"AN ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM"
From time to time, people ask for a different system. The alternative to an "adversarial system" is an INQUISITORIAL system, such as they have in most continental courts, where the judge conducts an enquiry as to truth. This can work in an open court system but it places a tremendous onus on the judge, the examining magistrate etc to be fair and impartial. It is the system advanced in "Corpus Juris", the EU's embryonic legal code which states that its aim is " a fairer, simpler and more efficient system of REPRESSION" (P. 40, my emphasis). As one of the authors is Professor John R. Spencer of Cambridge University, I don't think a mistranslation can be claimed here.
What the family court system already has is a cosy system of inquisitorial procedures, pre-agreed between the bench and the "caring professionals" of social services who provide the only credible witnesses. In this there is quite insufficient room for any real "adversarial" challenging and weighing of evidence. The enforcement of secrecy and the absence of a jury ( another feature of Corpus Juris and Roman law systems generally) makes it an hermetically sealed system, accessible only to initiates of the official class.
By imposing secrecy, allegedly in the interests of families, a Kafkaesque monster has been created. It is already very close to the non adversarial system because all the officials and the bench are playing for the same team without any open, public supervision.
Just because it is "continental" does not make it wrong. An alternative word for "inquisitorial" is "inquiry", as in Board of Inquiry, a format with which we are well familiar. And we have something of that already in the Coroners' Courts which, for all their faults, do mainly provide good service.
Your point though about the "tremendous onus on the judge" is well made, but that applies in any system. Perhaps on top of everything else, we need a more open system for appointing judges and - perhaps more importantly - an independent complaints system that enables us to get rid of judges when - as with Wall - they prove to be useless.