Putting Children First in Family Law | JSH Law

September 5, 2026/0 Comments/in 1. Start Here, Family Court Reality/by jessica susan hill

A child can be named in every court document and still be the least informed, least directly heard person in the case. They may never read the letters, attend the hearing or understand the legal arguments, but they live with every cancelled plan, hostile handover, change of routine and adult silence. “Putting children first” cannot simply mean using the right phrase in a statement while the child’s life is shaped by conflict they did not create and cannot control. It has to change the advice given, the language used, the evidence gathered and the way adults choose to conduct the case.

Family Court Reality | The Child’s Voice

Putting Children First Is Not a Slogan: What Family Law Professionals Must Change

Every parent, lawyer and court says the child comes first. The harder question is whether the system behaves as though that is true—especially when adult instructions, adversarial strategy, delay and professional convenience begin to drown out the child whose life is actually being decided.

“Putting the children first” may be the most repeated phrase in family law. It appears in letters, position statements, Cafcass reports, negotiations and judgments. Both parents may use it while proposing entirely different outcomes. Professionals use it to describe their approach. The court is legally required to treat the child’s welfare as paramount when determining questions about their upbringing.

Yet a child can still pass through months or years of proceedings without understanding what is happening, without knowing whether anybody believed them and without seeing their lived experience accurately reflected in the decisions made about them. Their name appears on every page. Their life is the subject of the dispute. But the process remains overwhelmingly adult-facing.

This is why the Pump Court Chambers episode Putting Children First matters. Host Rebekah Batt is joined by Edward Cooke, Charlotte Millard and Victoria Ellis to discuss the Family Solutions Group’s March 2026 report, Putting Children First: The Evolving Role of the Family Law Professional. Their discussion asks what professionals can do to reduce conflict, hear children more effectively and change the experience of family separation.

The podcast is constructive and hopeful. But it also raises a difficult challenge for the profession:

“If putting children first does not change the advice given, the language used, the evidence gathered or the way the case is conducted, it is branding—not practice.”

The report exposes a gap between principle and practice

The Family Solutions Group report was informed by a 2025 survey of 546 parents and professionals, together with interviews with nearly 50 people working across the family separation space. Its findings reveal broad support for a less adversarial and more child-focused approach.

92%believed professionals should have a responsibility towards children as well as the adult client.

94%believed family law professionals should actively seek to mitigate parental conflict.

34%felt the child’s voice is routinely considered in current practice.

That third figure should stop us. If the overwhelming majority agree that children matter, but only a minority believe their voices are routinely considered, the problem is not a shortage of child-centred language. It is the machinery that converts principle into practice.

The report calls for a Commissioner for Separated Families; clearer and more consistent thinking about child welfare; a less adversarial, problem-solving professional culture; appropriate training for everybody working with separated families; reflective supervision; and a recognised “kitemark” showing that practitioners have been trained to reduce conflict and support families well.

It also encourages professionals to share the Children’s Commissioner’s letter to separating parents. The letter emphasises that children cope better when the adults around them communicate calmly and shield them from conflict, while expressly acknowledging that court action is necessary in some families—particularly where safety concerns require it.

The child’s perspective

Children feel the professional process even when they never meet the professionals.

A solicitor’s aggressive letter may be read by only the adults, but the stress it creates can enter the home. An unnecessary allegation can harden positions. Delay can leave a child suspended between competing arrangements. A parent advised to “fight” may genuinely believe they are fighting for their child while the child experiences only an escalating war.

What the law already says about putting children first

Under section 1 of the Children Act 1989, when a court determines a question about a child’s upbringing, the child’s welfare is its paramount consideration. The welfare checklist directs attention to the child’s ascertainable wishes and feelings, physical and emotional needs, the likely effect of change, relevant characteristics, harm and each parent’s ability to meet the child’s needs.

But legal accuracy matters. The statutory paramountcy principle governs the court’s decision. It does not automatically turn a parent’s solicitor into the child’s representative, nor does it mean that the child chooses the outcome. A solicitor’s professional duties are owed to their client and to the court. Unless separately appointed for the child, the solicitor is not instructed by the child.

That does not prevent family lawyers from practising in a way that is alert to the consequences for children. A lawyer can give robust advice without inflaming the dispute. They can challenge a client’s proposed message, identify when a tactical demand is likely to damage trust, explain the difference between what feels fair to the adult and what serves the child, and refuse to dress retaliatory behaviour in the language of welfare.

A child’s voice is not the same as a child’s choice

The podcast asks how well the present system hears the voice of the child. This is one of the most important—and most easily misunderstood—questions in private family law.

Listening to a child does not mean asking them to decide where they live, how often they see a parent or which adult is telling the truth. Those are adult and judicial responsibilities. Nor does it mean repeatedly questioning a child until they provide an answer that can be quoted in proceedings.

Meaningful participation means giving the child an age-appropriate explanation, a safe opportunity to express what matters to them, and honest information about how their views will be used. It means taking account of communication needs, neurodivergence, disability, trauma, fear, loyalty conflict and the possibility that a child may say different things in different contexts.

A child may want:

to know what is happening without being told adult allegations;
to stop carrying messages between parents;
to keep important routines, friendships, pets and activities;
to love both parents without being treated as disloyal;
to have fear or reluctance taken seriously without being interrogated;
to correct inaccurate assumptions made about them;
to know who will hear their views and what will happen next; or
simply to be left out of the adult battle.

Children’s wishes and feelings must be considered in light of age and understanding. They may carry very substantial weight, but they are not determinative. The point is not to transfer the burden of decision-making to the child. It is to stop making decisions about a child using an adult-created version of what the child supposedly thinks.

The family law professional does more than transmit instructions

A traditional view of legal representation can sound simple: the client gives instructions; the professional advances the client’s case. But family cases are not ordinary disputes about money or contracts. Parents may need a workable relationship for years after the file closes. A cutting letter may produce a short-term tactical reaction and a long-term parenting problem.

This does not mean lawyers should become therapists or decline to advance a client’s lawful case. It means the exercise of professional judgment matters. There is a difference between accurately recording an allegation and amplifying it; between protecting a client and encouraging positional warfare; between advising firmly and promising vindication.

Child-focused professional practice may involve:

asking what practical outcome the child needs, rather than beginning with what the parent wants to “win”;
separating evidential issues from hurt, suspicion and interpretation;
using correspondence to solve a defined problem rather than score a point;
explaining that hostile language may eventually be read by Cafcass, a children’s guardian or the judge;
identifying where specialist domestic abuse, therapeutic, financial or parenting support is needed;
ensuring proposed arrangements are detailed enough to work in the child’s real life; and
helping the client understand that “reasonable” does not mean passive, weak or unprotected.

The professional test

Before sending the letter, making the allegation or escalating the application, ask: What legitimate purpose does this serve? What evidence supports it? What response is it likely to produce? And what will the child experience if it makes the conflict worse?

The danger of treating domestic abuse as “parental conflict”

Any campaign to reduce conflict must confront a serious risk: not all conflict is mutual, symmetrical or capable of being resolved through better communication.

Coercive control can continue after separation through child arrangements, repeated applications, financial pressure, surveillance, threats, hostile communications and the manipulation of handovers. A victim-survivor who sets boundaries, refuses unsafe arrangements or asks the court to determine allegations may be described as “conflictual” because the language of conflict records the visible dispute without examining who is creating it or why.

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 recognises a child as a victim of domestic abuse where the child sees, hears or experiences its effects and is related to either the victim or the perpetrator. Practice Direction 12J requires the court to identify at the earliest opportunity whether domestic abuse is raised as an issue and to consider its impact when deciding arrangements.

That legal and safeguarding analysis must come before generic demands for co-operation. Calm communication is not a cure for coercive control. Joint sessions are not automatically safe. A parent should not be pressured to disclose information, relax necessary boundaries or negotiate directly merely to demonstrate that they are child-focused.

Court is not always the failure

The report rightly challenges the reflexive use of adversarial litigation where families could resolve arrangements through supported, non-court routes. Mediation, child-inclusive mediation, collaborative practice, parenting programmes and structured negotiation can all be valuable.

The Child Arrangements Programme in Practice Direction 12B says non-court dispute resolution should be actively considered and attempted where safe and appropriate. It also expressly recognises that victims of domestic abuse are not expected to mediate and that other risk factors may prevent safe use of those services.

That qualification is essential. Some parents go to court because every attempt at agreement has been exploited. Some need enforceable orders, disclosure, findings of fact or protective measures. Some are dealing with unilateral decisions about schooling, relocation, medical treatment or the removal of contact. For them, the court is not an aggressive first choice. It may be the only institution with power to intervene.

We should therefore resist two equally damaging assumptions:

Assumption one

Every disputed case requires adversarial litigation and positional correspondence.

Assumption two

Every parent who seeks a court decision has failed to co-operate or is exposing the child to avoidable conflict.

A humane system should identify the difference early. It should provide a co-operative pathway where that is realistic and a properly resourced safety pathway where it is not.

What better professional practice would look like

The report’s emphasis on professional training and reflective supervision is important. Family professionals repeatedly absorb accounts of fear, betrayal, anger and loss. Without reflection, there is a risk of becoming overidentified with a client, excessively detached or drawn into the same polarised thinking that dominates the family.

Better practice would be visible in ordinary work:

Start with the child’s day. Where do they wake, travel, learn, regulate, maintain relationships and feel secure? A workable plan begins with life, not litigation.
Define the problem precisely. “Communication is difficult” is vague. Ten messages a day, unanswered medical questions or hostile handovers can be evidenced and addressed.
Use proportionate language. Not every disagreement is abuse; not every boundary is hostility; not every mistake is evidence of incapacity.
Identify safety issues early. Domestic abuse and safeguarding allegations require analysis, not mediation language pasted over them.
Give the child information. Children need honest, age-appropriate explanations about change and process without exposure to adult evidence.
Create safe routes for the child’s views. The method must suit the child and must not recruit them into a parent’s case.
Draft for the future relationship. The parties may still be parenting together long after the proceedings end.
Measure success differently. Winning every disputed point may be a poor result if the order is unworkable and the child remains trapped in hostility.

What this means for parents representing themselves

A litigant in person cannot redesign the family justice system. But you can make it easier for the court to see the child as a person rather than the subject of competing adult accounts.

Before filing a statement, sending an email or making a proposal, ask:

What is the specific issue the court needs to decide?
What does my child experience now?
What evidence shows that, independently of my interpretation?
What is the welfare impact of the present arrangement?
What practical arrangement am I proposing?
How will that proposal deal with school, travel, communication, health, routines and transitions?
Have I distinguished safeguarding concerns from ordinary parenting disagreements?
Am I asking the child to carry information or make an adult decision?
Does my language describe facts, or does it assign motives I cannot prove?
Would this document help a judge understand the child quickly?

Child-focused does not mean agreeing to everything. It does not mean abandoning a legitimate application, minimising abuse or accepting an unsafe proposal. It means grounding your position in the child’s welfare, explaining the evidence and asking for an order that can work outside the courtroom.

The reform agenda—and the questions it must answer

A Commissioner for Separated Families could bring much-needed national oversight to a fragmented landscape of courts, Cafcass, mediation, schools, health services, local authorities, parenting support and voluntary organisations. The Family Solutions Group’s accompanying briefing argues that separation is a widespread life event but no national body currently owns the whole picture.

The case for coordination is persuasive. But the reform must be designed carefully. A credible system will need to answer:

How will families be screened accurately and repeatedly for domestic abuse and child protection concerns?
Who decides that a case is “conflict” rather than coercive control—and what evidence informs that decision?
How will children communicate safely without becoming evidence-gatherers or decision-makers?
What independent support will children be able to access directly?
How will low-income families obtain early advice and representation where needed?
Will a professional kitemark measure real safeguarding competence or attendance at training?
How will outcomes be audited, including the experiences of children and victim-survivors?
What happens when non-court resolution fails or is used to delay an urgent decision?

There is also a resource problem that language alone cannot solve. A more humane letter does not cure delay. Training does not create legal aid. Encouraging parents to leave court cannot replace safe, affordable services in every area. Reform will fail if “putting children first” becomes a way to transfer responsibility from under-resourced institutions back onto parents without giving them the support to do anything differently.

My view

The Family Solutions Group report and Pump Court Chambers podcast are right to challenge the traditional boundaries of professional responsibility. A family lawyer may be instructed by one adult, but their work takes place inside a family system. The tone of the advice, the framing of the dispute and the decision to calm or escalate can affect the child whose name may never appear on the retainer.

But child-centred practice must be more than conflict reduction. It must be safeguarding-aware, evidence-led and capable of recognising power. It must understand that co-operation is not always possible, mediation is not always safe and court proceedings are not always the cause of the problem. Sometimes they are the response to it.

Putting children first means listening without making them choose. It means protecting them without using “protection” as a slogan. It means expecting professionals to exercise judgment rather than merely transmit hostility. It means designing systems around the reality that separation is emotional, relational, legal, financial and sometimes dangerous.

Most of all, it means asking a question more demanding than “What does my client want?” or “Which parent should win?”

“What will this child live with when all the adults have finished arguing?”

Practical support from JSH Law

Do you need help presenting your child’s welfare clearly?

JSH Law supports litigants in person to organise evidence, identify the issues the court must decide and prepare calm, child-focused documents. Support may include chronologies, statements, schedules, responses to Cafcass material, hearing preparation and practical proposals for child arrangements.

You do not need to arrive with a perfectly organised case. We can start with what has happened, what evidence exists and what your child needs the court to understand.

Book a 15-minute initial telephone consultation

Choose an available appointment below to explain briefly what is happening and discuss whether JSH Law may be able to support you.

If the booking form does not display, please visit the JSH Law contact page.

Listen and read further

About the author

Jessica Susan Hill | JSH Law

Jessica writes about the reality of navigating family proceedings, with a particular focus on evidence, domestic abuse, safeguarding, children’s welfare, procedural fairness and practical support for litigants in person.

Neurodivergent Children and the Family Court | JSH Law

September 5, 2026/0 Comments/in 1. Start Here, Family Court Reality/by jessica susan hill

A child can look calm in a Cafcass interview, survive a handover without crying and say they are “fine”—then spend the next two days unable to sleep, attend school or regulate at all. Too often, that reality is missed. Their distress is labelled defiance, inconsistency, manipulation or a parent’s influence before anyone properly asks what it is like for that particular child to move between homes, cope with uncertainty, process adult questions or recover from overload. A neurodivergent child is not a standard child with a difficult behaviour problem. And the Family Court cannot make a genuinely child-centred decision unless it understands the child in front of it, rather than the one it expects to see.

Family Court Reality | Neurodivergence

A Neurodivergent Child Is Not a Standard Child With a Difficult Behaviour Problem

A recent episode of Family Law in the UK asks what happens when a system built around standard assumptions about routine, communication and resilience makes decisions for a child whose brain does not work in a standard way.

It is an important conversation. In the Family Court, misunderstanding neurodivergence can distort the evidence, silence the child and produce arrangements that look equal on paper but are unworkable in real life.

I listened to the episode Neurodivergence in Children from the podcast Family Law in the UK, hosted by family solicitor Natasha Slabas, and immediately thought that more parents going through separation need to hear this discussion.

Natasha is joined by Rosemary Budden, a barrister at Queen Elizabeth Building who also sits as a private FDR judge, and Samantha Jago, a senior family lawyer and head of DMH Stallard’s Guildford family team. Samantha also speaks from personal experience as the parent of a teenager with severe ADHD. That combination matters. The episode is not an abstract discussion about labels. It is about what neurodivergence looks like in daily family life and what can go wrong when a court process does not understand it.

The central message I took from the episode is simple:

“The law cannot properly determine a neurodivergent child’s welfare unless the evidence explains how that particular child experiences the world.”

That sounds obvious. Yet family proceedings repeatedly convert complex lives into short statements, fixed handover times, alternating weekends and competing parental narratives. The danger is that a child’s distress is then interpreted through the conflict between the adults instead of through the child’s neurological, sensory, developmental and communication needs.

Neurodivergence is not one thing

“Neurodivergence” is an umbrella term rather than a single medical diagnosis. It may include autism, ADHD, dyspraxia, dyslexia, learning disabilities, Tourette syndrome and differences in sensory processing. Children may have more than one condition. Some will have a formal diagnosis; others will be awaiting assessment or have needs that are visible long before a diagnostic pathway is completed.

Nor will two children with the same diagnosis necessarily have the same needs. One autistic child may find transitions exceptionally difficult. Another may cope with change if it is predictable and visually explained. One child with ADHD may struggle primarily with time, impulse control and emotional regulation. Another may mask throughout school and collapse only when they reach the safety of home.

This is why a diagnosis should never become a substitute for evidence. “The child has autism” is not a welfare analysis. The court needs to know what that means for this child: their communication, sleep, food, schooling, sensory environment, attachments, regulation, medication, routines, travel, transitions and recovery after stress.

A crucial point

A child does not need to perform distress in a way that adults recognise before the distress is real.

A shutdown may be mistaken for calmness. Avoidance may be called defiance. Repetition may be treated as coaching. A delayed reaction after contact may be dismissed because the child appeared “fine” at handover. Masking may mean that the adults who see the child briefly observe something entirely different from the parent who supports the child afterwards.

The legal test is welfare—but welfare must be individual

In private children proceedings in England and Wales, the child’s welfare is the court’s paramount consideration under section 1 of the Children Act 1989. The welfare checklist requires the court to consider, among other matters:

the child’s ascertainable wishes and feelings, considered in the light of their age and understanding;
their physical, emotional and educational needs;
the likely effect of any change in their circumstances;
their age, background and any characteristics the court considers relevant;
any harm they have suffered or are at risk of suffering; and
how capable each parent is of meeting their needs.

For a neurodivergent child, those factors are inseparable from the child’s functioning. A change that appears minor to an adult—different bedding, an unfamiliar smell, a changed journey, a disrupted bedtime or uncertainty about who will collect them—may have a significant cumulative effect. The legal question is not whether another child of the same age ought to cope. It is how this child is likely to be affected.

Equal time is not automatically equal welfare

One of the episode’s most useful themes is the effect of moving between households. Family courts understandably seek to preserve a child’s meaningful relationship with both parents where it is safe. But that aim cannot be reduced to arithmetic.

A schedule may look balanced because the nights are evenly divided. It may nevertheless impose repeated transitions, forgotten equipment, changes of sensory environment, competing routines and exhausting journeys. For a child who depends on predictability, the true cost may appear in school refusal, sleep disruption, meltdowns, shutdowns, anxiety, toileting problems or days needed to regulate afterwards.

The answer is not necessarily less time with a parent. It may be fewer handovers, longer blocks, consistent belongings in both homes, identical visual calendars, protected recovery time, agreed language, calmer transfer arrangements or a gradual plan. In some families, creative solutions such as “nesting”—the child remaining in one home while the parents rotate—may be considered. Nesting will not be practical or affordable for everyone, and it can generate its own boundaries and conflict. The point is that the court’s toolbox should be wider than a standard alternate-weekend template.

Listening to the child requires more than asking a question

The statutory reference to “ascertainable” wishes and feelings is important. It recognises that the task is to discover the child’s actual perspective, not merely to record the answer obtained through one conversation conducted in an adult-designed format.

A neurodivergent child may:

interpret questions literally;
need additional processing time;
agree in order to end an uncomfortable interaction;
struggle with open-ended or hypothetical questions;
communicate more reliably through writing, drawing, visual tools or familiar augmentative communication;
mask distress in front of an unfamiliar professional;
find eye contact or a formal interview environment overwhelming;
give different accounts in different settings because their sense of safety and regulation differs; or
be unable to explain the cause of a powerful bodily response.

None of those features proves that a child’s account is accurate or inaccurate. They do mean that communication method, context and professional skill matter. A child’s voice is not properly heard merely because an adult asked, “Where do you want to live?” and wrote down the answer.

The court must also avoid two opposite errors. It should not dismiss genuine wishes because the child communicates differently. Equally, it should not place on the child the burden of choosing between parents. Wishes and feelings are part of welfare, not a referendum and not a shortcut around careful analysis.

Behaviour is evidence—but it needs interpretation

Family cases are full of disputed explanations. One parent may say a child is dysregulated after contact. The other may say the reporting parent is anxious, hostile or influencing the child. The court may hear that the child behaves well in one home and struggles in the other.

The correct response is not to leap to whichever narrative sounds simplest. It is to ask better questions:

What happened before, during and after the behaviour?
Is there a repeated pattern linked to transitions, sensory load, sleep, school or uncertainty?
Does the child mask outside a safe environment?
What do school, health and other independent records show?
Are both homes implementing the same strategies?
Has the child’s communication profile been understood?
Could trauma, domestic abuse, attachment, developmental difference and neurodivergence be interacting?
What alternative explanations have actually been tested?

This is particularly important where allegations of manipulation or “parental alienation” enter a case. Neurodivergent distress must not be casually converted into evidence against a parent. Nor should a diagnostic label be used to avoid examining abuse, harmful parenting or other causes of reluctance, resistance or refusal. The court must undertake a disciplined causal analysis. Diagnosis, trauma and family dynamics can coexist.

What evidence helps?

The podcast makes a practical distinction. Where parents agree about the nature and effect of the child’s needs, an agreed written summary at an early stage may narrow the dispute and help the court focus on workable arrangements. Where the parents materially disagree, independent evidence may be necessary.

Useful material can include:

diagnostic or assessment reports;
Education, Health and Care Plan documents and SEN support plans;
occupational therapy, speech and language therapy or paediatric evidence;
school attendance, exclusion, behaviour and pastoral records;
existing professional recommendations about routine, communication or sensory regulation;
a short, neutral schedule of the child’s daily needs;
a focused chronology of changes and observable responses;
handover or regulation records that are factual rather than argumentative; and
proposals explaining how each parent will meet the same identified needs.

Parents should resist the temptation to file every message, photograph and diary entry without structure. Volume is not the same as proof. A court is more likely to understand the issue if the evidence identifies the proposition, the source and the practical consequence for the proposed order.

Expert evidence in children proceedings is controlled by the court and must be necessary to assist it to resolve the proceedings justly. A parent should not privately commission an expert report for use in the case without first understanding the procedural rules. Sometimes the best evidence already exists in the child’s treating or educational records. In other cases, a jointly instructed and appropriately qualified expert may be required. The question should be focused: not simply “Does this child have autism?”, but what arrangements, communication methods or transition plan are required in light of the child’s presentation?

