Archive for category: Safeguarding & Child Protection

You are here: / / / Safeguarding & Child Protection

Information addressing safeguarding and child protection considerations within private law proceedings and their interaction with wider protective systems.

9,300 Domestic Abusers Set for Release: What Victims Need to Know

/0 Comments/in , /by

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.

In this article

  • 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

Image and original social media post credited to Zoe Dronfield. This is independent JSH Law commentary and does not suggest that Zoe Dronfield has reviewed or endorsed the contents of this article.

A Release Date Is Not a Safety Plan: What the October 2026 Prison Reforms Mean for Victims

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Government has narrowed its October 2026 prison-release reforms, but an important safeguarding gap remains. Domestic-abuse perpetrators are not excluded as a category, and risk cannot be measured by an offence label alone. For affected victims, the immediate priority is obtaining accurate information, meaningful licence conditions and a safety plan that accounts for children and any existing family-court orders.

Updated 4 August 2026. The Government has changed its planned prisoner-release reforms following sustained concern from victims and their representatives. People sentenced for rape, serious child sexual offences and grooming offences are now to be excluded from the new release arrangements, and implementation of the wider scheme has been delayed until 1 October 2026.

That is an important change. It is not, however, the same thing as a complete victim-safety plan. Domestic abuse perpetrators have not been excluded as a category. Nor have all violent, stalking or harassment cases. For the victims who remain affected, the urgent questions are practical: When is the offender likely to be released? Who has assessed the risk to me and my children? What conditions will apply? Who will tell the family court? What happens if those conditions are breached?

A release date is not a safety plan. A tag is not a physical barrier. A licence condition only protects a victim if it is informed by the real pattern of risk, communicated clearly and enforced quickly.

What has the Government announced?

Under the Sentencing Act 2026, a new “Progression Model” changes the earliest release point for some people serving standard determinate sentences in England and Wales. The Government’s announcement of 4 August 2026 says that:

  • the model will now come into force on 1 October 2026, rather than in September;
  • people sentenced for rape, serious child sexual offences and grooming offences will be excluded from the changes;
  • people serving life sentences or extended determinate sentences remain excluded and continue to be subject to the existing release framework, including Parole Board review where applicable;
  • for other standard determinate sentences currently carrying a 40% or 50% automatic release point, the earliest release point may become one third of the sentence;
  • where the existing automatic release point is two thirds, the earliest possible release point may become one half;
  • misconduct in prison may lead to added days and a later release;
  • there is to be a presumption of electronic tagging, tighter supervision and greater use of restriction or exclusion zones; and
  • the Government has announced £10 million for victim support, wider contact with affected victims and a dedicated helpline intended to be available by October.

Release on licence does not erase the sentence. The person serves the remaining part of the sentence in the community subject to licence conditions and may be recalled to prison for breach. But for a victim who had organised their safety, housing, employment, schooling or family-court case around the original release expectation, bringing forward the point of release can still be a profound and destabilising change.

The critical gap: domestic abuse perpetrators are not excluded as a group

The revised exclusions are defined principally by conviction and sentence. Real-world risk is not always so tidy.

A domestic abuse case may result in a conviction for coercive or controlling behaviour, stalking, non-fatal strangulation, assault, criminal damage, harassment or breach of a protective order. The offence on the court record may capture only one part of a much longer pattern of coercion, fixation, surveillance and post-separation abuse. Some perpetrators convicted of domestic-abuse-related offending may therefore remain eligible for an earlier release point, depending on the precise offence, sentence and other statutory exclusions.

On 3 August 2026, Domestic Abuse Commissioner Dame Nicole Jacobs said that the decision not to exclude domestic abuse perpetrators was wrong and placed victims’ lives at risk. Her office noted that protections used in the earlier SDS40 scheme for specified domestic abuse offences—including stalking, controlling or coercive behaviour and non-fatal strangulation—were not carried into the Sentencing Act model. The Commissioner called for thorough pre-release risk assessment and properly resourced probation supervision. Read the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s statement.

Victims’ Commissioner Claire Waxman OBE has welcomed the October delay but warned that “exclusions alone cannot guarantee victim or public safety”. She has called for effective risk management, meaningful licence conditions, proper supervision and timely, trauma-informed communication. Read the Victims’ Commissioner’s statement.

