follows from that is for readers, and for people with the power to change things, to decide.

Who this covers

Fathers in the United States and Canada. That is a limit of what can be checked responsibly rather than a judgement about anywhere else, and it may widen later.

Within that, certain matters cannot be accepted at all – proceedings that are ongoing, matters subject to a publication ban or a confidentiality clause, accounts already told publicly under the witness's own name, and several categories defined by where the matter was heard. The Rules of Procedure list these in full, and anyone considering applying should read them first.

What is produced

Individual recordings, each with a full transcript, a neutral summary, and a note saying what was checked and what could not be.
Written analysis, sourced, with every figure carrying the complication that goes with it.
Refusal statistics – how many accounts were declined, and in categories, why.

There is no report at the end, because there is no end. Recordings are published as they clear their checks, and articles when they are written. Nothing waits for a date.

How the work is meant to be judged

By whether it is checkable.

Every figure names its source so a reader can open it. Every recording carries a note saying what was corroborated and what was not. The question set is published, so a reader can see exactly what was asked. The procedure is published in advance. The refusal rate is published.

None of this asks anyone to trust the people doing it, and that is the intention. Witnesses are anonymous, so a reader cannot weigh them personally. What is left to judge is the process, so the process is written down.

What this is not

Not a court. Not a tribunal. Not evidence. Not legal advice. Not affiliated with any political party, campaign or organisation that lobbies on family law. It takes no money and asks for none.

Scope of this version

These terms of reference apply from 2026. Where they change, the change and its date are recorded here. Work published under earlier terms is not revised to match later ones.