Make the evidence do a job

For each document, ask: what fact does this prove, where does it come from, and what practical difference should it make to the order? A smaller, well-organised body of evidence will often be more useful than hundreds of pages without explanation.

The housing issue exposes a gap in the law

One of the hardest parts of the episode concerns housing after separation. Samantha describes a financial remedy case involving a severely autistic, almost non-verbal child whose dependence on a familiar home and routine was not, in her view, given sufficient weight before sale of the property was ordered.

The legal distinction matters. In Children Act proceedings, the child’s welfare is paramount. In financial remedy proceedings, under section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, the court gives first consideration to the welfare of any minor child of the family while assessing the full statutory circumstances. The child’s welfare is not the paramount consideration in the same way.

There are obvious reasons why a financial court cannot preserve every family home. Resources may be insufficient to house two households without sale. Mortgage capacity, income, debts and both parties’ needs matter. But the episode raises a legitimate question: does “first consideration” do enough work when moving home is not merely upsetting but potentially destabilising in a profound and predictable way for a disabled or neurodivergent child?

At a minimum, the evidence should translate the child’s needs into practical financial consequences. Could sale be deferred? Is a longer transition required? Must alternative accommodation preserve a particular layout, school placement or quiet space? Would additional bedrooms be needed for regulation, carers or specialist equipment? What is the cost of suitable accommodation rather than generic accommodation? A bare assertion that the child “needs stability” is much easier to overlook than properly evidenced housing requirements and realistic options.

Neurodivergent parents matter too

Although this episode focuses on children, the same proceedings may involve a neurodivergent parent. Court forms, rapid oral exchanges, ambiguous directions, noisy waiting areas, remote hearings, executive-function demands and the expectation that a distressed person will organise thousands of pages can create real participation barriers.

Under Part 3A of the Family Procedure Rules and Practice Direction 3AA, the court must consider whether a party’s participation or the quality of a person’s evidence is likely to be diminished by vulnerability and whether participation directions are needed. Depending on the person and the hearing, practical measures might include clear written agendas, breaks, additional processing time, questions in plain language, reduced sensory load, permission to use assistive technology or communication support.

An adjustment is not an unfair advantage. It is a means of enabling effective participation. A parent who communicates differently should not be mistaken for evasive, cold, aggressive or lacking insight without careful consideration of other explanations.

What parents can ask the court to consider

If neurodivergence is relevant to your child’s case, focus on needs and consequences rather than the label alone. Depending on the facts, it may help to ask for:

a concise agreed profile of the child, if agreement is possible;
directions for identified school, health or therapy records;
carefully framed expert evidence where it is genuinely necessary;
a child-appropriate method of obtaining wishes and feelings;
a parenting plan dealing expressly with routine, medication, communication, sensory needs and transitions;
fewer or differently timed handovers;
a gradual introduction or review period;
consistent visual calendars and language across homes;
a plan for school equipment, comfort items and medication;
participation directions for a neurodivergent parent or witness; and
reasons explaining how the final arrangements meet the child’s identified additional needs.

Keep proposals specific. “The child needs routine” is a starting point. “The child requires the same bedtime sequence, no school-morning handover, 48 hours’ visual notice of changes and their communication device in both homes” gives the court something it can understand and, if appropriate, build into an arrangement.

The deeper problem: systems mistake compliance for coping

This podcast matters because it exposes a structural weakness in family justice. Courts deal in events: an application, an interview, a hearing, a handover. Neurodivergent children often experience the cumulative load between those events. The system sees the child enter a room quietly. It may not see the preparation required to get them there, the masking while they are present or the collapse afterwards.

A genuinely child-centred system would not ask only whether contact happened. It would ask what it cost the child, what helped, what caused dysregulation and what should change next time. It would not assume that the absence of visible distress proves the absence of difficulty. It would recognise that predictability, communication and sensory safety are not optional comforts. For some children, they are the conditions that make family relationships possible.

That requires better training for judges, lawyers, Cafcass officers, social workers and everyone who gathers a child’s wishes and feelings. It also requires humility. Professionals should be able to say: “The child’s response does not make sense under my current assumptions, so I need better evidence,” rather than forcing the child into a familiar adult narrative.

My view

The Family Court does not need a separate concept of justice for neurodivergent children. It needs to apply the welfare principle properly: individually, evidentially and without treating a standard arrangement as a neutral starting point.

The order that appears simplest for adults may be the most demanding for the child. The child who looks calm may be working the hardest to cope. The parent reporting distress may be describing what happens outside the professional’s narrow window of observation. And the label attached to behaviour may determine the direction of a case unless somebody stops and asks what else the evidence could mean.

Natasha Slabas, Rosemary Budden and Samantha Jago have opened a valuable conversation. The next step is to turn that understanding into practice: better questions, better evidence, more imaginative arrangements and decisions that describe the actual child—not an imaginary average one.

Practical support from JSH Law

Does your child’s neurodivergence need to be explained more clearly to the Family Court?

JSH Law supports litigants in person to turn a complex history into clear, child-focused material the court can actually use. This may include organising records, identifying welfare issues, preparing chronologies and schedules, responding to Cafcass material, drafting court documents and developing practical proposals for hearings.

You do not need to arrive with a perfectly organised case. The purpose of support is to help you make sense of what matters and present it calmly, proportionately and effectively.

Book a 15-minute initial telephone consultation

Choose an available appointment below to tell me briefly what is happening and discuss whether JSH Law may be able to support you.

If the booking form does not display, please visit the JSH Law contact page.

Listen and read further

Neurodivergence in Children, Family Law in the UK — the podcast episode discussed in this article.
Queen Elizabeth Building: Rosemary Budden’s episode note.
Children Act 1989, section 1.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, section 25.
Family Procedure Rules 2010, Part 3A.

About the author

Jessica Susan Hill | JSH Law

Jessica writes about the reality of navigating family proceedings, with a particular focus on evidence, domestic abuse, safeguarding, children’s welfare, procedural fairness and practical support for litigants in person.

Stolen Babies: Britain’s Forced Adoption Scandal

September 3, 2026/0 Comments/in 1. Start Here, Family Court Reality/by jessica susan hill

They were told they had “given up” their babies. The evidence now shows that many had done nothing of the sort. BBC documentary Stolen Babies exposes how unmarried mothers were shamed, controlled and denied meaningful support before their children were taken for adoption through a system involving the state, churches, social services, adoption agencies and the NHS. Britain has finally apologised—but the uncomfortable question remains: has modern family justice fully learned what happens when institutional certainty becomes more powerful than individual evidence?

Family Court Reality | Adoption | Human Rights

Stolen Babies: Britain’s Forced Adoption Scandal — and the Question Family Justice Must Still Answer

The BBC documentary Stolen Babies exposes how unmarried mothers were shamed, controlled and separated from their babies through a system supported by the state, religious organisations, social services and the NHS. Britain has finally apologised. But an apology for the past means very little unless we are prepared to examine how institutional power operates in family justice today.

Published by JSH Law | 3 September 2026

At a glance

The documentary describes a UK-wide system in which almost 250,000 unmarried women were separated from their babies during the post-war period.
A parliamentary inquiry found that many mothers were denied meaningful choice, accurate information and practical support.
Babies were frequently removed before mothers signed the formal adoption papers.
The state, churches, adoption agencies, social workers and health professionals all formed parts of the system.
The UK Government formally apologised for the state’s role in England on 2 July 2026.
Modern adoption law is fundamentally different, but adoption without parental consent remains legally possible.
The lasting lesson is that legal process alone does not guarantee justice. Evidence, genuine choice, family support and rigorous scrutiny of professional decision-making remain essential.

What Stolen Babies exposes

Stolen Babies is a 90-minute documentary made by Finestripe Productions for BBC Scotland and BBC Two. It is directed by Kate Scholefield and told principally through the testimony of mothers, adopted people and witnesses who encountered the system.

The programme is not simply about individual cruelty. Its importance lies in exposing an infrastructure.

Unmarried pregnant women and girls were sent away from their homes. Some were placed in mother and baby homes. Some were pregnant following rape or sexual exploitation. Many were treated as though pregnancy outside marriage was evidence of moral failure. Their vulnerability was used against them instead of becoming a reason to protect and support them.

The documentary describes institutions working together within a system shaped by prejudice about sex, marriage, class, race and respectability. The women most likely to lose their babies were frequently young, unmarried and working-class. Adoptive couples were commonly presented as able to provide a “better life”, while the possibility of helping a mother build a safe life with her own child was barely considered.

The scandal was not merely that babies were adopted. It was that vulnerable women were deliberately denied the information, resources and freedom that could have allowed them to make a genuine decision.

The numbers need to be explained carefully

The documentary refers to almost 250,000 unmarried women across the United Kingdom having their babies forcibly taken for adoption during the post-war period.

The 2022 Joint Committee on Human Rights report used different figures and a narrower geographical focus. It recorded approximately 500,000 adoptions in England and Wales between 1949 and 1976, but explained that this total included step-parent and other forms of adoption. The closest figure it could establish for babies of unmarried mothers re-registered during part of that period was approximately 185,000.

These figures are not necessarily contradictory. They reflect different geographical areas, periods and methods of calculation. Records are incomplete, some practices continued outside the dates examined by Parliament, and not every adoption during the period occurred in coercive circumstances.

Precision matters. The case for accountability is powerful enough without presenting an uncertain estimate as an exact count.

A system built around shame

Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights inquiry received written evidence, survey responses and direct testimony from mothers and adopted people. Although every person’s experience was different, the Committee found strikingly similar patterns.

1. Pregnancy was treated as wrongdoing

Women described being spoken about as though they were not present. Some were called immoral, irresponsible or socially dangerous. Pregnancy outside marriage was treated as evidence that the mother was defective, rather than as a situation in which she might need housing, money, childcare, protection or compassionate medical care.

Some women were made to undertake repetitive domestic labour in mother and baby homes. Parliament heard allegations of women being denied adequate antenatal care, pain relief and humane treatment during labour. The 2026 Education Committee described some of that treatment as inhumane.

2. Adoption was presented as the only respectable outcome

Mothers reported asking for help to keep their babies but receiving little or no information about financial assistance, accommodation, childcare or family support. Some were told, expressly or by implication, that keeping a child would be selfish and that a married adoptive couple could offer something they never could.

This was not neutral counselling. It was a predetermined destination presented as advice.

3. Mothers and babies were deliberately prevented from bonding

Parliamentary evidence described babies being placed out of their mothers’ reach, mothers being prevented from holding or feeding them, and breastfeeding being discouraged because it might strengthen the bond between mother and child.

That detail is particularly disturbing. Attachment was not an unforeseen complication. It was treated as an obstacle to completing the adoption.

4. Separation often came before formal consent

Under the Adoption of Children Act 1949, a mother could not formally consent to adoption until at least six weeks after the birth. Yet many babies were physically removed much earlier.

By the time the mother was asked to sign, she might already have been separated from her baby for weeks, returned home or sent back to school, subjected to relentless pressure and led to believe that the decision could not be reversed.

The paperwork could therefore give the appearance of consent without establishing that the decision had been free, informed and voluntary.

5. The truth was replaced with a damaging story

Many adopted people grew up believing that their mothers had not wanted them. Mothers were left carrying the accusation that they had simply “given away” their children.

The parliamentary evidence shows why that language is so harmful. Many mothers wanted to keep their babies. Some said that even a small amount of assistance or one person genuinely on their side might have changed everything.

The lie did damage in both directions. Mothers were made to feel guilty for supposedly abandoning their children. Adopted people were left questioning why they had been unwanted. In many cases, neither belief reflected what had really happened.

The long-term harm did not end with the adoption order

The system treated adoption as an administrative conclusion. For the people affected, it was often the beginning of lifelong grief.

Mothers reported depression, anxiety, post-traumatic symptoms, relationship difficulties and fear surrounding later pregnancies. Some did not have more children because they could not bear another experience of motherhood while their first child remained somewhere unknown to them.

Adopted people described difficulties involving identity, belonging, rejection, cultural disconnection and missing medical histories. Some discovered only much later that the story they had been given about their mother was incomplete or false.

Reunion could be deeply meaningful, but it could not restore a lost childhood. It also could not guarantee an easy relationship between two people attempting to bridge decades of separation, silence and conflicting information.

This is why tracing and reunion services must be trauma-informed. Finding a relative is not the same as repairing a relationship. People need preparation, choice, skilled intermediary support and continued help after contact is made.

Why the state was responsible

It is tempting to describe this as a product of outdated social attitudes. That explanation is insufficient.

Social prejudice was certainly central, but prejudice acquired power because institutions converted it into practice. Local authorities, adoption agencies, churches, social workers, hospitals, doctors, nurses and midwives each occupied positions of authority. Public money supported parts of the system. Government regulated adoption but failed to impose and enforce standards capable of protecting mothers and babies.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights concluded that the Government was ultimately responsible for the acts and omissions that left unmarried mothers and their babies without adequate protection.

In March 2026, the House of Commons Education Committee revisited the issue. It heard that “coercion was baked into the entire system” and criticised the years during which survivors had repeatedly been required to recount traumatic experiences while waiting for decisive government action.

That is an important lesson in itself. Institutions often say they need more evidence when the people affected have already supplied evidence repeatedly. The burden of proving systemic failure can become another burden placed upon those who were harmed by it.

The 2026 Government apology

On 2 July 2026, Prime Minister Keir Starmer delivered a formal apology in Parliament on behalf of the Government for the state’s role in historic forced adoption practices in England.

Addressing those affected, he said:

“The shame is not yours. The shame was never yours. The shame is ours.”

The Government announcement accepted that women had been denied genuine choice, made to feel ashamed or unworthy and separated from their children through systems funded and legitimised by the state.

A £4 million package over three years was announced to support:

easier access to adoption records;
intermediary services helping people search for and reconnect with relatives;
improved health and mental-health support;
peer support;
a lived-experience reference group; and
research and projects recording survivors’ testimony.

Scotland and Wales issued their own governmental apologies in 2023. The Church of England formally apologised for its role in June 2026.

An apology is a beginning, not a remedy

The apology matters. Official acknowledgement can correct the record and relocate shame from the people who were harmed to the institutions responsible.

But an apology cannot stand alone.

Four million pounds across three years is a limited sum when measured against the number of people potentially affected and the complexity of record searches, therapeutic support and family reconnection.

Accountability must therefore be measured by what happens next:

How quickly can people obtain their records?
What happens where records are missing, inaccurate, altered or destroyed?
Will specialist, adoption-competent therapy be available without unaffordable waiting lists?
Will intermediary support continue after initial contact?
How will adoptees obtain important medical and genetic information?
Will mothers, adopted people and wider families be able to hold the Government accountable for delivery?
Will the lessons alter present-day professional culture?

If those questions are not answered, there is a danger that the apology becomes another carefully worded institutional document while survivors continue doing the practical and emotional work themselves.

Is modern adoption the same?

No. It is legally and factually important not to suggest that the post-war system exposed by Stolen Babies is identical to adoption practice in England and Wales today.

Modern adoption operates under the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The child’s welfare throughout their life is the court’s paramount consideration. The court must consider the likely lifelong effect of adoption, the child’s relationships with relatives, the effect of ceasing to be a member of the birth family, the child’s background and the harm the child has suffered or may suffer.

Where a parent agrees to adoption, consent must be properly witnessed and confirmed as free and unconditional. Cafcass explains that its reporting officer must be satisfied that the parent understands what adoption means and genuinely agrees.

Where a parent does not agree, a local authority normally needs a placement order before placing the child for adoption. The court may dispense with parental consent only where the statutory test is met, including where the child’s welfare requires consent to be dispensed with.

An adoption order permanently transfers legal parenthood to the adopters and ordinarily brings the birth parents’ parental responsibility and legal relationship with the child to an end. It is one of the most far-reaching orders a court can make.

“Nothing else will do”

In Re B (A Child) [2013] UKSC 33, the Supreme Court emphasised that adoption against a parent’s wishes is a last resort. The familiar phrase is that such an order is appropriate only where “nothing else will do”.

In Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146, the Court of Appeal required proper analysis of the realistic options. Social workers, children’s guardians and judges must examine the advantages and disadvantages of those options, the risks involved and the support that could make a family placement workable.

Those principles do not mean that adoption can never be ordered without consent. There are cases involving severe abuse, neglect or an inability to provide safe care in which adoption is necessary to protect a child and provide lifelong security.

They do mean that adoption must not be selected merely because it appears simpler, cheaper or more secure than properly supporting a child within their family.

Modern safeguards must be tested in practice

It is easy to point to modern statutes, lawyers, guardians and judicial oversight and conclude that the problem has been solved.

Those protections are real and significant. But a safeguard written into law is only effective if it operates properly in an individual case.

The history exposed by Stolen Babies requires us to ask difficult present-day questions:

Are families offered practical support early enough, or only assessed once crisis has become entrenched?
Is poverty being carefully distinguished from neglect?
Are domestic abuse victims judged for the consequences of abuse while the perpetrator’s behaviour receives less scrutiny?
Are disability, neurodivergence, learning difficulties or trauma treated as support needs—or converted into predictions of parental failure?
Are relatives identified and assessed early, fairly and with an open mind?
Do parents genuinely understand the local authority’s concerns and what they must demonstrate?
Are assessments based on verified evidence, or are earlier professional opinions repeatedly copied until repetition begins to look like proof?
Are parents given a meaningful opportunity to challenge factual errors?
Does the court receive a properly evidenced comparison of all realistic options?
Can the system demonstrate what support was considered, offered, attempted and reviewed?

Asking those questions is not anti-adoption and it is not anti-safeguarding. It is what lawful, proportionate and evidence-led safeguarding demands.

The danger of institutional certainty

One of the clearest lessons from the historic scandal is that large numbers of professionals can participate in injustice while believing—or telling themselves—that they are acting in a child’s interests.

The mothers were not usually confronted by one obviously unlawful decision. They encountered a sequence of professional encounters pointing in the same direction. A family member expressed shame. A doctor judged them. A social worker presented adoption as inevitable. A religious organisation reinforced the moral message. A hospital controlled access to the baby. An agency arranged the placement. A court later approved the legal outcome.

Each stage helped validate the next.

That is why agreement between professionals cannot, by itself, prove that a decision is correct. Courts must examine the source and quality of the evidence, not simply count how many professionals have repeated the same conclusion.

A trauma-informed system must understand behaviour in context

A frightened, confused, angry or apparently disengaged parent may be responding to trauma, shame, domestic abuse or the fear of losing a child. That behaviour still needs to be managed safely, but it should not automatically be interpreted as indifference, dishonesty or an inability to change.

The child’s story must not be reduced to a clean break

Adoption can provide safety, commitment and a loving family. Many adopted people have positive relationships with their adoptive families, and nothing in this history justifies dismissing that reality.

But love within an adoptive family does not erase the child’s earlier identity, relationships, ancestry, culture or medical history.

A child can be loved by an adoptive family and still experience grief or questions about separation. An adopted adult can value their upbringing and still need truthful records. A reunion can bring joy and still expose loss. These experiences do not cancel one another out.

Modern adoption practice must therefore move beyond the idea that a legal order creates an entirely new child with no continuing need to understand what came before.

Life-story work, accurate records, safe contact and honest explanations are not optional extras. They are part of protecting identity and emotional wellbeing throughout life.

What the current figures show

According to the Department for Education’s latest published statistics, 3,040 children left care through adoption in England during the year ending 31 March 2025. On 31 March 2025, 1,660 looked-after children were placed for adoption.

These numbers are far below the scale of post-war adoption, but each case involves a profound and usually irreversible decision about a child’s legal identity and family relationships.

The relatively smaller number of modern adoptions does not remove the need for exceptional care. It reinforces it.

If adoption is being proposed for your child

A parent facing a local authority plan for adoption should obtain specialist legal advice immediately. Do not wait until the final hearing or until prospective adopters have been identified.

Practical steps may include:

Speak to a specialist public law children solicitor. Parents and certain other parties may be entitled to legal aid in care proceedings without the usual means and merits tests.
Read every assessment carefully. Identify factual errors, unsupported conclusions, missing evidence and important information that has been overlooked.
Identify family members early. Tell your solicitor about relatives or connected people who may be able to care for the child. Delay can make family assessment more difficult.
Ask what support has been considered. This may include domestic abuse support, mental-health treatment, parenting work, supported accommodation, substance misuse services, practical help or assistance from the wider family.
Keep a clear chronology. Record appointments, assessments, contact sessions, services requested, help offered, work completed and changes made.
Engage, but do not agree inaccurately. Cooperation does not require you to accept allegations or conclusions that are wrong. Respond calmly and with evidence.
Make documents child-focused. Explain what has changed, how risks will be managed and why the proposed plan meets the child’s needs safely.
Act urgently if circumstances change. Once a child has been placed for adoption, opposing the final adoption application becomes procedurally and evidentially more difficult.

What meaningful reform should look like

If Britain is serious about learning from this history, reform must go beyond apologising for a closed chapter.

It should include:

rapid and compassionate access to complete adoption records;
specialist, funded and trauma-informed therapeutic support;
safe intermediary services before, during and after family contact;
ways to preserve and update important medical information;
independent research into lifelong outcomes for adopted people and their families;
meaningful involvement of mothers and adopted people in designing services;
better preservation, auditing and explanation of records;
early support for families before crisis becomes removal;
rigorous assessment of kinship options;
greater transparency about the evidence relied upon in permanent placement decisions; and
professional cultures in which disagreement, challenge and reflection are treated as safeguards rather than threats.

The question family justice must still answer

Stolen Babies shows what happens when a society decides that certain mothers are less worthy, certain families are less respectable and certain professionals should be trusted without sufficient challenge.

The language has changed. The law has changed. The safeguards are stronger. Those facts matter.

But the most important safeguard is not the ability of an institution to describe itself as child-focused. It is its willingness to prove, through evidence, fairness and accountable reasoning, that it has genuinely considered the child’s whole family, the support that could be provided, the harm caused by permanent separation and every realistic alternative.

History does not repeat itself only by recreating the same buildings, forms or terminology. It repeats when institutional assumptions become stronger than individual evidence; when vulnerability is mistaken for unworthiness; when practical support is withheld and the resulting struggle is then used as proof that separation was inevitable.

Britain has apologised for taking babies from mothers whom it chose not to help. The test of that apology is whether today’s family justice system can always demonstrate that it tried honestly, practically and safely to keep a child within their family before deciding that permanent separation was necessary.