Why good behaviour in prison is not the same as safety for a victim

Prison conduct is relevant, but it answers a different question from the one a victim needs answered. A person may comply with rules in a controlled environment while continuing to present a targeted risk to a former partner, child or family member on release. Domestic abuse risk can be victim-specific, relationship-specific and heightened by separation, loss of control, family-court proceedings or a perceived grievance.

A sound release plan therefore needs more than a record of prison behaviour. It should draw on information held by police, probation, prisons, domestic abuse services, children’s services and—where lawful and relevant—the family court. It should identify the perpetrator’s pattern, the people and locations at risk, previous breaches, access to children, digital routes of contact and foreseeable trigger points.

What licence conditions can a victim request?

Victims who use the Probation Service’s Victim Contact Scheme can ask for licence conditions relating to themselves or their family. A Victim Liaison Officer can pass those representations to the relevant decision-maker and explain which conditions have been approved. Possible conditions may include:

  • no direct or indirect contact with the victim or specified family members;
  • an exclusion zone around a home, workplace, school, nursery or other necessary location;
  • restrictions on entering a named area;
  • electronic monitoring, where authorised and appropriate;
  • residence at Approved Premises; and
  • other proportionate conditions directed to an identified risk.

A victim may request a condition but does not personally decide the licence. Be precise. “Keep him away from me” is understandable, but a usable representation identifies the people, addresses, routes, schools, workplaces and forms of indirect contact that require protection. If disclosing an address would itself create danger, say so expressly and ask how it can be protected while still informing the exclusion-zone decision.

Suggested wording to send to a Victim Liaison Officer

“Please confirm whether the Sentencing Act 2026 changes affect the offender in my case and the current expected month of release. I wish to make representations about victim-related licence conditions before the licence is finalised. I request no direct or indirect contact with me or the named members of my family, together with exclusion zones covering the locations set out in the attached confidential schedule. Please confirm who is assessing the risk, whether my information has been included in that assessment, which conditions are approved, when they begin and end, and how I should report a suspected breach.”

Seven steps to take if you receive an early-release letter

  1. Do not assume the first letter is the final position. Keep every letter and email. Ask in writing whether the 4 August exclusions change the position in your case and request the current expected release month.
  2. Contact your Victim Liaison Officer promptly. Check that the Probation Service holds safe, current contact details. Say how and when it is safe to contact you. If you previously opted out of the Victim Contact Scheme, you can ask to opt back in while the offender is serving the sentence.
  3. Make written representations about licence conditions. Identify no-contact requirements, exclusion zones and risks to children or other family members. Explain previous breaches, stalking, threats, weapon use, strangulation, surveillance, third-party contact or attempts to use court proceedings as a route back into your life.
  4. Ask for a multi-agency safety plan. If you have an IDVA, ISVA, stalking advocate, social worker or police contact, tell them about the proposed release. Ask what information has been shared with probation and what you should do if the offender appears, contacts you or uses another person to make contact.
  5. Review every protective order and its expiry date. A criminal restraining order, licence condition, non-molestation order and child arrangements order are separate legal instruments. They may protect different people, prohibit different conduct and end on different dates. Do not assume that one fills a gap left by another.
  6. Tell the family court and Cafcass if children may be affected. In ongoing proceedings, notify the court promptly and consider an application for urgent directions. If proceedings have ended, legal advice may be needed about an urgent application to vary or suspend child arrangements. More detail appears below.
  7. Report breaches; do not investigate them yourself. If there is immediate danger, call 999. Preserve messages, screenshots, call logs, doorbell footage and witness details. Report suspected licence breaches to the appropriate probation contact and report criminal conduct or immediate risk to the police.

What if there is a child arrangements order?

Release from prison does not automatically grant, restore, suspend or vary child contact. It also does not automatically vary an existing child arrangements order. The family court must make its own welfare-based assessment, applying the Children Act 1989 and, where domestic abuse is alleged or established, Practice Direction 12J.