Support for people affected by historic forced adoption

The Government’s current support information identifies FamilyConnect as a confidential service offering counselling, help locating records and support with family reconnection where appropriate.

FamilyConnect: 0300 1800 205 or familyconnect.org.uk
Government information and support: historic forced adoption support guidance
Samaritans: 116 123, free at any time, if the subject has caused immediate distress or you need someone to speak to.

How JSH Law can help

If you are navigating care proceedings, a proposed placement order or another complex family court case, clear evidence and early preparation matter.

JSH Law provides practical, evidence-led and trauma-informed support for litigants in person, including help with chronologies, statements, schedules of evidence, document organisation, responses to assessments, hearing preparation and understanding the issues the court is being asked to decide.

JSH Law does not replace the need for a specialist public law children solicitor where adoption or care proceedings are involved, but we can help you organise your information, communicate clearly and prepare effectively alongside your legal representation.

Book a consultation

Sources and further reading

Your Nervous System Is Not Separate From Your Family Court Case

September 3, 2026/0 Comments/in 1. Start Here, Family Court Reality/by jessica susan hill

A parent can be frightened, exhausted and emotional — and still be right to be concerned. Yet in too many family-court cases, particularly where coercive control or safeguarding concerns are raised, a mother’s entirely human response to prolonged pressure becomes the focus instead of the risk she is trying to explain. She is called “anxious”, “fixated” or “unable to move on”, while the crucial questions are left unanswered: what has happened, what is happening now, what is the pattern, and what does it mean for the child?

Family Court Reality | Domestic Abuse | Safeguarding

Why a frightened, exhausted parent should not be mistaken for an unreliable one — and why children’s words must be understood in context.

Content note: This article discusses domestic abuse, coercive control, post-separation abuse and the experience of family-court proceedings.

There is a pattern that many parents, particularly mothers raising safeguarding concerns, will recognise immediately.

They are frightened, so they are described as “anxious”. They keep trying to explain a concern that has not been properly addressed, so they are said to be “fixated”. They raise the same issue again because the risk remains unresolved, so they are told that they are “unable to move on”. They react emotionally after prolonged coercion, pressure, litigation and fear, and suddenly their reaction is treated as the issue.

Meanwhile, the original question can quietly disappear: what happened, what is happening now, and what does the evidence show?

This article was prompted by a thoughtful post from Lisa Arterton, a coercive-control and post-separation-abuse specialist. Her central observation deserves much wider attention: a person’s nervous system is not separate from their legal case.

A normal response to an abnormal situation

Family proceedings can demand a remarkable amount from a parent who is already overwhelmed. They may be managing handovers, repeated hostile messages, hearings, applications, legal bills, work, parenting, poor sleep and the fear that one badly worded email will be used against them.

That does not mean every allegation is correct. It does not mean every difficult co-parenting situation is coercive control. It does mean that professionals and courts should be careful not to treat a parent’s understandable distress as a shortcut answer to the safeguarding question.

A person can be anxious and right to be concerned. They can be emotional and trying to protect a child. They can revisit an issue because it has not been investigated, because new evidence has emerged, or because its impact has not stopped.

“Why does Mum keep raising this?” is not a substitute for asking: “What is she raising, what evidence exists, and what does it mean for this child?”

The law requires a safeguarding lens — not a personality test

In England and Wales, where domestic abuse is alleged, admitted or there is another reason to believe that it may have occurred, Practice Direction 12J applies. It requires the court to identify and consider domestic abuse and the risk of harm to the child and the parent with whom the child is living.

It recognises that domestic abuse can cause children direct psychological and emotional harm, and can also affect them indirectly by impairing the parenting capacity of either parent. The court must not make arrangements that expose a child or a parent to an unmanageable risk of harm.

The Domestic Abuse Act statutory guidance also recognises children as victims in their own right where they see, hear or experience the effects of abuse. Coercive or controlling behaviour is not defined by one dramatic incident; it is often an intentional pattern of behaviour over time.

That matters. A case should not be reduced to whether one parent appears calmer in a Cafcass call, more polished in a statement, or more “reasonable” in a single email. The relevant question is whether the evidence, the history and the current arrangements reveal a pattern of harm, pressure, control or risk.

Context changes the meaning of an email, an agreement or a “reasonable” offer

An individual email may look calm. A proposal may look reasonable. A sudden willingness to compromise may look reassuring. But no document should be assessed in a vacuum where there is a concern about coercive control or litigation abuse.

Useful questions include:

What happened immediately before this message or proposal?
What happened when the other parent said no, asked for time, or sought advice?
What happened when they stopped responding?
Did the behaviour settle when agreement was reached, or did the demands simply change?
Was an apparent concession followed by fresh pressure?
Is there a repeated pattern across messages, handovers, finances, applications or contact arrangements?

This is not about constructing a story to fit a conclusion. It is about resisting the opposite mistake: treating each incident as separate when the evidence may show a connected pattern.

Important: “I just want this to stop” is not always informed, free agreement. In high-pressure situations, a person may agree because they are exhausted, frightened or financially and emotionally depleted. That is why significant decisions should be made with time, clear information and appropriate support.

Children’s wishes and feelings: listen carefully, not mechanically

A child’s wishes and feelings matter. They are part of the welfare checklist and must be treated seriously. But listening to a child is not the same as lifting a sentence out of its environment and treating it as a complete answer.

A child’s words may be influenced by many things: loyalty pressure, fear of upsetting a parent, exposure to adult narratives, a desire to reduce conflict, a wish to feel safe in the home they must return to, or a genuine and independently held preference. The task is not to assume coercion. The task is to assess properly.

Questions worth asking include:

How long has the child expressed this view, and has it changed over time?
What language is the child using, and does it sound age-appropriate and authentically their own?
What has the child experienced, heard or been told?
What happens if the child disagrees with either parent?
Are there observable changes in mood, school attendance, behaviour, sleep or presentation around contact?
Are there safe, independent sources of information, such as school, GP records, police logs or other professionals?

This is not an argument for dismissing children’s voices. It is an argument for taking them seriously enough to understand the conditions in which those voices have developed. As Cafcass itself puts it, its role is to ensure the child’s voice is heard by the court and decisions are made in the child’s best interests — those are related, but not identical, questions.

When the focus shifts from risk to the person raising it

One of the most damaging features of some cases is the shift in focus from the safeguarding concern to the conduct of the parent raising it.

There may be an allegation. Then a report. Then evidence. Then a request for somebody to investigate it. If the issue remains unresolved, the parent raises it again. At that point, they may begin to fear that persistence itself will be used against them.

That is a dangerous position for any parent. It can make a person doubt their own judgment, go silent when they should be seeking help, or flood professionals with every detail because they are terrified that the one important point will otherwise be missed.

The answer is neither silence nor sending 4,000 pages without explanation. It is structured, evidence-led communication.

A practical approach for parents dealing with Cafcass or the court

If you are worried about a child or about post-separation abuse, try to move from “everything that has happened” to a clear and manageable evidence window.

Identify the current issue. What is happening now that affects the child’s welfare or safety?
Set out the pattern briefly. Use dates and a short chronology. Explain what happened before and after key incidents.
Separate fact from interpretation. State what was said, done, seen, reported or recorded. Then explain why it causes concern.
Link the issue to impact. How has it affected the child’s behaviour, emotional wellbeing, school life, contact, health or sense of safety?
Identify evidence. Messages, school records, police incident numbers, GP evidence, photographs, orders, reports and neutral witnesses can all be relevant.
Be clear about what you do not know. A credible safeguarding account does not need to pretend certainty where further investigation is required.
Make a proportionate request. For example: a risk assessment, enquiries from school, a section 7 report, safe arrangements for communication, or consideration of whether a fact-finding hearing is necessary.

In other words: do not manufacture a narrative. Make the existing evidence visible, relevant and usable.

The family court must see the whole picture

Family justice cannot become a process in which a parent is expected to be endlessly calm while navigating circumstances that are genuinely frightening, destabilising or unsafe. Nor should “child-focused” become shorthand for ignoring the environment in which a child is trying to survive.

A parent’s distress may need support. Their communication may need structure. Their evidence may need organising. But none of that answers the safeguarding question.

Context matters. Pattern matters. Impact matters. And a child’s welfare depends on professionals being willing to look beyond the presentation of the adults in the room.

Need help making your evidence clear?

JSH Law provides practical, trauma-informed support for litigants in person dealing with child-arrangements cases, Cafcass, safeguarding concerns, evidence organisation, chronologies, statements and hearing preparation.

The aim is not to make your experience sound dramatic. It is to help you present the important facts, the pattern and the impact in a way the court can properly assess.

Book a consultation

Disclaimer: This article provides general information about family law and safeguarding in England and Wales. It is not legal advice and is not a substitute for advice on the facts of an individual case. If you or a child are in immediate danger, call 999. For non-emergency domestic abuse support, contact the National Domestic Abuse Helpline on 0808 2000 247.

Credit: This article was inspired by a public post by Lisa Arterton. It is an original JSH Law analysis and does not reproduce her post.

Justice System “National Emergency”: What the Crisis Means for Domestic Abuse Survivors and Family Court Users

September 3, 2026/0 Comments/in 1. Start Here, 4. Domestic Abuse & Safeguarding Cluster, Family Court Reality/by jessica susan hill

When the Victims’ Commissioner warns that the justice system has the “hallmarks of a national emergency”, this is not an abstract policy debate. Behind the backlogs, missed warning signs and overstretched services are real victims and children waiting for protection, evidence and decisions that may shape the rest of their lives. Although Claire Waxman’s warning concerned the criminal justice system, domestic abuse survivors do not experience policing, probation, Cafcass, children’s services and the Family Court as separate worlds. When those systems fail to communicate or act in time, it is victims and children who are left carrying the risk.

Family Justice | Domestic Abuse | Safeguarding | Court Delay

Justice System “National Emergency”: What the Crisis Means for Domestic Abuse Survivors and Family Court Users

The Victims’ Commissioner has warned that pressures across prisons, probation, policing, criminal courts and victim services have the “hallmarks of a national emergency”. Although that warning concerned the criminal justice system, its implications cannot be sealed off from family justice. Domestic abuse survivors and their children often have to navigate several overstretched systems at once—and when those systems fail to communicate, recognise patterns or act quickly, victims carry the risk.

Written by Jessica Susan Hill, Founder of JSH Law
Published: 3 September 2026 | Approximately 18 minutes’ reading time
England and Wales

The position in brief

The Victims’ Commissioner’s warning was directed principally at the criminal justice system. It was not a formal declaration that the Family Court itself is in a state of emergency.
That distinction matters—but so does the reality that domestic abuse survivors may simultaneously be dealing with the police, prosecutors, probation, Cafcass, children’s services and the Family Court.
Cafcass recorded a 13.4% increase in private-law children’s case demand between April and July 2026 compared with the same period in 2025.
At the end of July 2026, Cafcass had 17,413 open private-law children’s cases involving 26,449 children.
Delay is not simply inconvenient where domestic abuse or unsafe child contact is alleged. It can prolong uncertainty, increase opportunities for continuing control and leave temporary arrangements in place for extended periods.
A police decision to take no further action is not the same as a Family Court finding that abuse did not occur. Equally, an allegation, arrest or charge is not automatically proof that it did.
Good preparation cannot repair an overstretched system, but it can help a litigant identify the issues, preserve important evidence and make it easier for the court to understand the risk and the orders being requested.

What did the Victims’ Commissioner say?

On 2 September 2026, Claire Waxman OBE, the Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales, warned that what began as a prison-capacity crisis had developed into a much wider challenge affecting prisons, probation, policing, courts and victim services.

Her concern was not simply that individual organisations were busy. It was that pressure across the entire criminal justice system could affect public safety, the management of offenders, the ability of agencies to respond to warning signs and the confidence of victims who are already waiting too long for justice.

The Commissioner said that the situation had the “hallmarks of a national emergency” and questioned why stronger cross-government coordination had not taken place.

She also highlighted the connection between court delay and prison pressure. According to her statement, approximately one in five prisoners was awaiting trial because cases were taking so long to be heard. That means victims may also be waiting months or years for criminal proceedings to reach a conclusion.

The Commissioner’s full statement can be read here: Any credible “Plan for Britain” must include a plan for justice.

A system does not protect victims merely because protections exist on paper. Those protections must be understood, coordinated, resourced and capable of being implemented in time.

A necessary distinction: criminal justice and family justice

Accuracy matters. The Victims’ Commissioner was discussing the crisis within the criminal justice system. She was not announcing that the Family Court had formally been declared a national emergency.

Criminal proceedings and family proceedings have different purposes, procedures and legal tests. Criminal courts decide whether the prosecution has proved a criminal offence. The Family Court may be deciding where a child should live, whether contact can take place safely, whether findings of fact are required or what protective arrangements are needed.

It would therefore be misleading to take a statement about criminal justice and simply present it as a finding about the Family Court.

But it would be equally artificial to pretend that the two systems operate in isolation.

A person experiencing domestic abuse may report incidents to the police, seek medical treatment, contact a domestic abuse service, speak to a school or social worker, apply for a protective injunction and participate in child-arrangements proceedings. The alleged perpetrator may be subject to bail conditions, criminal investigation, probation supervision or separate proceedings.

The family’s reality cuts across all of those organisations. Risk does not remain neatly inside one court file.

Important distinction

This article does not suggest that every delayed case is unsafe, that every allegation is proved or that every professional has failed. It examines the practical risks created when serious safeguarding concerns are processed through systems facing substantial pressure.

Why the systems cannot be treated as separate worlds

The same family may appear in several systems at the same time:

Organisation or process	What it may be considering	Why it may matter elsewhere
Police	Possible offences, immediate risk, incident reports, bail or protection	Police information may be relevant to safeguarding and child-arrangements decisions
CPS and criminal courts	Whether criminal charges can be proved beyond reasonable doubt	Charges, convictions, acquittals and criminal evidence may be relevant, but do not automatically decide the family case
Cafcass	Safeguarding checks, the child’s welfare and advice to the Family Court	Its analysis and recommendations can significantly influence case management and final decisions
Children’s services	Whether a child is in need or at risk of significant harm	Assessments and referrals may provide important welfare evidence
Family Court	Welfare, disputed facts, risk, contact and protective arrangements	Its orders determine the arrangements the family must follow
Domestic abuse services	Safety planning, risk assessment, accommodation and specialist support	Their involvement may help explain risk, vulnerability and protective action

Each organisation has a different role. Information held by one organisation will not necessarily be immediately available to another. A litigant should not assume that the judge has already seen a police report, that Cafcass has received a medical record or that a criminal court knows about every Family Court order.

Disclosure may require consent, a formal request, a court direction or compliance with specific information-sharing rules. Sensitive information about children and families also requires careful handling.

This is why effective coordination matters. A warning sign held in one part of the system may be highly relevant to a decision being made elsewhere.

What the latest Cafcass figures show

The latest Cafcass figures available at the time of writing cover the period from 1 April to 31 July 2026. They show a marked increase in demand across children’s cases.

13.4%

increase in private-law children’s case demand between April and July 2026 compared with the same period in 2025

17,413

open private-law children’s cases at the end of July 2026

26,449

children involved in those open private-law cases

Open private-law children’s cases had increased by 10.4% compared with July 2025, while the number of children involved had increased by 11.1%.

Across public- and private-law work combined, Cafcass recorded 29,228 open children’s cases involving 46,750 children at the end of July 2026.

These statistics do not, by themselves, prove that a particular case has been mishandled. Nor do they tell us the quality of every assessment or the precise cause of every delay. They do, however, show an organisation working with materially higher demand.

The source figures can be viewed on the Cafcass data page.

Behind every “open case” is at least one child living with uncertainty while adults and professionals attempt to establish what arrangements are safe and workable.

Why delay is not neutral in domestic abuse cases

Court delay is often described as an administrative problem. In an ordinary dispute, delay may principally mean inconvenience, cost and uncertainty. In a case involving domestic abuse or serious safeguarding concerns, the consequences can be more acute.

Temporary arrangements may continue for much longer than expected

An interim arrangement may have been designed to last only until police disclosure, a Cafcass assessment or a fact-finding hearing. If the next hearing is delayed, that arrangement may remain in place for months.

Depending on the facts, this may mean a child continuing with arrangements that one parent says are unsafe. In other cases, it may mean a child having no relationship or only limited contact with a parent while serious allegations remain unresolved.

Neither outcome should be assumed to be safe merely because it is temporary.

Coercive control can continue after separation

Separation does not necessarily end domestic abuse. Control may continue through communication about the children, repeated demands, monitoring, financial pressure, threats, breaches of boundaries or the misuse of legitimate processes.

It is important to be precise here. Making a court application, challenging evidence or seeking enforcement is not automatically abusive. People have a right to use the courts. But legal and administrative processes can, in some cases, become part of a wider pattern of coercion, intimidation or continuing harm.

The court must consider the individual facts and evidence. Labelling every disagreement as litigation abuse weakens rather than strengthens a case.

Evidence may become harder to obtain

Messages may be deleted. CCTV may be overwritten. Memories become less precise. Staff move roles. Records may be archived. A child’s presentation may change over time.

This makes early, lawful preservation of relevant evidence important. Preservation does not mean collecting everything. It means identifying what may genuinely help the court determine a disputed fact, assess risk or understand the effect on the child.

Repeated uncertainty can affect children

Children may be living with disrupted routines, parental anxiety, repeated professional interviews or uncertainty about when they will see a parent. Some children may feel pressure to manage adult emotions or fear that what they say will determine the outcome.

A child should not be treated as a messenger, investigator or witness-gatherer for either parent.

Trauma can affect participation

A traumatised person may struggle to recall events in perfect order, identify the “most important” incident, read lengthy documents or speak clearly while facing the person they say abused them.

That does not mean every inconsistency is irrelevant. Courts must assess evidence fairly. But fragmented recall, distress or an initially incomplete account should not automatically be treated as proof of dishonesty.

Trauma-informed practice means examining the evidence carefully while understanding the circumstances in which that evidence is being given.

What happens when information is fragmented?

A common difficulty in complex family cases is that no single professional initially holds the complete picture.

The police may hold incident logs. A GP may have recorded injuries or distress. A school may have observed changes in a child. Cafcass may have spoken separately to both parents. The Family Court may have previous orders. A domestic abuse worker may have completed a risk assessment.

Looked at individually, each item may appear limited. Viewed chronologically and together, the information may reveal a pattern—or it may show that an allegation is not supported in the way initially suggested.

Evidence-led safeguarding requires both possibilities to remain open.

Do not assume the court already has the information

If a document or record is important, identify it clearly:

Who holds it?
What date or period does it cover?
What issue could it help the court determine?
Is a court direction needed to obtain it?
Is the request focused and proportionate?

A broad request for “all records ever held” may create delay, cost and irrelevant material. A focused request—for example, police incident records relating to identified dates or medical records concerning a particular injury—may be more useful and proportionate.

What is the Family Court required to consider?

The legal framework already recognises that domestic abuse is not limited to physical violence and that children can be victims in their own right.

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021

Under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, abusive behaviour can include:

physical or sexual abuse;
violent or threatening behaviour;
controlling or coercive behaviour;
economic abuse; and
psychological, emotional or other abuse.

The behaviour may be a single incident or a course of conduct. Whether an individual incident forms part of a wider pattern may therefore matter.

Children are recognised as victims

Section 3 of the 2021 Act recognises a child as a victim of domestic abuse where the child sees, hears or experiences the effects of abuse and is related to the person being abused or the perpetrator.

A child does not have to be physically assaulted to be affected. Living with fear, witnessing distress, hearing threats, experiencing disrupted care or seeing one parent controlled can all be relevant to the child’s welfare.

Practice Direction 12J

In private-law children proceedings where domestic abuse is alleged, admitted or otherwise appears relevant, Practice Direction 12J sets out steps the court must consider.

Among other things, the court must:

identify the relevant factual and welfare issues at the earliest opportunity;
consider the nature of the allegations, admissions and available evidence;
decide whether disputed facts are relevant to the child-arrangements decision;
give appropriate directions so that relevant disputes can be determined fairly;
consider the risk of harm before making interim arrangements; and
ensure that any final order protects the safety and wellbeing of the child and the parent with whom the child is living.

A fact-finding hearing is not required simply because allegations have been made. The court considers whether determining the disputed facts is necessary to decide the welfare issues or the arrangements that can safely be made.

Modern domestic abuse analysis should not reduce coercive control to a collection of disconnected incidents. Individual events may need to be considered within the wider context of the relationship, including patterns, cumulative impact and post-separation behaviour.

Cafcass domestic abuse policy

Cafcass policy requires practitioners to listen to children and adults who have experienced domestic abuse, assess harm and future risk, and accurately record and share relevant information with the court.

It also requires consideration of the efforts made by a protective parent to keep a child safe, the child’s experiences and the impact that proposed arrangements may have on both the child and their main carer.

The current Cafcass Domestic Abuse Practice Policy can be read online.

Vulnerability and participation directions

Under Part 3A of the Family Procedure Rules and Practice Direction 3AA, where it is stated that a party or witness is, or is at risk of being, a victim of domestic abuse by a relevant person, they are treated as vulnerable for the purpose of considering participation directions.

This does not determine whether the allegation is true. It enables the court to consider what measures may be needed so that the person can participate and give their best evidence.

Depending on the circumstances and available facilities, measures may include:

separate entrances or waiting areas;
screens or remote participation;
changes to the structure or timing of the hearing;
careful management of questioning;
a ground rules hearing before oral evidence; and
other arrangements needed to reduce fear, distress or impaired participation.

Statutory restrictions also prevent direct cross-examination in person in specified domestic abuse circumstances. Where the restrictions apply, the court must consider the appropriate alternative process. This can include consideration of a Qualified Legal Representative.

A litigant who needs participation measures should raise the issue as early as possible and explain what is requested, why it is needed and how it would help them participate or give evidence.

Criminal and family proceedings: understanding the difference

Confusion about criminal and family proceedings can seriously weaken a case.

“The police took no further action”

A decision to take no further action does not necessarily mean that the police found the report to be false. It may mean that the available evidence did not meet the criminal charging threshold, that evidence could not be obtained or that a prosecution could not proceed.