Where release creates a new or increased risk, practical options may include:

  • in ongoing children proceedings, using Form C2 to request an urgent order or directions, where appropriate;
  • where proceedings have concluded, using Form C100 to apply to vary or discharge a child arrangements order;
  • filing Form C1A to set out harm or risk of harm to a child or adult;
  • asking the court to consider urgent interim arrangements, such as suspension, indirect contact or professionally supervised contact, if supported by the evidence and necessary for safety;
  • asking for relevant information from police or probation to be obtained through proper court directions rather than relying on assertion or incomplete correspondence; and
  • using Form C8 where contact details need to be withheld from another party.

Urgent and without-notice children applications are exceptional and the correct route depends on the procedural position. HMCTS publishes specific guidance on urgent child-arrangements hearings. If an existing order cannot safely operate because of a genuinely immediate risk, obtain urgent legal advice and place the issue before the court as quickly as possible. Do not treat an internet article as a substitute for advice on whether a particular order must be followed in the circumstances.

Can a victim seek a protective injunction?

A person who is eligible under the Family Law Act 1996 may apply for a non-molestation order to protect themselves or a relevant child from abuse or harassment. An occupation order can regulate occupation of the family home. Applications use Form FL401. In a qualifying urgent case, the court can consider an application without notice to the respondent.

There is no court fee for an FL401 application. Legal aid may be available for protection from domestic abuse and for some related private family-law cases, subject to the rules on evidence, scope and financial eligibility. See the Government’s domestic abuse legal-aid guidance.

What evidence should be assembled?

A short, organised evidence pack is more useful than a mass of unstructured material. Consider keeping:

  • the sentencing result, sentencing remarks or judgment, if available;
  • all release-date and Victim Contact Scheme correspondence;
  • the name and contact details of the Victim Liaison Officer and other professionals;
  • copies of restraining orders, non-molestation orders, occupation orders and child arrangements orders;
  • a concise chronology of incidents, threats, breaches and safeguarding concerns;
  • police incident or crime-reference numbers;
  • relevant messages, call logs, screenshots and third-party contact;
  • school, medical, social-care or specialist-support evidence, where relevant and lawfully obtained; and
  • a clear schedule of the licence conditions and exclusion zones requested, with reasons.

Keep fact, concern and request separate. For example: “On 12 June he contacted me through X despite the restraining order” is a fact capable of evidence. “I believe the risk is escalating because…” is an assessment. “I ask for an exclusion zone covering…” is the protective request. That structure makes it easier for probation, police and the court to act.

The wider lesson: justice systems must be designed around the person at risk

The prison-capacity crisis is real. So is the risk of system failure if courts cannot remand or imprison dangerous offenders. But presenting prison capacity and victim safety as competing abstractions misses the operational issue. The question is whether reform has been designed end-to-end—from sentence and release calculation through probation, victim notification, safeguarding, family-court coordination and enforcement.

The October delay creates a narrow implementation window. Success should not be measured only by the number of prison places released. It should also be measured by whether every affected victim was reached safely, whether their information changed the risk assessment, whether appropriate conditions were in place before release, whether agencies knew who would act on a breach, and whether children’s arrangements were reviewed where necessary.

Victim communication is not a courtesy added after the policy decision. It is part of public protection.

Frequently asked questions

Are all prisoners being released after one third of their sentence?

No. The changes apply to particular standard determinate sentences and are subject to statutory exclusions and the prisoner’s conduct. Different sentence types have different release rules. Ask the Victim Liaison Officer to explain the position in the individual case.

Are rape and child sexual offenders included?

The Government announced on 4 August 2026 that rape, serious child sexual and grooming offences will be excluded from the new Progression Model changes. The exact legal implementation and offence schedule should be checked once the necessary legislation or regulations are published.

Are domestic abuse offenders excluded?

Not as a category. Some may be excluded for another legal reason, such as sentence type or an excluded offence, but other domestic-abuse-related offenders may fall within the new model. Eligibility must be checked case by case.

Can I ask to be told the exact release date and address?

The Victim Contact Scheme provides specified information at key stages, but victims are not necessarily entitled to every operational detail. The published scheme says a victim can choose to be told the month of release and can be informed about agreed victim-related licence conditions. Ask your Victim Liaison Officer what can safely and lawfully be disclosed in your case.

Can I insist on a no-contact condition or exclusion zone?

You can make representations and request conditions relating to you or your family. The responsible authority decides whether each condition is necessary and proportionate. Give specific evidence and reasons, and ask to be told what has been agreed.