The Family Court applies the civil standard of proof—the balance of probabilities—when determining disputed facts. Criminal offences must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The Family Court must still assess the evidence relevant to the child’s welfare. It should not automatically treat a no-further-action decision as a finding that nothing happened.

“The other parent was arrested”

An arrest is not a conviction. A charge is not a conviction. A police investigation is not, by itself, proof of the allegation.

These matters may be relevant, particularly to interim risk management, but they must be described accurately. Do not tell the Family Court that somebody was “found guilty” if they were only arrested or investigated.

“The allegation was proved in the Family Court”

A Family Court finding is important, but it is not the same as a criminal conviction. It should be described as a finding made on the balance of probabilities in family proceedings.

Precise language protects credibility. Courts need to know what happened procedurally, what was alleged, what was admitted, what was found and what remains disputed.

Never inflate the status of evidence. A report is not a finding. An allegation is not a finding. An arrest is not a conviction. A no-further-action decision is not necessarily proof that an allegation was false.

Practical steps for litigants in person

You cannot personally solve court backlogs, professional workloads or failures in information-sharing. You can, however, reduce the risk that important information becomes lost inside an unstructured case.

1. Separate immediate safety from longer-term case preparation

If a child or adult faces an immediate risk of harm, deal with safety first. Contact the police in an emergency and seek specialist domestic abuse or legal advice where possible.

Do not rely on an email to the court office as an emergency safeguarding response. Court staff cannot provide legal advice, investigate allegations or guarantee that a judge will see an email immediately.

2. Read the latest court order carefully

The latest order should tell you:

what the court has already decided;
what documents must be filed;
who must obtain particular evidence;
the deadlines;
the purpose and length of the next hearing; and
whether any temporary child-arrangements or protective provisions remain in force.

Missing a direction because the system is busy will rarely help your position. If you cannot comply, raise the problem promptly, explain why and identify what practical direction you are asking the court to make.

3. Build a working chronology

A chronology helps convert an overwhelming history into an intelligible sequence. It is not the place for lengthy argument.

Date	Event	Supporting source	Effect on child or risk	Action or outcome
Exact date if known	Short factual description	Message, order, police log, medical record or witness	Specific welfare consequence	Reported, referred, investigated or unresolved

If a date is uncertain, say so. “Approximately March 2025” is safer than presenting a guessed date as fact.

4. Identify the pattern, not just the incidents

A list of individual incidents may fail to communicate coercive control. Explain, concisely:

what behaviour occurred;
how often or over what period;
how the behaviour changed what you or the child could do;
whether it continued after separation;
what independent evidence exists; and
why it matters to the child-arrangements decision now.

Do not create an allegation schedule simply because you have seen one online. Follow the court’s directions. The court may require a schedule, focused narrative, statement or another form of evidence depending on the issues in the case.

5. Create an evidence index

An evidence index can record what you have, what is missing and why it matters. Potential categories include:

previous Family Court orders and judgments;
police incident or crime reference numbers;
bail conditions, protective orders or criminal outcomes;
relevant medical records;
school, nursery or health visitor records;
Cafcass letters and reports;
children’s services assessments or referrals;
messages, emails or call records;
financial material relevant to alleged economic abuse;
photographs or recordings obtained lawfully; and
witnesses with direct knowledge of relevant events.

Collecting evidence must be lawful and proportionate. Do not access another person’s private accounts, impersonate them, alter documents or encourage a child to gather material.

6. Explain the impact on the child

Family proceedings are not primarily about proving that one adult behaved badly. The court must decide what serves the child’s welfare.

Instead of writing only:

“The other parent sends abusive messages.”

identify the relevant welfare consequence, if supported:

“The messages continue during handovers and include threats about removing the child. As a result, handovers have become distressed and the child has begun refusing to leave the car. I ask the court to consider a neutral handover arrangement and communication through a parenting application.”

This moves the presentation from adult accusation to evidence, welfare impact and a workable request.

7. Ask for focused directions

Depending on the case, the court may need to consider:

focused police or medical disclosure;
the scope of a section 7 report;
whether a fact-finding hearing is necessary;
safe interim contact or handover arrangements;
special measures or participation directions;
interpreting, disability or accessibility support;
how questioning will be managed;
permission and deadlines for statements or other evidence; or
review of temporary arrangements if important evidence remains outstanding.

Do not request every possible direction. Identify what is genuinely needed for the court to decide the live issues fairly and safely.

8. Keep professional communication calm and specific

Write every email on the assumption that it may later be shown to the judge.

A useful professional communication usually identifies:

the case number;
the relevant order or deadline;
the specific problem;
the steps already taken;
the effect on the case or child; and
the precise response or action requested.

Avoid insults, speculation about motives, copied social-media arguments or repeated emails that add no new information.

9. Record delay and non-compliance properly

If disclosure is late or a professional report has not arrived, keep a short record of:

what was ordered;
who was responsible;
the deadline;
what follow-up took place;
whether the delay affects an upcoming hearing; and
what revised direction you are seeking.

Keep the language procedural. “The report due on 20 August has not been filed” is more useful than “Nobody cares about my case.”

10. Prepare for the hearing the court has actually listed

A First Hearing Dispute Resolution Appointment is not the same as a fact-finding hearing or final hearing. Check what the court will decide at the next stage.

Prepare a short list containing:

the live issues;
the key evidence already available;
the important evidence still missing;
the immediate safeguarding position;
the directions or orders you are requesting; and
why those requests are necessary and proportionate.

The aim is not to tell the entire history at every hearing. It is to help the judge make the decisions required at that particular stage.

What if a Cafcass report or safeguarding process is inadequate?

Litigants sometimes receive a safeguarding letter or section 7 report containing factual errors, omitted evidence or analysis they strongly dispute.

The first task is to separate four different complaints:

A factual error—for example, an incorrect date, name, conviction or account of an order.
An evidential omission—important material appears not to have been considered.
A disagreement with professional analysis—the facts are recorded, but you say the risk or welfare assessment is wrong.
A service or conduct complaint—for example, communication, delay or alleged professional behaviour.

These issues may require different responses.

If a report is being relied upon in ongoing proceedings, the Family Court remains responsible for deciding the case. A complaint to Cafcass does not replace the need to raise relevant evidential or welfare issues with the court.

A focused response may:

identify the exact paragraph disputed;
state the correction sought;
refer to the supporting document and page;
explain why the issue could affect the welfare analysis; and
identify any question that may need to be put to the author at a hearing.

A lengthy attack on the professional’s character is unlikely to assist. Challenge the evidence, reasoning and process precisely.

A recommendation is not a court order. Cafcass advises the court, but the judge or magistrates make the decision after considering the evidence and the child’s welfare.

Common mistakes that can weaken a safeguarding case

Presenting every disagreement as abuse. This can obscure the genuinely serious evidence.
Listing allegations without explaining their relevance to the child.
Submitting hundreds of pages without an index, chronology or explanation.
Describing an arrest, allegation or referral as a proven fact.
Treating a no-further-action decision as conclusive in either direction.
Editing screenshots so heavily that context, sender details or dates are lost.
Including unlawfully obtained private material.
Encouraging a child to repeat, record or gather evidence.
Ignoring evidence that does not support your position. Courts are likely to place greater trust in a balanced presentation.
Missing deadlines while concentrating only on the other party’s conduct.
Sending emotional or accusatory correspondence that may later be placed before the court.
Asking the court to “investigate everything” without identifying a focused evidential or procedural request.

A strong case is not necessarily the case with the most material. It is the case in which the relevant issues, evidence, welfare consequences and requested orders can be understood.

What meaningful reform requires

The Victims’ Commissioner is right to frame the problem as a whole-system challenge. Moving pressure from one organisation to another does not resolve risk.

Meaningful reform requires:

timely court decisions, particularly where temporary arrangements affect safety or a child’s relationship with a parent;
properly resourced police, probation, courts, Cafcass and specialist victim services;
lawful and effective information-sharing between the agencies holding relevant risk information;
pattern-based domestic abuse analysis rather than a narrow search for isolated physical incidents;
clear accountability when directions, disclosure or safeguarding actions are delayed;
recognition of children as victims whose experiences and welfare must remain central;
trauma-informed participation without abandoning evidential fairness;
accessible information for litigants in person who are expected to comply with complex procedure without representation; and
early, practical assistance so that cases reach court in a form that can be understood and managed.

In June 2026, the Government published its response to the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s Everyday Business report concerning domestic abuse and continuing harm in the Family Court. The response acknowledged the vulnerability of many Family Court users and committed funding for a second phase of the Family Court Review and Reporting Mechanism.

The Government accepted some of the Commissioner’s recommendations fully, accepted others in part and declined to take forward several recommendations. It also indicated that a wider Family Justice Strategy would be published later in 2026.

The Government response to the Everyday Business report can be read on GOV.UK.

Reform announcements matter, but victims and children experience the system through what happens in their actual case: whether the warning sign is recognised, whether the record is obtained, whether the hearing takes place and whether the final arrangement is safe.

Delay is not a neutral administrative inconvenience when a court is deciding whether a child or parent faces a risk of harm. Justice must be careful—but it must also be capable of acting.

How JSH Law may be able to help

People often come to JSH Law with years of messages, reports, orders and correspondence but no clear way of presenting what has happened.

I provide structured McKenzie Friend and litigation-support services for litigants in person. Depending on the case and agreed scope, support may include:

Case organisation

Organising court orders, correspondence, reports and disclosure into a manageable case structure.

Chronologies and evidence

Preparing clear chronologies, evidence indexes and schedules of disputed or relevant events.

Statements and submissions

Helping you prepare focused, court-appropriate written material in your own case.

Cafcass report review

Identifying factual errors, evidential gaps, reasoning issues and the questions that may need to be raised.

Hearing preparation

Clarifying what the hearing is for, what the judge is likely to need and what orders or directions you are asking for.

McKenzie Friend support

Calm, practical support before and, where appropriate and permitted, during Family Court hearings.

The aim is not to produce the most aggressive case. It is to help you present a clear, proportionate and evidence-led case that keeps the child’s welfare, safeguarding and the court’s decision-making responsibilities in view.

Clear, calm family court support

Book a free 15-minute introductory telephone consultation

If you are representing yourself in family court and need help making sense of safeguarding concerns, Cafcass involvement, evidence, court documents or an approaching hearing, you can book a short introductory call with JSH Law.

The call allows me to understand where you are in the process, explain the type of support available and identify possible next steps if JSH Law is an appropriate fit.

Book Your 15-Minute Call

New enquiries only. The introductory call is not legal advice and does not create a solicitor-client relationship. Any paid work is subject to conflict checks, written confirmation of scope, JSH Law’s client agreement and payment arrangements.

Sources and further reading

Victims’ Commissioner: Any credible “Plan for Britain” must include a plan for justice, 2 September 2026.
Cafcass: Private- and public-law children’s case data, covering 1 April to 31 July 2026.
Domestic Abuse Act 2021, Part 1.
Practice Direction 12J: Child arrangements and contact orders—domestic abuse and harm.
Practice Direction 3AA: Vulnerable persons, participation and giving evidence.
Cafcass Domestic Abuse Practice Policy.
Government response to the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s Everyday Business report, 10 June 2026.

Important legal information

This article provides general information about family justice, domestic abuse and safeguarding in England and Wales. It is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as advice about an individual case. Family Court decisions depend on the particular facts, evidence, procedural history, applicable law and judicial discretion. JSH Law provides McKenzie Friend and litigation-support services to litigants in person and does not act as a firm of solicitors or undertake reserved legal activities unless expressly permitted and agreed. If you need legal advice, representation or urgent protective action, you should consider consulting an appropriately regulated legal professional.

The Order Is No Longer Working: What to Do Before You Go Back to Family Court

August 28, 2026/0 Comments/in 1. Start Here, 5. Court Skills for Litigants in Person, Before You Apply to Court/by jessica susan hill

A final child arrangements order may bring proceedings to an end on paper, but a child’s life does not stand still. Arrangements can break down, new safeguarding concerns can emerge, or a section 91(14) order may leave a parent unsure whether they are even permitted to return to court. At that point, panic, another sprawling statement or the wrong application can make an already difficult situation worse. The safer starting point is a structured family court case review: what does the existing order actually say, what has genuinely changed, what evidence supports it, and does the case require variation, enforcement, an appeal or permission to apply?

JSH Law | Family Court Support for Litigants in Person

Before You Apply Again: Why a Family Court Case Review Can Change the Direction of Your Case

When a child arrangements order is no longer working, new welfare concerns have emerged or a section 91(14) order restricts further applications, the next step should not be another evidence dump. It should be a disciplined review of the order, the procedure, the evidence and the outcome actually sought.

Published: 28 August 2026 | Jurisdiction: England and Wales | By: Jessica Susan Hill, JSH Law

The short answer

Can the Family Court change a final child arrangements order? Yes. In England and Wales, the court can vary or discharge an order where that is justified by the child’s welfare. The usual application is made using Form C100.

If a section 91(14) order applies, it is a protective filter rather than an absolute ban. The person named in it must ask the court for permission, now within the C100, and explain the proposed application and the grounds for permission.

The court will not decide the case according to which parent produces the longest account. It will focus on the child’s welfare, the current evidence, the procedural route and whether the proposal is safe, workable and proportionate.

What is a family court case review?

A family court case review is a structured assessment of where a case has reached, what the existing orders actually say, what has happened since the last decision, what evidence is available and which procedural step may now be appropriate.

It is not simply a conversation about everything that has gone wrong. It is not an exercise in agreeing with one parent’s interpretation. And it is not a promise that the court will reopen a case or make a different order.

A proper review turns a mass of history into a set of answerable questions:

What is the current legal and procedural position?
Is the problem non-compliance, a change in welfare circumstances, an alleged legal error or an immediate safety risk?
Is permission required before any fresh application can proceed?
What has materially changed since the court last considered the case?
Which facts are independently evidenced, which are disputed and which remain suspicion or interpretation?
What order is sought, and how would it work for the child in practice?

That distinction matters. Family cases can become emotionally enormous. The court application must remain legally and evidentially controlled.

“The strongest application is rarely the one that says the most. It is the one that makes the current welfare issue, the supporting evidence and the workable solution easiest to understand.”

Start with the sealed order—not with memory

Many parents understandably begin with their lived experience. A case review must begin somewhere more precise: the sealed order currently in force.

The order may contain details that have been forgotten, misunderstood or never properly explained. Before drafting anything, check:

the exact child arrangements ordered;
whether any provisions are orders, recitals, agreements or recommendations;
the date, duration and scope of any section 91(14) restriction;
whether permission is required for every Children Act application or only specified applications;
whether service of a future permission application was restricted;
any findings, undertakings, prohibited steps, specific issues or safeguarding provisions;
the judge’s reasons, whether given in a judgment, approved transcript, written reasons or recording available through the proper court process;
whether proceedings remain live or have concluded.

An application based on an inaccurate recollection of the order can fail before the real welfare issue is properly reached. If you do not have the sealed order, obtaining it should usually be one of the first tasks.

Variation, enforcement, appeal or permission: identify the right route

These routes are not interchangeable. A family court case review should identify the legal problem before anyone starts drafting a form.

Possible route	What it is for	Key caution
Vary or discharge Usually Form C100	A forward-looking request to change or end an existing child arrangements, prohibited steps or specific issue order.	The court focuses on the child’s welfare now. This is not automatically a route to retry every historic allegation.
Enforcement Usually Form C79	A request for the court to deal with alleged non-compliance with a child arrangements order.	Enforcement is not always the correct route where the real issue is that the arrangements themselves are no longer safe or workable.
Appeal Family Procedure Rules Part 30	A challenge based on an alleged legal, procedural or evaluative error in the earlier decision.	An appeal is not a rehearing simply because a party disagrees with the outcome. Time limits are short—often 21 days, and sometimes 7 days.
Permission under section 91(14) Within Form C100	A request to pass the protective filter before the specified Children Act application may proceed.	Read the exact restriction. Address the grounds for permission and the proposed substantive application together.
Urgent or without notice	A request for accelerated consideration, or exceptionally for the matter to be considered before the other party is notified.	Urgent and without notice do not mean the same thing. Clear evidence and full, fair disclosure are essential.

There may also be protective injunctions, specific issue applications, prohibited steps applications or requests for directions depending on the facts. Serious cases involving appeals, contempt, international movement, criminal allegations or immediate danger require prompt advice from an appropriately authorised legal professional.

The legal centre of gravity: the child’s welfare

Under section 1 of the Children Act 1989, the child’s welfare is the court’s paramount consideration when determining questions about the child’s upbringing.

The welfare checklist includes the child’s ascertainable wishes and feelings, considered in light of age and understanding; physical, emotional and educational needs; the likely effect of change; relevant characteristics; harm suffered or risked; and each relevant adult’s capability to meet the child’s needs. A review should organise the case around those questions—not around adult blame alone.

What if there is a section 91(14) order?

A section 91(14) order does not mean that a parent can never return to court. Practice Direction 12Q describes it as a protective filter, not a bar on applications.

It may be used where further proceedings could expose a child or another person to harm, where repeated and unreasonable applications have occurred, where respite from litigation is needed, or where proceedings risk becoming a vehicle for harassment, coercive control or further abuse.

If you are the person named in the order, the first task is to understand:

which applications require permission;
how long the restriction lasts;
whether the order delayed service on the other party until an initial merits decision;
what reasons the court gave when imposing it.

Current procedural point

Under the current PD12Q, the application for permission must be made within Form C100. The form must also explain the application you want to make if permission is granted.

The grounds should address why permission is sought, including whether there has been a material change of circumstances since the section 91(14) order. A material change is not an absolute statutory prerequisite, but it is a question the court must consider.

The court may initially determine the merits without an oral hearing. If permission is refused on that basis, PD12Q provides a seven-day period from receipt of notice of the decision to request an oral hearing.

This is where precision matters. A permission application that ignores the reason for the protective filter, recycles old allegations or fails to explain the current child-welfare purpose may struggle. A focused application should show insight, address the previous order directly and explain why the proposed proceedings are now justified and proportionate.

What counts as useful new evidence?

The court needs evidence, not just escalation in language. “Everything is worse” is a conclusion. A review asks what has actually happened, when it happened, who observed it and where it is recorded.

Depending on the case, potentially relevant post-order material may include:

health evidence: GP, hospital, community paediatrics, CAMHS or other properly obtained clinical records;
education evidence: attendance, behaviour, learning, presentation, pastoral records and direct observations by school staff;
safeguarding evidence: local-authority assessments, referrals, strategy decisions, plans or closure records;
police evidence: incident and crime references, outcomes and disclosure lawfully obtained where relevant;
implementation evidence: a concise record showing how the order has operated in practice, including missed arrangements, repeated disruption or agreed variations;
communication evidence: selected complete message chains demonstrating a relevant pattern, rather than hundreds of disconnected screenshots;
practical evidence: housing, schooling, travel, childcare, work and support arrangements relevant to the proposal being made.

Professional evidence is not automatically conclusive, and different sources may conflict. A school may report no difficulty while a health professional records concerns, or vice versa. The answer is not to suppress inconvenient material. It is to analyse the difference, consider the context and present the evidence honestly.

Separate four different things

Established facts: matters admitted, agreed or found by the court.
Documented events: matters recorded in reliable contemporaneous material.
Disputed allegations: relevant matters that have not been determined.
Inference or concern: a conclusion that may be reasonable but must not be presented as proven fact.

That separation protects credibility. It also helps the court see exactly what decision it is being asked to make.

A child’s voice matters—but the child must not become the evidence-gatherer

A child’s wishes, feelings, presentation and welfare can be highly relevant. That does not mean a parent should repeatedly question the child, ask the child to choose sides, rehearse an account or create a collection of recordings.

Repeated adult questioning can affect reliability, increase distress and expose the child to the very conflict the court is trying to reduce. Where possible, concerns should be channelled through appropriate safeguarding and health professionals, and the court can decide how the child’s wishes and welfare should be assessed.

Be careful with recordings

The Family Justice Council’s guidance on covert recordings explains that recordings can raise issues of privacy, harm, context, authenticity, completeness, relevance and evidential value.

Do not edit, clip, subtitle, circulate or publish a recording in an attempt to make it more persuasive. Preserve the original file and its metadata, make a careful note of the circumstances, stop further evidence-gathering from the child and obtain case-specific advice before relying on it.

Safeguarding urgency comes before litigation strategy

A court application is not a substitute for immediate medical or safeguarding action. If a child or adult is in immediate danger, call 999. If there is an urgent mental-health crisis without an immediate risk to life, contact NHS 111 and select the mental-health option, or seek an urgent GP assessment. Follow any existing crisis or safety plan. The NHS also provides current guidance on getting help for suicidal thoughts.

Where there is a genuine urgent family-court issue, HMCTS guidance CB2 explains urgent child-arrangements hearings, including applications made without notifying another party.

Urgent

The court is asked to consider the case more quickly because delay may create a serious welfare or safety problem.

Without notice

The court is asked to consider an application before the other party is told. This is exceptional and requires proper justification and full, fair disclosure.

Conflict, distress or a serious allegation does not automatically establish either threshold. A case review should test urgency honestly. Overstating urgency can damage credibility; understating a real risk can leave a child or parent unprotected.

What documents are needed for a useful family court case review?

You do not need to send every document ever produced on day one. A staged review is usually more efficient and affordable.

Priority document	Why it matters
Current sealed order	Establishes the legal position and any restrictions.
Judgment, reasons or approved transcript	Shows why the court reached its decision and what must be addressed.
Key earlier applications and statements	Prevents accidental inconsistency and identifies issues already determined.
Cafcass and local-authority material	Records prior welfare analysis, safeguarding information and recommendations.
Post-order chronology	Identifies what has changed, with dates and evidence references.
Selected current professional evidence	Tests whether concerns are independently supported.
One-page outcome and proposal	Clarifies what is requested and how it would work for the child.
Deadlines and hearing notices	Allows urgent procedural priorities to be identified.

Name files clearly. Preserve originals. Do not alter dates or metadata. Do not send password-protected links that expire before the review. If papers contain confidential family-court information, use the secure method agreed with the reviewer rather than pasting identifiable documents into public AI tools.

For help building the underlying timeline, see JSH Law’s guide to preparing a family court chronology.

A strong case review has three layers

Procedure: What order exists? Which form and rule apply? Is a MIAM required or exempted? Is permission needed? Is there a fee, deadline or service issue?
Evidence: What is proved, documented, disputed or inferred? What is missing? Which material is relevant and proportionate?
Child-focused outcome: What specific order is sought? How does it meet the child’s welfare needs? What safeguards and practical arrangements are proposed?