What happens if the offender breaches licence conditions?

A licence breach can lead to recall to prison. Conduct may also amount to a separate criminal offence or breach of a court order. Do not confront the offender. Preserve evidence, follow the reporting plan given by probation and contact police immediately if there is danger or suspected criminal conduct.

Does release mean a parent can immediately resume contact with a child?

No. Release does not itself create or restore child contact and does not alter an existing family-court order. Any contact must be lawful under the relevant family and criminal orders and consistent with licence conditions. If circumstances have materially changed, an urgent family-court application may be necessary.

Who can I contact now?

If you have received contact from someone in prison or are worried about release, the current HMPPS Victim Helpline is 0300 060 6699 and victim.helpline@justice.gov.uk. The Government has said that a further dedicated helpline for people affected by the 2026 reforms will be available by October.

Support and urgent help

How JSH Law can help

JSH Law supports litigants in person to turn complex histories into clear, court-ready material. Where a proposed release affects family proceedings or protective arrangements, we can help you organise the relevant orders and correspondence, prepare a focused chronology, identify the evidence needed, and structure the issues and urgent requests for the court. The correct legal route depends on the facts, the orders already in force and whether proceedings remain open.

This article provides general information about the law and procedure in England and Wales as at 4 August 2026. It is not legal advice. Sentencing and release rules are technical and may change as the Government implements its announcement. If you or a child is at immediate risk, call 999.

Key sources

Non-Fatal Strangulation: Why Family Courts Must Treat It as a Lethal Risk Warning

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by

Non-fatal strangulation is one of the most serious warning signs in domestic abuse and intimate partner violence. It may leave no visible injury, but it can signal escalating coercive control and lethal risk. For litigants in person in the family court, understanding how to present strangulation evidence properly can be critical to safeguarding, child arrangements and risk assessment.

Non-Fatal Strangulation: Why Family Courts Must Treat It as a Lethal Risk Warning

Non-fatal strangulation is one of the most dangerous warning signs in domestic abuse and intimate partner violence. It is not “just another assault”. It is not “rough handling”. It is not something that should be minimised because there is no visible injury. It is a high-risk indicator that may show the situation has already escalated towards lethal danger.

This article was prompted by a LinkedIn article by Robert Kaiser, Founder & Executive Chairman of PPSS Group, Founder of the Women’s Safety Institute, and PhD researcher in criminology focusing on Escalation Pattern Analysis in intimate partner violence. His article, Non-Fatal Strangulation: A Critical Warning Sign of Lethal Risk in Intimate Partner Violence, discusses his peer-reviewed paper, Escalation Pattern Analysis in Nonfatal Strangulation: Lethality Risk and Safeguarding in Intimate Partner Violence, published in Partner Abuse.

Kaiser’s core point is stark: non-fatal strangulation is not merely an incident to record. It is a critical warning sign of escalation. His work argues that risk assessment must move beyond a simple yes-or-no question and instead examine the pattern, context, repetition, intensity and trajectory of abuse.

For litigants in person in the family court, that point matters enormously.

Because if non-fatal strangulation is misunderstood, minimised or treated as one allegation among many, the court may fail to recognise the level of risk. That can affect child arrangements, interim contact, fact-finding decisions, police disclosure, Cafcass recommendations, safety planning and the survivor’s ability to protect themselves and the children.

Key Takeaways for Litigants in Person
  • Non-fatal strangulation is a serious criminal offence in England and Wales and should be treated as a major safeguarding concern.
  • It may leave little or no visible injury, so lack of bruising does not mean lack of danger.
  • In domestic abuse cases, strangulation can indicate escalating coercive control and increased lethality risk.
  • Family courts should not treat strangulation as an isolated incident; they should examine the full pattern of behaviour before, during and after the event.
  • Litigants in person should organise evidence carefully, including police records, medical records, photographs, messages, witness evidence, chronology and impact on children.
  • Where non-fatal strangulation is alleged, PD12J risk analysis, police disclosure and safeguarding evidence may be central to the case.

Non-Fatal Strangulation Is Not a Minor Assault

In England and Wales, non-fatal strangulation and suffocation became a specific criminal offence under section 70 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which inserted section 75A into the Serious Crime Act 2015. The offence came into force on 7 June 2022.