What can a case review reveal?

A useful review may reveal that:

the proposed application is using the wrong procedural route;
the sealed order or reasons are missing and must be obtained first;
a section 91(14) restriction has been overlooked or misunderstood;
the strongest point is a recent, independently documented welfare change—not the entire history;
important evidence contradicts part of the account and must be dealt with fairly;
the application is too broad, too accusatory or insufficiently linked to the child’s needs;
the situation may be urgent, but not appropriate for a without-notice hearing;
a regulated solicitor or barrister is needed for legal advice, advocacy, appeal work or another reserved or high-risk step;
the case would benefit from a chronology, evidence schedule, focused statement, child-impact analysis or hearing plan.

What a review cannot do

No ethical reviewer can promise that permission will be granted, that a final order will be changed or that the court will accept a disputed allegation. A review cannot conduct a police or social-work investigation, diagnose a child, manufacture missing evidence or turn suspicion into fact.

Its value is clarity: identifying the strongest lawful route, the weaknesses that must be confronted, the material that matters and the work still required.

Common mistakes when returning to family court

Applying while in crisis without first checking the order. Urgency may be real, but the application must still be procedurally correct.
Trying to prove a broad conspiracy. Courts need specific facts, admissible evidence and a child-focused issue to decide.
Rearguing the old case instead of explaining the current change. The application must face the earlier decision, not pretend it never happened.
Treating every concern as an established fact. This blurs the evidence and can undermine otherwise important safeguarding points.
Sending hundreds of screenshots without a schedule. Volume is not the same as proof.
Questioning or recording the child repeatedly. This can cause harm and create serious evidential difficulty.
Asking for a dramatic change without a practical plan. The court needs to know how education, health, handovers, contact and daily life would work.
Confusing disagreement with an appeal ground. Appeals concern error and carry short deadlines.
Ignoring contradictory evidence. Credibility grows when difficult material is addressed directly and accurately.

How JSH Law can support a litigant in person with a case review

JSH Law provides structured litigation support and McKenzie Friend services for people representing themselves in family proceedings across England and Wales.

Subject to identity, conflict, safeguarding and scope checks, support may include:

reviewing the sealed order and core case documents;
mapping the procedural position and immediate deadlines;
identifying the issues the court is likely to need addressed;
organising post-order events into a focused chronology;
separating findings, evidence, allegations and inference;
auditing evidence for relevance, gaps, duplication and contradiction;
helping prepare clear forms, statements, schedules and hearing documents;
preparing a child-focused practical proposal;
hearing preparation and McKenzie Friend support where appropriate;
identifying when formal advice or representation from an authorised solicitor or barrister should be sought.

The purpose is not to inflame conflict or promise an outcome. It is to make the case clearer, safer, more proportionate and easier for the court to understand.

Frequently asked questions about family court case reviews

Can a final child arrangements order be changed?

Yes. The Family Court can vary or discharge a child arrangements order. The child’s welfare is paramount. The court will consider the current circumstances, the evidence, the likely effect of change and the practical proposal. A final order is important, but it is not necessarily immutable.

Which form is used to vary a child arrangements order?

The usual form is C100. If allegations of harm or domestic abuse are relevant, Form C1A may also be required. Always download the current version from GOV.UK and check whether an online application is available.

What is a section 91(14) order?

It is an order requiring the named person to obtain the court’s permission before making specified applications under the Children Act 1989. It is designed as a protective filter in the interests of children and others who may be at risk of harm. It is not a permanent or absolute ban unless the terms and duration of the particular order have that practical effect.

How do I apply for permission under section 91(14)?

Current Practice Direction 12Q requires the permission request to be made within Form C100, which must also set out the substantive application you want to make if permission is granted. The grounds should address the earlier restriction and whether circumstances have materially changed.

Must I prove a material change of circumstances?

For a section 91(14) permission decision, the court must consider whether there has been a material change, but PD12Q makes clear that such a change is not necessarily an absolute prerequisite to permission. In a variation case more generally, clear evidence about what has changed will often be central to showing why the child’s welfare requires the court to reconsider the arrangements.

Do I need to attend a MIAM before applying?

A Mediation Information and Assessment Meeting is normally required before a C100 application unless a valid exemption applies. Exemptions may relate to matters such as urgency, domestic abuse evidence, child-protection concerns or other specified circumstances. Use the current C100 and obtain advice if unsure; claiming an exemption without a proper basis may delay the case.

How much is a C100 application?

As at 28 August 2026, the published fee for a new Children Act application, including a request for permission or a child arrangements order, is £270. Fees can change. Check the current EX50 family court fees. If you have a low income or limited savings, you may qualify for Help with Fees.

Can I apply urgently without telling the other parent?

Possibly, but urgency and without-notice treatment are separate questions. A without-notice application is exceptional. The applicant must justify why notice should not be given and must present the position fairly, including important facts that may not support the application. Seek urgent legal advice where possible.

Should I record my child to prove what they are saying?

Do not assume that recording is safe or helpful. The court may examine welfare impact, privacy, context, authenticity, completeness and relevance. Repeated questioning or recording may distress the child and affect the reliability of the material. Preserve any existing original, avoid circulation or editing and obtain advice before relying on it.

What is the difference between variation, enforcement and appeal?

Variation asks the court to change arrangements for the future. Enforcement asks the court to address alleged non-compliance with the existing order. Appeal challenges an alleged error in the earlier decision and is subject to strict rules and short time limits. A case review can help identify which problem you actually need the court to decide.

Is a family court case review legal representation?

Not necessarily. JSH Law’s review and preparation support is practical litigation assistance for a person who remains responsible for their own case. It does not make JSH Law the solicitor on the court record, confer conduct of litigation or create automatic rights of audience. Where formal legal advice or representation is needed, an appropriately authorised solicitor or barrister should be instructed.

Official sources and further reading

Final thought

If an order is no longer working, a child’s circumstances have genuinely changed or a new safeguarding concern has emerged, returning to court may be necessary. But the strength of the next step will depend on more than the seriousness of the parent’s concern.

It will depend on whether the existing order has been understood, the correct route has been chosen, the evidence has been tested, the earlier decision has been faced honestly and the proposed outcome is focused on the child’s welfare.

Do not begin by trying to tell the court everything. Begin by identifying what the court needs to decide now.

About the author

Jessica Susan Hill

Jessica Susan Hill is the founder of JSH Law and an SQE candidate with BPP Law School. She provides independent litigation support and McKenzie Friend services to people representing themselves in family court proceedings.

Her work focuses on evidence analysis, court-document preparation, safeguarding, domestic abuse, coercive control, Cafcass, procedural fairness, legal technology, responsible AI and improving access to justice.

Important legal and regulatory notice

This article provides general legal education and practical information for England and Wales as at 28 August 2026. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as a substitute for advice on the facts, evidence, risks, procedure and wording of an individual order.

JSH Law is not regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and does not conduct reserved legal activities. Support is provided to litigants in person in a practical litigation-support, document-preparation and McKenzie Friend capacity. You remain responsible for your proceedings, filings, service, deadlines and decisions.

If your matter involves immediate danger, urgent safeguarding, an injunction, alleged contempt, criminal allegations, international child movement, an appeal, complex expert evidence or another serious consequence, seek prompt assistance from an appropriately authorised solicitor or barrister. Court forms, fees, rules and practice directions change: always check the current official version and the terms of the order made in your own case.

Canada Is Treating Coercive Control as a Pattern — Are UK Family Courts Doing Enough?

August 8, 2026/0 Comments/in 4. Domestic Abuse & Safeguarding Cluster, 6. Tools Templates Research & Cases, Children and Family Justice, McKenzie Friend Support/by jessica susan hill

Canada is taking a notably joined-up approach to coercive control, recognising it not just as a criminal justice issue but as a pattern of behaviour with consequences across family law, civil liability and the welfare of children. That matters because coercive control is rarely understood properly when the evidence is broken into isolated incidents. This article looks at Canada’s developing three-layer framework, compares it with the law and procedure in England and Wales, and asks whether our family courts are consistently equipped to identify the pattern, power imbalance and post-separation harm that coercive control can create.

JSH Law | Family Justice, Domestic Abuse & Coercive Control

“`

Canada’s New Approach to Coercive Control: What England and Wales Can Learn From a Three-Layer Response to Family Violence

Canada is building something increasingly significant around coercive control: recognition in family law, a new civil cause of action for intimate partner violence, and now a specific criminal offence. The important question for England and Wales is not simply whether our law contains similar words. It is whether our family justice system is consistently capable of recognising the pattern those words are supposed to describe.

“`

In summary

“`

Canada has not simply created a new “tier” of family violence. What is emerging is a broader legal architecture in which coercive control is recognised across family law, civil law and criminal law.

That matters because coercive control is rarely understood properly by examining isolated incidents. It is about patterns, power, autonomy, fear, restriction and the cumulative effect of behaviour over time — including behaviour which continues after separation and through children or legal proceedings.

“`

An important clarification

“`

Social-media discussion has sometimes described the Canadian development as a new “tier” of family violence. That is not quite the legal position. The more important development is that coercive control is increasingly being recognised across several different areas of Canadian law, with family, civil and criminal law all moving towards an understanding of domestic abuse as a cumulative pattern rather than simply a collection of isolated incidents.

“`

What Canada actually means by “family violence”
Why coercive control has been part of Canadian federal family law since 2021
How children are recognised as victims of family violence
The Supreme Court of Canada’s 2026 decision in Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia
Canada’s new criminal offence of coercive control
Why the offence is not yet operational
How the Canadian framework compares with England and Wales
The Domestic Abuse Act 2021, PD12J and Re H-N
Why incident-by-incident analysis can fail victims and children
Post-separation abuse and the use of children as instruments of control
What family courts in England and Wales could learn from Canada
Practical implications for litigants in person

“`

This is not simply a new criminal offence

The most interesting thing about what is happening in Canada is not one statute.

It is the direction of travel.

Canadian law is increasingly recognising coercive control in three distinct but connected ways.

1. Family law: coercive and controlling behaviour is expressly incorporated within the federal Divorce Act definition of family violence and the best-interests analysis.

“`

2. Civil law: in May 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada recognised a new tort of intimate partner violence in Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia, addressing the distinctive harm caused by coercive control.

3. Criminal law: the Protecting Victims Act, which received Royal Assent on 18 June 2026, creates a specific Criminal Code offence concerning coercive or controlling conduct towards an intimate partner.

“`

That matters because coercive control has always been difficult for legal systems built around identifying discrete events.

A punch is an event.

A threat is an event.

A particular abusive message is an event.

Coercive control is often something different.

It may consist of hundreds of individually explainable acts which, when viewed together, establish an architecture of domination: surveillance, isolation, intimidation, financial restriction, manipulation of children, threats, humiliation, regulation of everyday life, interference with relationships, litigation pressure and the systematic erosion of another person’s autonomy.

Look at only one incident and the abuse may appear insignificant.

Look at the pattern and the case may look completely different.

Canada has recognised coercive control in family law since 2021

Canada did not suddenly discover coercive control in 2026.

Important amendments to the federal Divorce Act came into force on 1 March 2021.

The Act defines “family violence” broadly. Crucially, the definition is not restricted to behaviour which constitutes a criminal offence.

It includes violent or threatening behaviour, conduct causing fear for someone’s safety and a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour.

It can include:

physical abuse;
sexual abuse;
threats to kill or cause bodily harm;
harassment and stalking;
psychological abuse;
financial abuse;
failure to provide necessities;
threats against animals or property; and
harm to animals or damage to property.

The definition is particularly important for children because it expressly includes a child’s direct or indirect exposure to family violence.

That distinction matters

“`

A family court is not conducting a criminal prosecution. The question is not simply whether conduct could be proved beyond reasonable doubt as a criminal offence. The court is concerned with the child’s welfare, risk and the reality of family functioning. Canada expressly puts that distinction into its federal family-law framework.

“`

Children do not need to be physically assaulted to be affected by abuse

This is an area where both Canadian law and the law of England and Wales have moved significantly.

A child can be harmed by domestic abuse even where the abusive parent never lays a hand on the child.

Children can live inside the consequences of coercive control.

They may watch one parent modify everything they say and do to avoid another parent’s reaction.

They may understand which subjects cannot safely be discussed.

They may become messengers.

They may be questioned after spending time with the other parent.

Their telephone contact may be monitored.

Their relationships with grandparents, siblings or the other side of their family may become contested territory.

They may learn that affection itself carries consequences.

They may therefore experience the abusive system even when they are not its original target.

Canada’s Divorce Act expressly requires courts examining family violence to consider whether a child was directly or indirectly exposed to it and the resulting physical, emotional or psychological harm or risk of harm.

This is not a peripheral issue. It is part of the best-interests assessment.

Canada asks courts to identify the pattern

Section 16 of the Canadian Divorce Act requires courts dealing with family violence to consider a number of factors, including:

the nature, seriousness and frequency of the family violence;
when it occurred;
whether there is a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour;
whether the violence was directed at the child;
whether the child was directly or indirectly exposed to it;
physical, emotional and psychological harm or risk of harm;
whether the safety of the child or another family member has been compromised;
whether the behaviour caused fear for safety; and
what steps, if any, the person responsible has taken to prevent further violence and improve their parenting.

Justice Canada’s explanatory material goes further.

It recognises that coercive and controlling family violence is cumulative.

It also recognises something practitioners dealing with post-separation abuse will immediately understand: children and parenting arrangements themselves may be used as instruments of continued control.

Justice Canada gives examples including refusing to comply with parenting orders or threatening the former partner with the loss of parenting time.

The critical question is often not “What happened on Tuesday?” It is “What system of behaviour existed before, during and after Tuesday — and what did that system do to the adults and children living inside it?”

Then came Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia

On 15 May 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada delivered a major judgment in Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia.

The case concerned whether Canadian law should recognise a civil claim capable of addressing the distinctive harm caused by intimate partner violence.

The Court concluded that existing torts did not fully capture that harm and recognised a new tort of intimate partner violence.

This is important because traditional civil claims may identify particular wrongs — such as assault or intentional infliction of emotional distress — while still missing what coercive control does as a whole.

The Supreme Court described intimate partner violence in terms of coercive and controlling conduct capable of undermining a person’s dignity, autonomy and equality.

It is not limited to physical violence.

Relevant behaviour may include:

isolation;
humiliation;
surveillance;
financial control;
sexual coercion;
intimidation; and
other behaviour which, understood contextually, amounts to coercive control.

The significance is difficult to overstate.

The law is recognising that there can be a distinct injury in stripping another person of meaningful autonomy over time.

That injury cannot always be understood by separating the relationship into a spreadsheet of incidents.

The new Canadian criminal offence

Canada then took another major step.

The Protecting Victims Act, formerly Bill C-16, received Royal Assent on 18 June 2026.

Among a wider package of criminal justice reforms, the legislation creates a specific offence aimed at a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct towards an intimate partner.

The legislation is intended to capture combinations or repeated instances of conduct including violence, sexual coercion and other controlling behaviour which would reasonably be expected to cause an intimate partner to believe that their physical or psychological safety is threatened.

The statutory scheme identifies areas of a victim’s life which coercive behaviour may attempt to control, including:

social interactions;
communications;
childcare decisions;
employment;
education;
finances;
property;
physical appearance;
access to healthcare or medication;
expression of opinions; and
participation in linguistic or cultural communities.

Threats of suicide or self-harm used as part of a coercive pattern may also fall within the framework where the statutory requirements are satisfied.

The new offence carries a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment on indictment.

But there is an important caveat: it is not yet operational

Do not miss this

“`

Bill C-16 became law on 18 June 2026, but Justice Canada states that the coercive-control provisions will come into force no later than two years after Royal Assent.

They are therefore enacted, but at the time of writing in August 2026 they are not yet an operational criminal offence.

“`

The reason given for the delayed commencement is particularly telling.

Canada wants time for training and implementation.

That is a lesson in itself.

Coercive control legislation can fail if police, lawyers, social workers, prosecutors, judges and safeguarding professionals continue to search only for incidents.

You cannot legislate for patterns of abuse and then train professionals to look exclusively for episodes.

Nor can a legal system sensibly say that coercive control is cumulative and contextual while forcing victims to reduce years of behaviour to a small number of decontextualised allegations.

Canada has also connected coercive control with femicide

The 2026 reforms go further again.

Canada’s new legislation changes the treatment of certain murders occurring in circumstances involving coercive control, hate, sexual violence or exploitation and expressly uses the term femicide where the victim is female.

That is significant because coercive control is not merely being treated as unpleasant relationship behaviour.

It is being recognised within a risk continuum.

This reflects something domestic-abuse specialists have argued for years: coercive control is relevant not only because of the psychological damage it causes but because patterns of domination, stalking, threats, possessiveness and escalating post-separation behaviour can also be important indicators of serious risk.

Separation does not necessarily end coercive control.

In some cases, it changes its form.

So how does England and Wales compare?

England and Wales should not be presented as legally backward on coercive control.

We already have substantial legislation.

Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 created the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour.

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 subsequently broadened the framework, including removing the previous requirement that perpetrator and victim be living together for the coercive-control offence to apply.

That was crucial for recognising post-separation abuse.

The Domestic Abuse Act also provides a broad statutory definition of domestic abuse encompassing:

physical or sexual abuse;
violent or threatening behaviour;
controlling or coercive behaviour;
economic abuse; and
psychological, emotional or other abuse.

Importantly, section 3 recognises children as victims of domestic abuse where they see, hear or experience the effects of abuse between connected adults and are related to them.

So England and Wales already possess many of the building blocks.

The difficulty is often not whether the law recognises coercive control.

The difficulty is how reliably the family justice system identifies, evidences and responds to it.

PD12J is stronger than many litigants realise

Practice Direction 12J governs child-arrangements proceedings where domestic abuse is alleged, admitted or there is other reason to believe that domestic abuse has occurred.

It expressly recognises controlling and coercive behaviour.

It requires courts to consider domestic abuse at every stage of proceedings and, where relevant, identify factual and welfare issues and ensure that child arrangements do not expose a child or parent to further harm.

Where abuse is established, the court may need to consider its effect on:

the child;
the child’s relationship with each parent;
the parent with whom the child lives;
future arrangements;
the likelihood of future abusive behaviour; and
each parent’s capacity to understand the effect of the abuse.

PD12J also directs attention to whether a parent is genuinely promoting the child’s welfare or using the proceedings to continue domestic abuse against the other parent.

That provision should be read carefully.

Because post-separation coercive control can migrate directly into family proceedings.

The family court itself can become part of the machinery of control

Litigation is not inherently abusive.

Parents must be able to bring genuine welfare disputes before a court.

But proceedings can be weaponised.

That may happen through repeated applications, unnecessary communications, relentless allegations, financially exhausting procedural activity, demands for information, manipulation of handovers, monitoring through children or continued attempts to exercise control over the other parent’s daily life.

Parliament expressly recognised this risk when reforming section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989.

PD12J and Practice Direction 12Q acknowledge that further applications may themselves form part of a pattern of controlling or coercive behaviour.

The court can therefore restrict further Children Act applications without permission where the statutory criteria are met.

That is a safeguarding power, not simply a case-management convenience.

Re H-N: stop looking at abuse through a keyhole

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Re H-N and Others (Children) (Domestic Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearings) [2021] EWCA Civ 448 remains central to understanding coercive control in private children proceedings.

One of its most important implications is that the court must not lose the overall evidential picture by treating allegations as completely disconnected events.

Coercive control is, by definition, about pattern and context.

A traditional schedule of allegations may sometimes assist in identifying disputed facts.

But it can also become a poor analytical tool where the allegation is fundamentally that numerous behaviours worked together to establish domination, fear, dependency or control.

This concern has now been reinforced procedurally.

Amendments to PD12J taking effect from 5 January 2026 expressly moved away from an overly rigid focus on “Scott Schedules” and emphasised a holistic assessment of domestic-abuse allegations, including patterns of coercive and controlling behaviour.

This is a significant procedural development

“`

A victim should not be forced to prove the architecture of coercive control by pretending it is merely a collection of unrelated bricks.

“`

The real comparison: Canada has made the pattern unusually explicit

England and Wales recognise coercive control.

Canada recognises coercive control.

The difference is therefore more subtle than “Canada has it and we do not”.

The interesting feature of the Canadian approach is the degree to which the same underlying concept is becoming visible across multiple legal domains.

“`

Issue	Canada	England & Wales
Family-law recognition	Family violence under the Divorce Act expressly includes patterns of coercive and controlling behaviour.	Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and PD12J expressly recognise controlling and coercive behaviour.
Children	Direct or indirect exposure to family violence is expressly recognised.	Children who see, hear or experience the effects of domestic abuse can themselves be statutory victims.
Criminal coercive-control offence	Enacted in 2026; commencement delayed for training and implementation.	Section 76 Serious Crime Act 2015, subsequently extended to post-separation conduct.
Civil damages	Supreme Court recognised a distinct tort of intimate partner violence in 2026.	No directly equivalent standalone tort of coercive control.
Post-separation litigation abuse	Family-law guidance recognises use of parenting arrangements as a means of continued control.	PD12J and PD12Q allow the court to recognise proceedings or repeated applications as potential continuation of abuse.

“`

What England and Wales should learn from Canada

The lesson is not necessarily that Parliament needs another definition.

We have definitions.

We have statutory guidance.

We have PD12J.

We have appellate authority.

We have specific recognition of post-separation coercive control.

The harder question is whether the system consistently translates those principles into decision-making.

1. Pattern analysis needs to become routine

Courts should ask not merely whether individual allegations are proved but whether the evidence as a whole establishes a pattern and, if it does, what that pattern means for parenting capacity, risk and the child’s welfare.

2. Post-separation conduct matters

Separation should not create an artificial evidential cut-off.

Coercive control may continue through finances, digital surveillance, children, correspondence, handovers, schools, healthcare decisions or litigation.

3. Behaviour involving children needs to be analysed in context

A dispute about a child’s telephone, contact arrangements, passport, clothing, school information or relationships with relatives may be an ordinary parenting disagreement.

Or it may form part of a wider pattern.

Context decides which.

4. Professionals need pattern-recognition training

Canada’s decision to delay commencement of its new criminal offence while training is developed deserves attention.

Legislation cannot recognise coercive control effectively if professional practice repeatedly atomises it.

5. The child’s experience must not disappear behind the parental dispute

Family proceedings often speak about domestic abuse as though it concerns the adults and child arrangements as though they concern the child.

In reality, those questions may be inseparable.

A parent who controls, intimidates or terrorises the other parent may affect that parent’s capacity to care freely, the emotional environment in which the child develops and the child’s own understanding of relationships, loyalty, safety and autonomy.

6. Absence of prosecution is not absence of abuse

This point is fundamental.

Family courts work to a different evidential standard and perform a different function from criminal courts.

A person does not need to have been prosecuted or convicted before domestic abuse can be relevant to a welfare determination.

Canada makes this particularly explicit in its definition of family violence.

England and Wales should be equally clear in practice.

For litigants in person: evidence the pattern, not just the worst day

People experiencing coercive control often make one of two understandable mistakes when preparing family-court evidence.

Some describe everything.

The evidence becomes hundreds of pages long and the central pattern disappears.

Others describe only the most serious incidents.

The court then sees several apparently disconnected events and never understands the controlling system surrounding them.

The answer is not necessarily more evidence.

It is better organised evidence.

A useful coercive-control evidence structure may identify:

“`

The behaviour: what happened?
The repetition: how often did it happen?
The context: what else was happening around it?
The mechanism of control: what was the person trying to control or restrict?
The impact: what changed in the victim’s daily behaviour?
The child impact: what did the child see, hear, experience or change because of it?
Corroboration: what messages, records, witnesses, police material, school evidence, medical material or professional observations support it?
Post-separation continuation: did the behaviour stop, escalate or migrate into another form?
Current risk: why does the historical pattern matter to today’s child-arrangements decision?

“`

The objective is not to attach a sinister interpretation to every disagreement.

It is to make the evidence capable of answering the correct legal question.

Is this ordinary conflict?

Is it a handful of isolated incidents?

Or is there evidence of a sustained pattern in which one person has attempted to subordinate, frighten, isolate, monitor or control another?

Conflict and coercive control are not the same thing

This distinction matters enormously in private children proceedings.

“High conflict” can become a dangerously imprecise label.

Two adults arguing with each other is not necessarily the same phenomenon as one adult establishing a system of coercive control over another.

Calling both situations “conflict” risks flattening the power dynamics.

It may also create false symmetry.

A victim’s resistance, anxiety, protective behaviour or refusal to cooperate with unsafe arrangements should not automatically be treated as equivalent to the behaviour which produced that response.

Context matters.

Pattern matters.

Power matters.

And the child’s lived experience of that dynamic matters.

The deeper significance of Ahluwalia: autonomy itself can be harmed

Perhaps the most intellectually important aspect of the Canadian Supreme Court’s 2026 decision is its recognition that coercive control is capable of producing a distinctive injury to autonomy and equality.

That is useful far beyond damages litigation.

It helps explain why domestic abuse cannot always be measured by visible injury.

Imagine living for years while another person determines who you speak to, what money you can access, what you wear, where you go, when you sleep, what opinions you can safely express, how you parent, who you can contact and what consequences follow if you disobey.

There may be no single incident capable of explaining that experience.

The harm lies partly in the accumulated destruction of freedom.

That is precisely why coercive control requires contextual legal analysis.

And this matters profoundly in family court

Parenting requires more than an ability to feed a child, provide accommodation and get them to school.

It involves recognising that a child is an autonomous developing person with relationships, feelings, loyalties and emotional needs of their own.

Where a parent has engaged in coercive control, the family court may need to ask difficult welfare questions.

Can that parent distinguish the child’s needs from their own need for control?

Can they support the child’s relationship with the other parent?

Can they tolerate the child holding affection for people they dislike?

Can they respect appropriate privacy and boundaries?

Can they make joint decisions without using parental responsibility as leverage?

Do they understand the impact of the abuse?

Has the behaviour genuinely changed?

These are welfare questions, not punishment.

What I hope happens next in England and Wales

I do not think the answer is simply to keep passing legislation and assume the problem has therefore been solved.

The statutory architecture in England and Wales is already considerably stronger than many people realise.

What we need is consistent implementation.

I would like to see:

stronger and continuing judicial education on coercive control and post-separation abuse;
greater consistency between PD12J on paper and its application in individual cases;
proper use of holistic evidence rather than mechanically reducing abuse to isolated incidents;
clear analysis of the distinction between conflict and coercive control;
greater recognition of children as victims of the abusive environment, not merely witnesses to adult behaviour;
careful examination of the use of children, communication and litigation as potential mechanisms of post-separation control;
better coordination between criminal justice, family justice, safeguarding and domestic-abuse services;
greater emphasis on behaviour, impact and risk rather than stereotypes about how a “real victim” ought to present;
proper examination of whether a perpetrator demonstrates insight and sustained behavioural change; and
family-court decisions which explain transparently how domestic-abuse findings have affected the welfare analysis.

Most of that does not require inventing a new legal concept.

It requires using the concepts we already have properly.

The central point

“`

Coercive control cannot be understood by taking a relationship apart incident by incident and then asking whether each individual piece looks sufficiently serious. The legal system has to be capable of putting those pieces back together. Only then can it see the pattern, the power dynamic, the impact on autonomy and the consequences for children.

“`

Canada is worth watching

Canada has not solved domestic abuse.

No legislation can make that claim.

Nor should comparative legal analysis become a competition in which one jurisdiction is declared “better” than another.

England and Wales have themselves been internationally significant in criminalising coercive and controlling behaviour.

But Canada’s developing framework deserves serious attention.

Its federal family law tells courts explicitly to look for coercive and controlling patterns.

Its Supreme Court has recognised that intimate partner violence can cause a distinctive injury to dignity, autonomy and equality which traditional incident-based torts do not fully capture.

Its Parliament has now enacted a specific criminal coercive-control offence with a maximum penalty of ten years on indictment.

And, tellingly, Canada is delaying implementation of that offence to allow time for training.

There is a message in all of that.

Coercive control is not merely a category of behaviour. It is a way of understanding abuse.

Once the law accepts that, procedure, evidence gathering, professional training and judicial analysis need to follow.

That is where the next stage of reform in England and Wales should concentrate.

Key legal sources and authorities

“`

This article has been prepared by reference to primary and official materials current as at 8 August 2026, including:

Canada, Divorce Act, particularly the statutory definition of family violence and section 16 best-interests provisions concerning family violence and coercive and controlling behaviour.
Justice Canada, The Divorce Act Changes Explained, including official guidance concerning family violence, coercive and controlling behaviour and children’s exposure to abuse.
Justice Canada HELP Toolkit, addressing identification and response to family violence in family-law practice.
Supreme Court of Canada, Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia (2026), concerning the recognition of a tort of intimate partner violence.
Protecting Victims Act / Bill C-16, receiving Royal Assent on 18 June 2026, together with Justice Canada’s accompanying legislative material.
Domestic Abuse Act 2021.
Serious Crime Act 2015, section 76, as amended.
Children Act 1989.
Family Procedure Rules, Practice Direction 12J — Child Arrangements and Contact Orders: Domestic Abuse and Harm.
Practice Direction 12Q concerning section 91(14) Children Act orders.
Re H-N and Others (Children) (Domestic Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearings) [2021] EWCA Civ 448.

“`

Legal information, not individual legal advice

“`

This article provides general legal information and commentary. Family proceedings are fact-sensitive and outcomes depend on the evidence, procedural history, orders sought, applicable law and the court’s assessment of the child’s welfare. If domestic abuse or coercive control is relevant to proceedings, careful legal and evidential analysis may be required.

“`

Need help making the pattern clear to the Family Court?

“`

Coercive-control cases can be particularly difficult for litigants in person because the evidence may be extensive while the court needs the issues presented clearly, proportionately and by reference to the child’s welfare.

JSH Law provides practical, evidence-led support with:

chronologies and evidence organisation;
witness statements and position statements;
schedules of allegations and pattern analysis;
safeguarding evidence;
Cafcass reports and responses;
non-molestation order paperwork;
appeal paperwork;
hearing preparation;
case reviews; and
practical support for litigants in person dealing with complex family proceedings.

The purpose is not to exaggerate a case. It is to identify the legally relevant issues, organise the evidence properly and make the court’s job easier.

“`

Start with a 15-minute consultation

If you are not sure what help you need, where to start, or whether JSH Law can assist with your case, you can begin with a short 15-minute initial telephone consultation.

You can use the call to explain where your case currently stands, identify the immediate problem and discuss what practical support may be appropriate.

Choose an available time below:

The initial call does not constitute legal advice and does not create a solicitor-client relationship.

“`

Follow JSH Law

Follow JSH Law for family justice commentary, practical support for litigants in person, domestic abuse and safeguarding analysis, legal technology, AI and access-to-justice developments.

JSH Law on Linktree

Website articles, social channels, updates and JSH Law resources in one place.

“`

Can a secret recording be used as evidence in the Family Court?

August 6, 2026/0 Comments/in 4. Domestic Abuse & Safeguarding Cluster, 5. Court Skills for Litigants in Person/by jessica susan hill

A secret recording can capture an admission, expose abuse behind closed doors or prove that a professional account is inaccurate. It can also invade a child’s privacy, escalate conflict and seriously damage the recorder’s case. The legal position is not simply “recording is allowed” or “recording is illegal”: lawfulness, admissibility, authenticity and evidential weight are separate questions.

JSH Law | Evidence, domestic abuse and family justice

Secret Recordings in the Family Court: What England and Wales Can Learn from Australia and the Rest of the World

A secret recording may capture the admission, threat or controlling behaviour that nobody else sees. It may also invade a child’s privacy, amount to harassment, derail proceedings or damage the case of the person who made it. Following a significant Australian High Court judgment, this article examines how courts around the world approach covert recordings—and explains what litigants in person in England and Wales need to do before trying to rely on one.

Updated: 6 August 2026

The short answer

Yes, a covert recording can sometimes be used in family proceedings in England and Wales. But it is not automatically admissible merely because it appears relevant, and it is not automatically excluded merely because it was made secretly or may have been obtained improperly.

The court will consider relevance, evidential value, authenticity, completeness, fairness, privacy, proportionality and—above all in children proceedings—the welfare of the child. The reason for making the recording and the way it was obtained may become evidence about the recorder’s own behaviour.

Safety comes before evidence

Do not confront an abusive person or try to engineer an admission if doing so could place you or a child at risk. A recording is not a safety plan. If there is immediate danger, call 999. Evidence can be important, but no piece of evidence is worth escalating a dangerous situation.

The Australian case: a recording made to protect bodily autonomy

On 5 August 2026, the High Court of Australia delivered its unanimous judgment in Potter (A Pseudonym) v The King [2026] HCA 25.

The appellant had been convicted in South Australia of raping his wife while she was asleep. Before a later assault, the complainant had secretly recorded a conversation on her mobile phone in which he admitted sexually assaulting her while she slept.

She explained that she made the recording to remind herself not to return to the relationship. The appellant argued that the recording had been made contrary to South Australia’s Surveillance Devices Act 2016 and therefore could not be used at his trial.

The High Court rejected that argument. It held that making the recording was reasonably necessary to protect the complainant’s lawful interest in her bodily autonomy and integrity. Her circumstances—including her vulnerability, health problems, responsibility for two young children, limited support and continuing exposure to the appellant in the home—were central to that assessment.

“The interest of a person in not being raped is an interest deserving of the very strongest protection.”

Crucially, the court did not dismiss the recording as merely a private reminder that could have been replaced by a written note. It recognised that hearing the perpetrator’s stark admission could be a much more powerful reminder of the danger she faced.

The judgment is important because it takes the psychological and practical reality of abuse seriously. A victim-survivor may know that something terrible has happened but still be pulled back towards the relationship through fear, dependency, isolation, trauma, hope or coercive control. Evidence may serve a protective purpose before it ever becomes litigation evidence.

What the Australian judgment does not mean

This was a criminal appeal applying South Australian surveillance legislation. It did not decide that all secret recordings are lawful, that every recording of alleged abuse must be admitted, or that the same rule automatically applies in the family courts of Australia, England and Wales or any other country.

Australian surveillance law also varies between states and territories. The judgment must not be reduced to the dangerous social-media message that “the High Court says you can now secretly record anyone”.

Its deeper principle is more careful: the court examined the purpose of the recording, the nature of the lawful interest being protected and the victim-survivor’s actual circumstances at the time.

Three different questions: lawfulness, admissibility and weight

People often ask, “Is a secret recording legal?” That is only the first question.

1. Was it lawful to make?

This may depend on privacy, surveillance, data protection, harassment, computer-access and communications law, as well as whether the recorder participated in the conversation.

2. Can it be admitted?

A court may admit relevant evidence despite concerns about how it was obtained—or exclude material that would otherwise be admissible to deal with the case fairly and proportionately.

3. What weight will it carry?

A recording may be genuine but still misleading, incomplete, prompted, taken out of context or of little help in deciding the issues before the court.

A recording can therefore be lawful to make but excluded from a family case. Conversely, in England and Wales, evidence obtained improperly is not necessarily excluded automatically—although the person who obtained it may still face criticism, costs, an injunction or other consequences.

What is happening around the world?

No responsible article can state a single rule for “the whole world”. Recording law differs not only between countries but, in Australia, Canada and the United States, between states, territories or provinces. Family-court evidential rules may also differ from the criminal law regulating how a recording was made.

The following comparative survey covers representative common-law and civil-law jurisdictions across Europe, Asia, Africa, North America, South America and Oceania.

Jurisdiction	Making the recording	Court approach	Practical lesson
England and Wales	There is no simple statutory “one-party consent” rule governing every face-to-face recording by private individuals. Legality depends on the circumstances, purpose and later use. Harassment, privacy, data protection or other wrongdoing may arise.	No automatic exclusion solely because evidence was obtained improperly. The family court controls evidence under FPR 22.1 and considers relevance, authenticity, fairness, proportionality and welfare.	Tell the court early. Preserve and disclose the complete original. Do not secretly record children or hearings.
Australia	Surveillance legislation varies by state and territory. In Potter, South Australia’s protective-interest exception applied because the recording was reasonably necessary to protect bodily autonomy and integrity.	Lawfulness and admissibility remain separate, fact-sensitive questions. Improperly obtained evidence may be excluded, but the statutory and evidential framework varies.	Purpose, vulnerability, safety and the seriousness of the interest being protected matter.
India	Privacy arguments remain relevant, but the Supreme Court took a broad approach to spousal recordings in Vibhor Garg v Neha, 2025 INSC 829.	The court held that secretly recorded conversations could be placed before the Family Court in matrimonial proceedings. It relied on the exception to marital-communications privilege and the Family Court’s wide evidential powers.	Broad admissibility may assist truth-finding but also risks normalising surveillance between spouses. Admissible does not mean decisive or ethically justified.
Canada	Section 184 of the federal Criminal Code generally permits an interception where the originator or intended recipient consents. This usually allows a participant to record their own conversation, but not to bug conversations between other people.	Family courts commonly discourage secret recordings because of reliability, conflict and public-policy concerns. They may nevertheless admit compelling evidence where its value outweighs those concerns.	“Legal to make” does not mean “wise to make” or “certain to be admitted”.
United States	Federal law generally permits participant or one-party-consent recording, but state laws can be stricter. California, for example, generally protects confidential communications while creating specific domestic-violence and child-protection exceptions.	Admissibility is state-specific. Some custody courts have considered recordings even where the method of obtaining them was problematic; others exclude them or treat the recording conduct as relevant to parenting.	Never rely on a general statement that the US is a “one-party country”. Check the law of the particular state.
New Zealand	The Crimes Act 1961 contains an exemption where the person intercepting a private communication is a party to it. Recording other people’s conversation is a different matter.	Relevance, reliability, privacy and child-welfare considerations remain. Family Court hearings cannot be recorded without the judge’s express permission.	Participant-consent legislation does not remove the family court’s welfare and case-management controls.
France	Article 226-1 of the Penal Code criminalises deliberately recording private or confidential words without consent in circumstances engaging private life.	In 2023, the Cour de cassation held that unlawfully or unfairly obtained evidence is not automatically excluded from civil proceedings. The judge must decide whether it is indispensable and whether the interference is strictly proportionate.	A court’s ability to consider evidence does not retrospectively make the method used to obtain it lawful.
Germany	Section 201 of the German Criminal Code criminalises unauthorised audio recording of another person’s privately spoken words and unauthorised use or disclosure of such a recording.	Privacy and personality rights are strong. Any attempt to rely on covert material requires careful, case-specific advice; admissibility cannot be assumed.	International and cross-border families must not assume the English position applies while abroad.
South Africa	Section 4 of RICA generally permits a private person to intercept a communication to which they are a party, unless it is done for the purpose of committing an offence.	Relevance, authenticity, constitutional privacy and the child’s best interests remain important. Publication or wider use can raise separate issues.	Participant recording and unrestricted surveillance are not the same thing.
Brazil	The Federal Supreme Court’s Tema 237 states that evidence consisting of a recording made by one participant without the other participant’s knowledge is lawful.	Brazil’s Civil Procedure Code also permits parties to record civil hearings independently of judicial authorisation, although family cases remain subject to confidentiality and publication restrictions.	Brazil draws a very different line from England and Wales on recording proceedings themselves.

The global direction is not simply towards “record everything”. The emerging approach is purpose-specific: protect serious interests, test relevance and proportionality, preserve authenticity, avoid involving children and distinguish targeted evidence-gathering from coercive or obsessive surveillance.

The position in England and Wales

In May 2025, the Family Justice Council published detailed guidance entitled Covert Recordings in Family Law Proceedings Concerning Children. It was produced for professionals and people representing themselves.

The guidance identifies three main categories:

recordings of other family members, including the other parent;
recordings of professionals such as Cafcass officers, social workers or experts; and
recordings of children.

The category matters. A recording of an adult making an unprompted admission of violence is very different from a parent hiding a device in a child’s clothing and sending that child into the other parent’s home.

No automatic exclusion

In civil and family proceedings, there is no standalone rule requiring every piece of improperly obtained evidence to be excluded. However, rule 22.1 of the Family Procedure Rules gives the court wide control over:

the issues on which evidence is required;
the nature of the evidence required;
the way evidence is placed before the court; and
whether otherwise admissible evidence should be excluded.

The court therefore conducts a balancing exercise. It will ask whether the recording helps prove or disprove a fact that actually needs to be decided, whether considering it is proportionate and whether admitting it is compatible with dealing with the case justly.

Hearsay does not necessarily prevent its use

Most covert recordings will amount to hearsay because an out-of-court statement is being relied upon as evidence of what was said or of the truth of what was said.

In children proceedings, the Children (Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence) Order 1993 generally removes the rule against hearsay where the evidence concerns the upbringing, maintenance or welfare of a child. That does not mean the judge must believe it. Admissibility and evidential weight remain separate.

The recording may help—or seriously backfire

English family cases demonstrate both possibilities.

When a recording exposed wrongdoing

In Re F (Care Proceedings: Failures of Expert) [2016] EWHC 2149 (Fam), a recording helped reveal that a mother had been significantly misquoted and adversely misrepresented by an expert.

In Medway Council v A & Ors [2015] EWFC B66, recordings exposed racial abuse and hostility by a foster carer. They became important because the parents’ complaints had previously been treated dismissively.

When recording harmed the recorder’s case

In M v F (Covert Recording of Children) [2016] EWFC 29, a father and his partner recorded a child extensively, including by hiding devices in her clothing.

The recordings produced no useful information, increased costs, damaged relationships and raised serious concerns about the adults’ ability to understand and meet the child’s emotional needs.

This is the central reality: the content of a recording may not be the most important evidence it produces. The fact that a parent engaged in intrusive surveillance may itself become relevant to the welfare decision.

Domestic abuse and coercive control often happen where nobody else can see

Domestic abuse cases create a genuine evidential difficulty. Abuse is commonly carried out in private. The perpetrator may present as calm, credible and cooperative to professionals while behaving entirely differently in the home.

A recording may capture:

an admission of violence, sexual assault or threatening behaviour;
threats concerning the child, money, housing, immigration or court proceedings;
monitoring, humiliation, intimidation or repeated verbal degradation;
pressure to withdraw allegations or abandon an application;
instructions about what the victim or child must tell Cafcass, police or the court;
an attempt to prevent contact with relatives or support services;
a significant difference between the person’s private conduct and formal account; or
the tone, persistence and cumulative nature of coercive behaviour that a written message cannot convey.

That potential value must be recognised. Telling a victim-survivor that covert recording is always wrong can erase the reality that abuse is frequently hidden and routinely denied.

But the opposite approach—encouraging everybody in a high-conflict case to record constantly—is equally unsafe. Persistent surveillance can itself be coercive control, stalking, harassment or litigation abuse. An abusive parent may record selectively, manufacture confrontations, provoke reactions or use surveillance to make the other parent feel watched at all times.

The court should examine power and purpose

A targeted recording made by a frightened person during a conversation concerning threats or serious abuse is not equivalent to a campaign of monitoring an ex-partner, bugging a child or repeatedly manufacturing confrontations. Treating every covert recording as morally identical would obscure the dynamics of abuse.

The Australian judgment provides a useful model because it examined why the victim made the recording, what she needed to protect and the reality of the situation in which she was living.

Secretly recording a child is fundamentally different

The Family Justice Council guidance is clear that covertly recording children rarely promotes their welfare, whatever the parent’s intention.

This includes:

sewing or placing a recorder in a child’s coat, bag or clothing;
leaving a device in the child’s bedroom or another private space;
recording the child’s calls with the other parent;
asking the child repeated or leading questions while recording;
filming a child’s distress at handover to prove resistance to contact;
sending the child into a meeting with a hidden device; or
using a child’s smartwatch, telephone or other device as a surveillance tool.

A child may later experience the recording as a profound breach of trust. It can place the child in the middle of adult litigation and turn them into an evidence-gatherer against a parent or professional.

Leading questions also create reliability problems. A child may learn which answers a parent appears to want, repeat allegations to stop the questioning or become confused about whether words and ideas came from their own memory or from an adult.

Do not repeatedly question a child to produce evidence. If a child spontaneously says something concerning, make a calm contemporaneous note using their exact words, record the date and circumstances, avoid follow-up interrogation and report safeguarding concerns through the appropriate professional or legal route.

If a recording effectively becomes an informal assessment or examination of a child for the purpose of expert evidence, section 13 of the Children and Families Act 2014 may also be engaged. Evidence resulting from an unauthorised assessment can be inadmissible unless the court rules otherwise.

Recording Cafcass, social workers, experts and meetings

Parents often want to record professionals because they:

have previously been misquoted;
struggle to take notes because of disability, trauma or anxiety;
want an accurate record of decisions and safeguarding concerns;
have experienced omissions or inaccuracies in professional notes; or
do not trust that a formal report will reflect what was actually said.

Those concerns are not inherently unreasonable. The Family Justice Council records Cafcass guidance that there is no legal reason why a parent or carer should not record their own interview, subject to any direction from the court. The Cafcass officer may state in their report that the interview was recorded.

The safer approach is usually to request an overt recording in advance and agree:

who will make the recording;
whether both sides will receive a copy;
how it will be stored securely;
who may listen to it;
whether permission is required before it is used in proceedings; and
that it will not be edited, published or circulated on social media.

Some specialist assessments, particularly neuropsychological testing, may be undermined by recording because it can affect the validity of the process or compromise protected testing material. Recording should therefore be discussed before the assessment begins.

If a professional refuses a reasonable request to record, ask for the refusal and reasons in writing. You can also request written minutes, submit written corrections promptly and ask for your corrections to be retained with the original record.

Never secretly record a court hearing

Recording a family court hearing without permission can amount to contempt of court. This applies to in-person, telephone, video and remote hearings.

Section 9 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 prohibits the unauthorised use of a sound-recording device in court. Additional restrictions apply to filming, photography, remote participation, publication and transmission.

Do not record the screen, use another telephone to capture the hearing, take screenshots, activate automatic meeting transcription or allow an AI note-taking bot to join without express permission.

If you need an accurate record, use the official process. HMCTS permits applications for an official audio recording or transcript using Form EX107. Judicial approval may be required, particularly in private family proceedings, and costs may apply.

I already have a recording—what should I do?

If a potentially relevant recording already exists, do not simply attach a short clip to your statement or send hours of audio to Cafcass. Handle it as evidence.

Preserve the complete original.
Keep the original file in its native format. Do not rename, trim, enhance, compress, filter or overwrite it. Create a separate working copy.
Back it up securely.
Keep an untouched copy in a secure location. Do not store the only copy on the telephone used to make it.
Record its provenance.
Note the date, approximate time, location, device used, people present, how the recording began and ended, and whether there are any gaps.
Identify the specific issue it proves.
Do not say only that it “shows what the other parent is like”. Link it to an issue the court must decide: an alleged threat, admission, breach, incident of abuse, safeguarding concern or material discrepancy in professional evidence.
Prepare a neutral schedule.
For each proposed recording, list the filename, date, duration, participants, short description, relevant allegation or issue and the important timestamps.
Prepare an accurate transcript.
Identify each speaker, include timestamps and mark unclear words as “[inaudible]”. Do not improve grammar or silently remove words. Make clear who prepared the transcript.
Tell the court early.
The Family Justice Council warns against trial by ambush. Late production may cause an adjournment, additional hearings, delay and costs.
Ask for case-management directions.
The court may require a Form C2 application on notice. Explain what was recorded, how and why it was recorded, whether it has been edited, and why it is relevant.
Provide the other parties with proper access if ordered.
Reliance on a selected excerpt while withholding the remainder is likely to create serious fairness and authenticity concerns.
Keep it private.
Do not upload it to Facebook, TikTok, YouTube, WhatsApp groups or campaign pages. Publication can engage contempt, family-court confidentiality, data protection, privacy, harassment and child-identification restrictions.

A useful witness-statement format

“On [date], during a conversation between [identify participants], I made an audio recording without [name]’s knowledge. I did so because [brief factual explanation—not argument]. I have preserved the original, complete and unedited file. The recording is approximately [duration] and is relevant to [identify the pleaded allegation or issue]. At approximately [timestamp], [briefly identify the relevant words or event]. I notified the court and the other parties of the recording on [date]. I will provide the complete original and an accurate transcript in accordance with the court’s directions.”

Possible directions to request

Depending on the case, a litigant may ask the court to consider directions dealing with:

whether permission to rely on identified recordings is required;
disclosure of complete unedited files by a specified date;
preparation of an agreed transcript or identification of disputed passages;
the precise issues for which each recording may be used;
secure filing and access arrangements;
whether a short admissibility hearing is necessary;
whether authenticity is genuinely disputed;
whether expert analysis would be necessary and proportionate; and
how the child’s privacy and welfare will be protected.

A forensic expert should not be instructed unilaterally where Part 25 and court permission apply. Expert analysis can also be expensive and disproportionate unless authenticity is genuinely in dispute and the recording is important to the outcome.

AI has made authenticity a much bigger issue

Recordings can now be edited, generated, enhanced and imitated with consumer technology. Voice cloning and deepfake video mean that “it sounds like them” or “the room looks familiar” may no longer be enough.

In Matter of M.S., decided in February 2026, New York’s highest court overturned Family Court findings that had depended upon video evidence because the videos had not been adequately authenticated. The majority expressly considered the growing ability to create convincing manipulated material.

For family proceedings in England and Wales, this makes the Family Justice Council’s emphasis on completeness and authenticity even more important.

Do not “improve” the original

Noise reduction, automatic clipping, voice isolation, speed adjustment or AI enhancement may be useful for creating a working copy, but the untouched original must remain available. Any processing should be documented and disclosed.

AI-generated transcripts must be checked manually against the recording. Automated tools frequently misidentify speakers, omit short words such as “not”, invent punctuation and convert unclear audio into confident but inaccurate text.

A transcript is an aid, not a replacement for the recording. If the words are disputed, the judge may need the original audio, the context and evidence from the people involved.

What England and Wales should learn

The international comparison reveals several lessons for the family justice system.

1. Purpose and power matter

The law should distinguish a targeted recording made to preserve evidence of serious abuse from persistent surveillance used to intimidate or control. The Australian focus on bodily autonomy and the person’s circumstances provides a principled way to make that distinction.

2. Children must not become surveillance devices

Across jurisdictions, courts repeatedly warn that bugging children, recording their private conversations and questioning them for litigation damages trust and increases conflict. The child’s welfare must not be sacrificed in the hunt for evidence.

3. Professionals should facilitate overt recording

People affected by trauma, disability, neurodivergence or language barriers may reasonably need an accurate record of an important interview or assessment. Clear organisational policies allowing overt recording can reduce suspicion, avoid disputes over notes and make covert recording less likely.

4. Authenticity must be addressed early

The rise of synthetic media means courts need proportionate procedures for preserving original files, recording provenance and resolving genuine challenges without turning every case into expensive digital-forensic litigation.

5. Litigants in person need usable directions

A person without a lawyer may not understand that sending a clip to the judge is procedurally inadequate. The 2025 Family Justice Council guidance is a major step forward, but courts should provide short standard directions covering disclosure, transcripts, authenticity, relevance and privacy whenever covert material is identified.

The right approach is neither “secret recordings are always wrong” nor “record everything”. It is evidence-led, safety-aware and child-focused: what was recorded, why, how, whether it is genuine, what it proves, whether there was a safer alternative and what impact the recording itself has had on the child and family.

Frequently asked questions

Can a secret recording be used in the Family Court?

Sometimes. The court will consider relevance, probative value, authenticity, completeness, privacy, fairness, proportionality and welfare. It may admit, limit or exclude the recording.

Is it illegal to record my ex-partner without telling them?

Not automatically, but there is no universal permission to record. The circumstances, purpose, location, method and later use matter. Persistent monitoring may engage harassment, controlling behaviour, data protection or privacy law.

Can I record an abusive threat or admission?

A targeted recording may have evidential value, but safety comes first. Do not provoke or confront an abusive person if this could increase the danger. Preserve any existing recording and obtain advice about reporting, safeguarding and court directions.

Can I hide a recorder in my child’s clothing or bag?

This is strongly discouraged and is almost always likely to be viewed as contrary to the child’s privacy and welfare. It may seriously damage your case even if you believed you were protecting the child.

Can I record Cafcass or a social worker?

Ask openly and agree the arrangements in advance. Cafcass guidance recognises that a parent may record their own interview, subject to any court direction, but the existence of the recording may be included in the report and the court may direct disclosure.

Can I secretly record a remote hearing?

No. Unauthorised recording of an in-person or remote court hearing can amount to contempt of court. Request an official audio recording or transcript through the proper HMCTS process.

Can I post the recording online after filing it in court?

Do not assume so. Family proceedings are subject to strict privacy, identification and publication restrictions. Sharing a recording may also breach data protection, privacy, harassment or court-order restrictions.

Can I rely on a short clip?

The court is likely to require access to the complete, unedited recording so that context and authenticity can be assessed. A selected clip may be misleading even if the words within it are genuine.

Will an admission on a recording automatically prove my case?

No. The court will consider what was actually admitted, the circumstances of the conversation, whether the admission was prompted or ambiguous, whether the recording is complete and how it fits with the rest of the evidence.

Does this article apply in Scotland or Northern Ireland?

No. Scotland and Northern Ireland have separate legal systems and procedures. Specific advice should be obtained for the relevant jurisdiction.

Final thoughts

Recordings can reveal what happens behind closed doors. They can expose abuse, challenge inaccurate professional accounts and preserve evidence that would otherwise be denied. The courts must not dismiss that reality.

But surveillance can also be abusive. It can violate a child’s privacy, manufacture evidence, prolong proceedings and deepen conflict. The family court must therefore look beyond the mere existence of a recording and examine the entire context in which it was created and used.

The Australian High Court’s recognition of bodily autonomy is an important development. Its real value for England and Wales lies not in encouraging more secret recording, but in requiring courts to distinguish protective evidence-gathering by vulnerable victim-survivors from intrusive, coercive or litigation-driven surveillance.

Need help presenting digital evidence in a family case?

JSH Law supports litigants in person with reviewing recordings, organising digital evidence, preparing recording schedules and chronologies, identifying relevant timestamps, drafting witness statements and Form C2 applications, responding to disputed Cafcass or social-work accounts and preparing focused evidence for hearings.

The aim is not to overwhelm the court with hours of material. It is to identify what genuinely matters, preserve it properly and present it in a fair, proportionate and child-focused way.

Contact JSH Law

Sources and further reading

Before You Press Submit: Why AI Prompt Governance Matters in Legal Work and Family Justice

August 6, 2026/0 Comments/in 5. Court Skills for Litigants in Person, 6. Tools Templates Research & Cases, AI Legal Process, AI, Legal Tech and Family Justice/by jessica susan hill

Artificial intelligence can help people organise evidence, draft documents and understand complex information. But the risk does not begin only with the answer an AI system produces. It begins with the prompt: the information entered, the assumptions built into the instruction and the decision to trust the output. Inspired by solicitor Genevieve Cripps’ practical work on prompt governance, this article examines what responsible AI use should look like in legal work, family proceedings and case preparation.

One of the many good points that stood out to me from Genevieve’s work

“The prompt is not merely a request for assistance. It is an information transfer.”

The AI Prompt Governance Checklist referenced in this article was developed by Genevieve Cripps. The analysis and application to family proceedings are the author’s own.

JSH Law | Legal AI, Evidence and Access to Justice

Before You Press Submit: Why Prompt Governance Matters in Legal Work, Family Justice and the Courts

The most serious risk in everyday artificial intelligence use may not begin with the model itself. It may begin with the information a person types into the prompt, the assumptions built into the instruction and the decision to trust the resulting answer without proper scrutiny.

Credit and inspiration

This article was inspired by the work of Genevieve Cripps, a solicitor whose professional interests include commercial litigation, data protection, personal data breach response, AI governance, responsible AI and emerging technology regulation.

Genevieve recently published an excellent practical resource entitled AI Prompt Governance Checklist: Before You Press Submit. Her central point is simple but important: organisations need clear, repeatable checks governing what users place into AI systems, how outputs are reviewed and when additional scrutiny is required.

You can view Genevieve’s professional work on LinkedIn here: Genevieve Cripps on LinkedIn .

What prompt governance actually means.
Why prompts can create confidentiality, privacy and evidential risks.
How the issue applies to solicitors, legal support providers and litigants in person.
Why family court material requires particular care.
A practical “before you press submit” framework.
What responsible human oversight should look like in reality.

The overlooked layer of AI risk

Much of the public debate about generative AI focuses on the model: whether it hallucinates, whether it is biased, whether it has been trained lawfully and whether its answers are reliable.

Those are legitimate concerns. But there is another layer of risk that is much closer to home.

Every day, users paste information into AI systems. They enter names, allegations, medical information, business strategies, client communications, court documents, witness evidence, financial figures and private family histories. They may do so without knowing where that information goes, whether it is retained, who can access it or whether it may be used for further model development.

The prompt is not merely a request for assistance. It is an information transfer.

Before asking whether an AI answer is useful, the user should ask whether the information should have been entered into that system at all.

What is prompt governance?

Prompt governance is the system of rules, safeguards and review processes governing how people interact with artificial intelligence.

It includes questions such as:

Which AI tools are approved for use?
What information may be entered?
What information must be removed, anonymised or withheld?
Who may create or approve important prompts?
How should prompts and outputs be recorded?
Who is responsible for checking the result?
When is specialist legal, privacy, security or safeguarding review required?
When should AI not be used at all?

Genevieve Cripps’ checklist divides this into five practical questions:

Is AI appropriate for this task?
Am I sharing the right information?
Is my prompt clear?
Can the AI output be trusted?
Could the prompt or output create risk?

This is precisely the kind of implementation-focused thinking that responsible AI adoption needs. Governance cannot remain trapped inside policy papers, board presentations and abstract ethical principles. It must reach the moment when an individual user is about to press “submit”.

1. Is AI appropriate for this task?

Not every task should be delegated to an AI system.

Artificial intelligence may be useful for organising information, identifying themes, producing a first draft, simplifying language, creating a checklist or suggesting questions for further investigation.

It is far more dangerous when it is asked to make, or effectively determine, a decision requiring human judgment.

Examples include:

deciding whether a child is telling the truth;
assessing whether domestic abuse has occurred;
determining whether contact is safe;
assessing litigation capacity;
deciding whether allegations are credible;
determining whether a person poses a safeguarding risk;
predicting how a judge will decide a case;
deciding whether evidence should be reported to the police or a local authority.

AI may assist a person to identify relevant questions. It should not replace the careful, accountable and context-sensitive judgment required in high-impact legal and safeguarding decisions.

Family justice warning

A child arrangements case is not a neutral document-processing exercise. It may involve domestic abuse, coercive control, trauma, neurodiversity, allegations of harm, contested evidence, cultural context and serious consequences for a child’s safety and family relationships. No AI tool should be treated as a substitute for proper safeguarding analysis.

2. Am I sharing the right information?

This may be the most important question of all.

Before entering material into an AI system, consider:

Does the prompt contain a person’s full name?
Does it include a child’s identity or date of birth?
Does it contain a home address, school, medical provider or contact details?
Does it reveal domestic abuse, sexual allegations or health information?
Does it contain confidential client information?
Does it reproduce a solicitor’s advice or privileged communication?
Does it contain police, Cafcass, social services or medical records?
Does it reproduce documents filed in private family proceedings?
Does it include information about a third party who has not consented?

The fact that information is already stored electronically does not mean it is safe or lawful to transfer it into a separate AI system.

Users should also avoid assuming that deleting names is always sufficient. A person may remain identifiable from the combination of location, occupation, family structure, dates, allegations and case history.

Data minimisation must happen before submission

Where AI use is appropriate, provide only what is genuinely necessary.

That may mean:

replacing names with neutral labels such as “Mother”, “Father” and “Child A”;
removing addresses, telephone numbers and identifying references;
summarising the relevant issue instead of uploading an entire bundle;
excluding unrelated medical, sexual or financial information;
using an approved enterprise system rather than a personal consumer account;
checking retention, training and privacy settings before use.

“Would I be comfortable sending this information to an unknown external provider?” is a useful starting question. In legal work, however, comfort is not enough. The user must also consider confidentiality, privilege, data protection, court restrictions and professional duties.

3. Is the prompt clear?

Poor prompts produce poor outputs. More importantly, vague prompts can conceal poor reasoning.

Genevieve’s checklist proposes a useful formula:

Role

Task

Context

Constraints

Output

In legal work, each of those elements matters.

Role

What function is the system being asked to perform? Is it organising evidence, identifying inconsistencies, simplifying language or producing a first draft?

Simply telling an AI system to “act as a senior barrister” does not transform it into one. A role instruction may affect the structure and tone of an answer, but it does not create professional competence, accountability or legal authority.

Task

Define the actual job. “Help with my case” is too broad. “Create a chronological table from these dated events without adding facts or drawing conclusions” is clearer and safer.

Context

AI cannot reliably understand the context it has not been given. At the same time, users should not respond by dumping an entire life history, confidential file or court bundle into the system.

The discipline lies in providing sufficient relevant context without excessive disclosure.

Constraints

Appropriate constraints might include:

do not invent facts;
do not alter quoted wording;
distinguish evidence from allegation;
identify missing dates;
do not make findings of fact;
use neutral, child-focused language;
flag anything requiring legal verification;
state where the source material does not support a conclusion.

Output

Specify the form required: chronology, schedule, table, letter, neutral summary, list of issues or questions for professional advice.

A defined format makes it easier to review the result and identify whether the system has departed from its instructions.

4. Can the AI output be trusted?

Not without checking.

Generative AI can produce polished, fluent and authoritative-sounding text that is incomplete, misleading or simply wrong. Its tone may create an impression of certainty that the underlying material does not justify.

In legal contexts, common risks include:

invented case citations;
incorrect quotations from judgments;
outdated procedural rules;
confusion between different jurisdictions;
overstatement of legal tests;
failure to recognise exceptions;
miscalculated deadlines;
incorrect assumptions about the content of an order;
turning disputed allegations into apparent facts;
omitting evidence that does not fit the requested narrative.

Human review must be substantive. It is not enough to read an answer and think that it “sounds right”.

A proper verification process

Check every legal proposition against a reliable current source.
Open and read every cited judgment rather than trusting the summary.
Verify all dates, figures, names and quotations.
Compare the output against the original evidence.
Check that allegations have not been presented as findings.
Ask what relevant material may have been omitted.
Ensure a responsible human approves the final document.

5. Could the prompt or output create risk?

Genevieve’s framework identifies four broad categories:

Security

Could the prompt contain malicious instructions, hidden content, unsafe links or prompt-injection material?

Privacy

Does the prompt involve personal, confidential, privileged or sensitive information?

Compliance

Could the use create bias, unfairness, unlawful processing or regulatory problems?

Governance

Must the prompt or output be recorded, reviewed, authorised or disclosed?

In litigation, a fifth category should be added: evidential and procedural risk.

Questions include:

Has the system changed the substance of a witness’s evidence?
Can the author explain and stand behind every sentence?
Has the output introduced facts that do not appear in the source material?
Has the use of AI affected authenticity or provenance?
Does the document comply with the relevant court rules, practice directions and orders?
Is disclosure of AI involvement required or appropriate?
Could the output mislead the court?

Prompt governance in family proceedings

Private family proceedings deserve particular attention because the underlying material is often intensely sensitive.

A typical case file may include:

children’s names, dates of birth, schools and medical information;
domestic abuse allegations;
sexual allegations;
police disclosure;
Cafcass safeguarding letters and section 7 reports;
social care records;
medical and therapeutic information;
private messages and photographs;
financial information;
information about third parties;
documents governed by reporting or publication restrictions.

Uploading an unredacted bundle to a general-purpose AI tool because it is convenient is not responsible case preparation.

This does not mean AI has no legitimate role. Used carefully, it may help litigants in person:

put events into chronological order;
identify repeated patterns of behaviour;
separate evidence from commentary;
improve the structure of a statement;
convert a long narrative into a schedule;
identify documents that appear to be missing;
prepare questions for legal advice or a hearing;
rewrite hostile correspondence into calm, child-focused language.

But the safeguards must come first.

Never ask AI to manufacture a stronger case

AI must not be used to embellish evidence, create allegations, invent conversations, alter screenshots, misrepresent legal advice or produce a false appearance of independent corroboration.

A witness statement must remain the witness’s truthful evidence. The person signing it must understand, approve and be able to defend its contents.

The professional position for legal services

Legal professionals are not prohibited from using artificial intelligence. But using a technological tool does not displace professional responsibility.

Solicitors and firms remain responsible for:

competence and service quality;
client confidentiality;
legal professional privilege;
data protection compliance;
accuracy of legal work;
supervision of staff and systems;
duties to the court;
acting in clients’ best interests;
ensuring that the court is not misled.

An organisation should therefore know which tools its staff are using, what information is being entered, what contractual and privacy terms apply, how outputs are checked and who remains accountable.

“A member of staff used ChatGPT” is not a governance framework.

A JSH Law “before you press submit” check

Before entering information

Purpose: What exactly am I asking the system to do?
Suitability: Is AI appropriate for this task?
Authority: Am I permitted to use this tool and this information?
Necessity: Does the system genuinely need all this material?
Identity: Can names, addresses and identifying details be removed?
Sensitivity: Does the material concern children, health, abuse, sexuality, criminal allegations or safeguarding?
Confidentiality: Is any part confidential, privileged or restricted by the court?
Security: Do I understand where the information will be processed and retained?

Before using the output

Accuracy: Have all facts, calculations and legal propositions been checked?
Evidence: Does every factual statement come from the source material?
Neutrality: Have allegations and findings been clearly distinguished?
Currency: Is the law and procedure up to date?
Omissions: Has relevant contrary or qualifying material been left out?
Responsibility: Can a named human stand behind the final document?
Record: Should the prompt, output and review process be documented?
Disclosure: Does the context require transparency about AI use?

Good governance should enable responsible use, not prevent it

Responsible AI governance is sometimes presented as an obstacle to innovation. That is the wrong way to look at it.

Clear rules allow people to use technology with greater confidence. They reduce uncertainty, protect sensitive information and make it easier to identify when human intervention is required.

The goal should not be to surround ordinary users with impenetrable policies. It should be to create practical safeguards that work at the point of use.

Genevieve Cripps’ checklist succeeds because it converts broad principles such as security, privacy, accuracy and accountability into questions a real person can ask before and after using AI.

That is where responsible adoption begins: not in a glossy strategy document, but in everyday decisions.

What this means for litigants in person

Litigants in person are already using generative AI. That reality cannot be wished away.

For someone who cannot afford extensive legal representation, AI may provide meaningful help with organisation, language and preparation. It may reduce the disadvantage caused by unfamiliar court processes and dense legal terminology.

But access to technology is not the same as access to reliable legal support.

Litigants in person should treat AI as a drafting and organisational assistant, not as an invisible lawyer, judge, safeguarding professional or source of unquestionable authority.

The safest approach is:

remove identifying and sensitive information wherever possible;
use AI for defined, limited tasks;
retain the original source documents;
check every substantive statement;
seek qualified advice where the issue is serious or complex;
never file material that you do not understand or cannot verify.

Conclusion

The prompt is not an inconsequential box of text. It can determine what data enters a system, what assumptions shape the result and what risks follow.

In legal and family justice settings, those risks are amplified because the information may affect rights, reputations, safety, children’s welfare and the fairness of court proceedings.

Prompt governance therefore needs to become part of basic professional and digital competence.

Before pressing submit, ask:

Should I use AI for this task?
Should I share this information?
Can I verify the result?
And am I prepared to remain accountable for what happens next?

Need help organising a legal case responsibly?

JSH Law provides practical, evidence-led support for litigants in person who need help turning large, disorganised or overwhelming case material into clear documents for use in family proceedings.

Support may include:

chronologies and schedules of events;
witness statement structure and review;
evidence organisation;
Cafcass report analysis;
hearing preparation;
appeal paperwork;
non-molestation order applications;
identifying gaps, inconsistencies and safeguarding issues;
responsible use of AI-assisted legal preparation.

The purpose is not to manufacture a case. It is to present the evidence accurately, calmly and effectively, while keeping the child’s welfare and the court’s decision-making needs firmly in view.

Book a JSH Law consultation

Sources and further reading

Genevieve Cripps, AI Prompt Governance Checklist: Before You Press Submit. Add the original LinkedIn post or document link here: original resource .
Solicitors Regulation Authority, Compliance tips for solicitors regarding the use of AI and lawtech .
Information Commissioner’s Office, Guidance on AI and data protection .
Information Commissioner’s Office, AI security and data minimisation .
Judiciary of England and Wales, Artificial Intelligence: Judicial Guidance .
Civil Justice Council, Use of AI in preparing court documents .

9,300 Domestic Abusers Set for Release: What Victims Need to Know

August 6, 2026/0 Comments/in 4. Domestic Abuse & Safeguarding Cluster, Safeguarding & Child Protection/by jessica susan hill

Reports that thousands of domestic abuse perpetrators may be released from prison have understandably caused fear and anger. For victims and children, release is not simply a sentencing statistic. It can mean renewed contact, stalking, intimidation, pressure through family court proceedings and the return of coercive control. The real question is not only when offenders are released, but whether victims are warned, listened to and properly protected before that release takes place.

Domestic abuse | Early release | Victim safety | Family justice

“9,300 Domestic Abusers Set to Be Released”: Victim Safety Cannot Be an Afterthought

A newspaper front page shared by domestic abuse campaigner Zoe Dronfield has exposed a question that cannot be answered with political slogans or reassuring press releases: when perpetrators of domestic abuse leave prison, who is making sure victims and children are warned, protected and heard?

Image and inspiration credit

This article was prompted by a photograph and social media post shared by domestic abuse survivor, author and campaigner Zoe Dronfield. Image credit: Zoe Dronfield. Permission should be obtained directly from Zoe before reproducing her photograph on the JSH Law website.

What the “9,300 domestic abusers” headline appears to mean
Why the reported figure requires careful examination
Why release on licence does not automatically mean victim safety
How coercive control and post-separation abuse can continue after imprisonment
What an offender’s release may mean in family court proceedings
What victims can do when release is expected
Why Zoe Dronfield’s work on serial perpetrators matters

A headline that will frighten victims — and understandably so

On 5 August 2026, the Daily Express carried the front-page headline: “9,300 domestic abusers set to be released.”

Beneath it, the newspaper reported warnings that vulnerable women could be placed at renewed risk. Zoe Dronfield photographed the front page and responded publicly, questioning how the Government could claim that it intended to halve domestic abuse while thousands of perpetrators were reportedly due to leave prison.

Her anger will be immediately recognisable to many survivors.

For a victim, an offender’s release is not an abstract discussion about prison capacity, sentencing reform or the management of the prison population. It may mean the return of unwanted messages, surveillance, stalking, threats, third-party contact, pressure through children, renewed litigation or an unexpected appearance outside the victim’s home, workplace or child’s school.

It may also reopen trauma that the victim has barely begun to process.

Victims are often expected to absorb this news calmly, update professionals, review court orders, improve home security, protect their children and prepare evidence — all while being told that the perpetrator will be “managed in the community”.

That phrase may sound reassuring inside a policy document. It can feel very different to the person who knows what the perpetrator is capable of.

The reported figure must be examined carefully

The seriousness of the safeguarding concern does not mean that the headline should be repeated without scrutiny.

At the time of writing, JSH Law has not identified a publicly accessible Ministry of Justice document setting out the figure of 9,300 in precisely the same terms used by the newspaper.

That means the number should be described as a reported figure unless its source, methodology, relevant period and definition are confirmed.

There are several important questions:

Does the figure cover England and Wales?
What period of release does it cover?
Does it include ordinary statutory releases as well as accelerated or early releases?
Does it refer to people convicted of a specific domestic abuse offence?
Does it include offenders convicted of assault, criminal damage, harassment or another offence committed in a domestic context?
Does it include people assessed by probation as presenting a domestic abuse risk even where domestic abuse was not the index offence?

These are not technical distractions. They determine what the headline actually tells us.

Domestic abuse is not a single offence category

Domestic abuse may be reflected in convictions for assault, stalking, harassment, controlling or coercive behaviour, strangulation or suffocation, threats, criminal damage, sexual offences or breaches of protective orders. A case may be recorded as domestic abuse-related through a flag attached to the underlying offence rather than through one universal offence label.

A perpetrator may therefore be serving a sentence for assault or criminal damage even though the offending formed part of a much wider pattern of coercive control.

Looking only at the formal offence title can seriously understate the risk.

Release from prison does not necessarily mean the sentence has ended

It is important to explain the legal position accurately.

In many cases, release from custody does not mean that an offender has completed the sentence or is free from all restrictions. The offender may continue serving the sentence in the community on licence.

Licence conditions can potentially regulate:

where the offender lives;
contact with a victim or child;
entry into an exclusion zone;
attendance at specified appointments or programmes;
reporting to probation;
electronic monitoring;
and other conduct necessary to manage identified risks.

An offender who breaches licence conditions may be recalled to prison.

But this is where the reassuring legal description collides with family reality.

A licence condition only protects a victim when:

the risk has been properly understood;
the condition is clearly and carefully drafted;
the victim knows that the condition exists;
the victim knows where to report a breach;
professionals recognise the behaviour as a breach;
agencies share information quickly;
and effective action follows before the situation escalates.

A condition written on paper is not a safety plan. Protection depends on whether the condition reflects the real pattern of abuse and whether somebody acts when it is breached.

Domestic abuse cannot be managed as a series of isolated incidents

Domestic abuse is often cumulative and patterned.

It may involve physical violence, but it may also involve stalking, coercive control, financial abuse, monitoring, humiliation, intimidation, threats, interference with employment, manipulation of children and the strategic use of legal proceedings.

Separation does not necessarily end that pattern. It may intensify it.

Imprisonment can temporarily interrupt a perpetrator’s direct access to the victim, but it does not automatically remove the underlying desire to control.

Abuse may continue from prison through:

telephone calls or letters;
relatives, friends or associates;
social media and digital accounts;
pressure involving children;
requests for personal information;
or applications and correspondence connected to family proceedings.

On release, the perpetrator may resume the pattern while presenting each new act as innocent, accidental or child-focused.

One message asking about a child may look harmless when read in isolation. It may look entirely different when placed beside previous threats, fifty unwanted messages, location monitoring, repeated breaches, third-party pressure and a history of using the child to obtain information about the victim.

Safeguarding professionals must see the pattern, not merely the latest incident.

Good behaviour in prison does not prove safety outside prison

Any release system that places weight on an offender’s behaviour in custody must recognise an obvious limitation: compliance inside a controlled institution is not the same as safe behaviour within an intimate or family relationship.

A perpetrator may comply with prison rules while continuing to blame the victim, minimising the offence, denying the wider pattern and planning to re-establish control after release.

Domestic abuse risk assessment must therefore look beyond disciplinary behaviour in custody.

It should consider:

the history and escalation of the abuse;
stalking, fixation or obsessive behaviour;
threats made before or during imprisonment;
previous breaches of bail, injunctions or court orders;
access to weapons;
strangulation or suffocation allegations or convictions;
threats of suicide, homicide or child removal;
the use of children as messengers or sources of information;
the victim’s own assessment of the danger;
and evidence of similar behaviour towards previous partners.

The question is not simply, “Has he behaved in prison?”

The safeguarding question is whether the perpetrator presents a continuing risk to a particular victim, child or future partner when the institutional controls are removed.

What the Probation Inspectorate has already found

Concerns about release planning are not based only on survivor fear or newspaper commentary.

In October 2025, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation published an evaluation of the Probation Service’s work to combat domestic abuse.

Where people were being released from prison, inspectors found sufficient pre-release work addressing domestic abuse in only 22 of the 38 relevant cases.

Appropriate licence conditions had been applied in 66% of relevant cases.

The inspectorate also found weaknesses in multi-agency information, contingency planning and the identification of the work being undertaken by other organisations.

Those findings matter because the public is repeatedly reassured that offenders released from custody will be supervised and managed by probation.

Supervision cannot be assumed to be effective simply because a case has been allocated to a probation officer.

The quality of the assessment, planning, information-sharing, licence conditions and response to breaches is what determines whether supervision provides meaningful protection.

Electronic monitoring may help — but tagging is not a complete answer

The Government has announced expanded electronic monitoring and more intensive supervision for offenders considered to present serious risks.

The Domestic Abuse Perpetrators on Licence scheme requires eligible adult offenders assessed as presenting a domestic abuse risk to wear an electronic tag after release where this is considered necessary and proportionate as part of licence planning.

The scheme began in two probation regions in 2023. Official Ministry of Justice information published in 2026 stated that it was operating in eight regions and was due to extend across all twelve probation regions in England and Wales by September 2026.

This is potentially useful. Electronic monitoring can help establish an offender’s location, support an exclusion zone and identify certain forms of non-compliance.

But a tag cannot detect:

coercive messages sent through another person;
pressure applied through children;
false or vexatious reports;
digital surveillance;
financial abuse;
manipulation through family proceedings;
or psychological intimidation carried out without entering a prohibited location.

Technology is a risk-management tool. It is not a substitute for skilled domestic abuse assessment, victim consultation and decisive enforcement.

Victims need information before release — not after something has gone wrong

One of the most frightening features of an offender’s release is uncertainty.

A victim may not know:

whether release has been confirmed;
the expected release date;
where the offender will live;
whether direct or indirect contact is prohibited;
whether an exclusion zone has been imposed;
whether electronic monitoring will be used;
what conduct should be reported as a breach;
which probation team is responsible;
or what to do outside office hours.

Eligible victims may receive information through the Victim Contact Scheme. A Victim Liaison Officer may provide information about the sentence and release process and can seek the victim’s views about licence conditions.

Victims should not assume that probation, police, Cafcass, social workers or the family court automatically possess the full history.

Relevant information may be fragmented across:

criminal proceedings;
police incident logs;
restraining or non-molestation order proceedings;
family court bundles;
Cafcass records;
children’s services files;
medical evidence;
school safeguarding records;
messages, emails and call logs;
and reports involving previous partners.

The practical challenge is often to bring those pieces together so that the pattern becomes visible.

What an offender’s release may mean in the family court

The release of a parent or former partner from prison may have immediate consequences for private children proceedings.

The released person may seek:

direct or indirect contact with a child;
the reinstatement or extension of previous contact;
a variation of an existing child arrangements order;
information about the child’s home, school or activities;
the removal of protective restrictions;
or renewed communication with the victim parent.

The family court’s paramount consideration when determining a question about a child’s upbringing is the child’s welfare.

Where domestic abuse is raised, the court must apply the relevant legal framework, including Practice Direction 12J.

The court should not limit its analysis to the name of the criminal offence or the fact that the perpetrator has served a custodial sentence.

It may need to examine:

the facts underlying the conviction;
the wider pattern of domestic abuse;
the impact on the child and victim parent;
whether the child has been used to monitor, pressure or punish the victim;
the perpetrator’s insight, accountability and understanding of harm;
compliance with previous criminal and family court orders;
the terms of the offender’s licence;
the existence of any restraining or protective order;
and whether arrangements can operate without exposing the child or victim to an unmanageable risk of harm.

Release does not automatically change a family court order

Release from prison does not automatically revive suspended contact, cancel a prohibited steps order, remove a non-molestation order or vary a child arrangements order. Equally, a family court order does not authorise conduct prohibited by a restraining order, bail condition or licence condition. Every relevant order must be read carefully and together.

The danger of disguising control as child-focused communication

Post-separation abuse is frequently presented as a parenting dispute.

A perpetrator may claim that repeated contact is necessary because of the child. Requests for school information, photographs, medical details, addresses, travel plans or direct communication may be framed as ordinary parental involvement.

Sometimes they are legitimate requests. Sometimes they are part of a continuing pattern of monitoring and control.

The distinction cannot be decided by reading one message in isolation.

Professionals need to consider:

the frequency and tone of communications;
whether existing communication arrangements are being respected;
whether the information is genuinely needed for the child;
whether the child is being questioned about the other parent;
whether third parties are being used;
whether requests escalate after boundaries are set;
and whether the communication causes fear because of the established history.

Child-focused language does not automatically make conduct child-focused.

What should a victim do when an abuser may be released?

The correct response will depend on the level of risk, the sentence, the existing orders and the circumstances of the child. The following is general information rather than legal advice on an individual case.

1. Confirm what is actually known

Distinguish between a rumour, an estimated date, media reporting and formal notification. Record who provided the information and when.

2. Contact the Victim Contact Scheme

Where eligible, ask to speak to the Victim Liaison Officer. Request clear information about the release process and ask whether your concerns about licence conditions and exclusion zones have been recorded.

3. Provide updated risk information

Tell the relevant professionals about recent threats, stalking, third-party contact, family court activity, access to weapons, previous breaches and any specific statements about what the perpetrator intends to do after release.

4. Review every current order

Check the terms and expiry dates of any:

non-molestation order;
occupation order;
restraining order;
child arrangements order;
prohibited steps order;
specific issue order;
bail condition;
or other protective direction.

5. Seek urgent advice where protection is inadequate

Depending on the circumstances, it may be necessary to consider an application for a non-molestation order, an urgent variation of child arrangements, a prohibited steps order or directions dealing with communication and disclosure of information.

6. Inform the child’s school or nursery where appropriate

Provide copies of relevant orders, confirm who may collect the child and agree what staff should do if the perpetrator attends or requests information.

7. Review digital security

Change passwords, enable two-factor authentication, review location sharing, check linked devices and consider whether a child’s telephone, tablet, gaming account or social media account may reveal location or private information.

8. Prepare an evidence-led chronology

A useful chronology should record:

the date and time;
what happened;
the words used;
the method of contact;
whether a child or third party was involved;
the order or condition potentially breached;
witnesses;
where it was reported;
the incident or reference number;
and the impact on the victim and child.

9. Make a practical safety plan

Specialist domestic abuse services and Independent Domestic Violence Advisers can help with safety planning, housing, reporting, protective measures and communication with criminal justice agencies.

10. Treat immediate danger as an emergency

Call 999 where there is an immediate risk. Do not place yourself or a child in danger to collect evidence. Safety comes first.

Why Zoe Dronfield’s work matters

Zoe Dronfield is a domestic abuse survivor, author and campaigner whose work has focused on coercive control, stalking, serial perpetrators and institutional failures across the criminal and family justice systems.

Zoe has spoken publicly about surviving a serious domestic violence attack and about the further trauma she experienced while navigating family court proceedings.

Her book, Mind Over Manipulators, examines abusive relationships, manipulation, coercive control and the struggle to be properly heard by institutions.

A central feature of Zoe’s campaigning is the need to identify serial and repeat perpetrators.

This matters because official records are often organised by incident, victim, offence, police force or court case.

One partner may know only what happened to her. A police force may hold reports made in one geographical area. The family court may see only the documents placed in its bundle. Probation may concentrate on the index offence. A later partner may report similar conduct without knowing that others have already raised the same concerns.

Each organisation can therefore hold one fragment of the picture while nobody identifies the pattern.

Serial perpetration may include:

similar allegations or findings involving different partners;
repeated stalking after separation;
the same threats or methods of intimidation;
repeated breaches of protective measures;
the use of litigation against successive victims;
and the repeated portrayal of victims as unstable, malicious or obstructive.

Allegations must always be distinguished from proven facts, admissions, convictions and judicial findings. Fairness and proper investigation remain essential.

But safeguarding systems must also be capable of recognising repeated warning signs. Waiting for each victim to be harmed in isolation is not a credible prevention strategy.

Zoe’s work is valuable because she refuses to allow domestic abuse to be reduced to disconnected incidents, administrative categories or faceless statistics.

Readers can explore Zoe’s books, interviews, campaigning and social media work through her official Linktree page.

JSH Law’s view: victims deserve facts, protection and accountability

There are two mistakes that must be avoided.

The first is to dismiss victim concern by explaining that offenders remain “on licence” and will be supervised in the community.

Licence supervision is not a magic shield. It protects victims only where the assessment is accurate, the conditions are workable, the victim has been consulted and breaches produce an effective response.

The second mistake is to repeat a frightening headline without establishing what the number means.

The public should be told clearly:

how the reported figure was calculated;
which offenders are included;
which release provisions apply;
which offences or categories are excluded;
how victims will be notified;
what risk assessment will take place;
how probation will be resourced;
what electronic monitoring can and cannot do;
and what action will follow a breach.

Transparency is not a public relations extra. It is part of safeguarding.

Victims should not learn that a perpetrator has been released through gossip, social media or an unexpected encounter. They should receive timely information, meaningful consultation and a safety plan built around the actual pattern of abuse.

The political debate about prison capacity and sentencing will continue.

For victims, however, the urgent questions are practical:

When is the perpetrator being released?
What restrictions will apply?
Does probation understand the full history?
Are the existing family court arrangements safe?
Does the child’s school know what to do?
Is an urgent application required?
Who will respond if contact is made or a condition is breached?

Those questions should be answered before release wherever possible — not after the victim or child has been placed at renewed risk.

Useful resources

Important legal disclaimer

This article provides general information about law, procedure and safeguarding in England and Wales. It is not legal advice and should not be treated as a substitute for advice on an individual case. Release provisions, licence conditions, protective orders and family court remedies depend on the facts, the offence, the sentence, the applicable statutory framework and the orders already in force. In an emergency, call 999.

Concerned about an offender’s release or renewed family court action?

JSH Law provides practical, evidence-led and trauma-informed support to litigants in person dealing with domestic abuse, coercive control, stalking, post-separation abuse and child safeguarding concerns.

We can help you:

organise messages, police records, reports and other evidence;
prepare an incident chronology or pattern-of-behaviour schedule;
review existing protective and family court orders;
draft statements, position statements and applications;
respond to Cafcass or professional reports;
prepare for urgent, interim or contested hearings;
and present the evidence clearly, calmly and in a form that helps the court identify the safeguarding issues.

The purpose is not to make inflammatory allegations or produce an emotional document that can be dismissed. It is to show the pattern, the evidence, the impact on the child and the practical protection required.

Book a JSH Law consultation

The report exposes a gap between principle and practice

Children feel the professional process even when they never meet the professionals.

What the law already says about putting children first

A child’s voice is not the same as a child’s choice

The family law professional does more than transmit instructions

The professional test

The danger of treating domestic abuse as “parental conflict”

Court is not always the failure

Assumption one

Assumption two

What better professional practice would look like

What this means for parents representing themselves

The reform agenda—and the questions it must answer

My view

Do you need help presenting your child’s welfare clearly?

Book a 15-minute initial telephone consultation

Listen and read further

Jessica Susan Hill | JSH Law

Neurodivergence is not one thing

A child does not need to perform distress in a way that adults recognise before the distress is real.

The legal test is welfare—but welfare must be individual

Equal time is not automatically equal welfare

Listening to the child requires more than asking a question

Behaviour is evidence—but it needs interpretation

What evidence helps?

Make the evidence do a job

The housing issue exposes a gap in the law

Neurodivergent parents matter too

What parents can ask the court to consider

The deeper problem: systems mistake compliance for coping

My view

Does your child’s neurodivergence need to be explained more clearly to the Family Court?

Book a 15-minute initial telephone consultation

Listen and read further

Jessica Susan Hill | JSH Law

At a glance

What Stolen Babies exposes

The numbers need to be explained carefully

A system built around shame

1. Pregnancy was treated as wrongdoing

2. Adoption was presented as the only respectable outcome

3. Mothers and babies were deliberately prevented from bonding

4. Separation often came before formal consent

5. The truth was replaced with a damaging story

The long-term harm did not end with the adoption order

Why the state was responsible

The 2026 Government apology

An apology is a beginning, not a remedy

Is modern adoption the same?

“Nothing else will do”

Modern safeguards must be tested in practice

The danger of institutional certainty

A trauma-informed system must understand behaviour in context

The child’s story must not be reduced to a clean break

What the current figures show

If adoption is being proposed for your child

What meaningful reform should look like

The question family justice must still answer

Support for people affected by historic forced adoption

How JSH Law can help

Sources and further reading

In this article

A normal response to an abnormal situation

The law requires a safeguarding lens — not a personality test

Context changes the meaning of an email, an agreement or a “reasonable” offer

Children’s wishes and feelings: listen carefully, not mechanically

When the focus shifts from risk to the person raising it

A practical approach for parents dealing with Cafcass or the court

The family court must see the whole picture

Need help making your evidence clear?

The position in brief

What did the Victims’ Commissioner say?

A necessary distinction: criminal justice and family justice

Important distinction

Why the systems cannot be treated as separate worlds

What the latest Cafcass figures show

Why delay is not neutral in domestic abuse cases

Temporary arrangements may continue for much longer than expected

Coercive control can continue after separation

Evidence may become harder to obtain