The Crown Prosecution Service guidance on strangulation and suffocation makes clear that the offence is not limited to domestic abuse cases. It should be considered wherever there is evidence of strangulation or suffocation. However, in domestic abuse cases, it often sits within a wider pattern of coercive control, intimidation and escalating violence.

The Government described the offence as aimed at abusers who strangle partners in order to control or induce fear, with perpetrators facing up to five years in prison. That recognition was long overdue.

Before the specific offence was introduced, non-fatal strangulation was too often charged as a lower-level assault, even where the behaviour was terrifying, controlling and potentially lethal. One of the reasons this happened was because visible injuries may be absent or minimal.

That is precisely why this issue is so dangerous.

If professionals rely on bruises, marks or visible injury as the main proxy for seriousness, they can miss one of the clearest warning signs of lethal risk.

The absence of visible injury is not evidence that strangulation was not serious. It may be evidence that the system is looking for the wrong thing.

Why Strangulation Is So Dangerous

Non-fatal strangulation is dangerous because it directly interferes with breathing, blood flow or oxygen supply. Survivors often describe it as the moment they believed they were going to die.

That fear is not overreaction.

It reflects the reality of what is happening to the body.

Pressure to the neck can affect breathing, blood vessels, nerves, the brain, the voice, swallowing and consciousness. Loss of consciousness can happen quickly. Serious injury can occur internally even where the skin does not show obvious injury.

The Institute for Addressing Strangulation works to improve professional awareness of the risks associated with strangulation and suffocation. Its professional guidance emphasises that non-fatal strangulation should be taken seriously as both a medical and safeguarding issue.

Healthcare and safeguarding responses must therefore avoid the dangerous assumption that “no marks” means “no harm”.

Some symptoms may not appear immediately. Survivors may experience difficulty swallowing, voice changes, breathing difficulties, dizziness, memory problems, confusion, headaches, neck pain, incontinence, loss of consciousness, psychological trauma or neurological symptoms. Some survivors may not understand the medical significance of what happened to them. Others may minimise it because they are frightened, ashamed, traumatised or still under the control of the perpetrator.

That is why any disclosure of strangulation should be treated as urgent.

In an emergency, or where there are symptoms such as breathing difficulty, difficulty swallowing, weakness, confusion or worsening symptoms, medical help should be sought immediately.

The Family Court Problem: Strangulation Gets Treated as an Incident

The family court often works by allegations. A Scott Schedule may list one incident per row. A witness statement may divide events into dates. A Cafcass report may summarise “allegations made by the mother” and “denials by the father”.

That structure can be useful.

But it can also flatten risk.

Non-fatal strangulation should not be treated as merely one entry in a list of allegations. It should make the court pause and ask a different set of questions.

What happened before the strangulation?

Was there a pattern of coercive control?

Were there earlier threats?

Was there stalking, harassment, sexual violence, isolation, financial control or intimidation?

Was the incident connected to separation, pregnancy, contact disputes, jealousy, perceived loss of control or litigation?

Was it accompanied by threats such as “I’ll kill you”, “you won’t wake up next time”, or “no one will believe you”?

Was the pressure increasing?

Had the behaviour happened before?

Was there a pattern of remorse reducing over time?

Was the survivor’s fear increasing?

Did the children see, hear or experience the aftermath?

Those questions matter because domestic abuse is rarely a random collection of disconnected incidents. It is often a pattern.

And in coercive control cases, the pattern is the point.

Robert Kaiser’s Point: From Incidents to Escalation

Robert Kaiser’s work on Escalation Pattern Analysis is helpful because it challenges the limitations of incident-based thinking.

In the article that prompted this blog, Kaiser explains that risk assessment often records whether strangulation has occurred as a binary variable: yes or no. That is important, but insufficient. A yes-or-no answer tells us that the event happened. It does not tell us enough about the trajectory of the abuse.

His Escalation Pattern Analysis framework focuses on three dimensions:

  • Frequency: how often abusive behaviours occur and whether the gaps between them are shortening;
  • Intensity: whether the behaviours are becoming more severe, intrusive, frightening or potentially lethal;
  • Inhibitory decline: whether the perpetrator appears to be showing reduced restraint, increased entitlement, greater volatility or less concern about consequences.

That framework is highly relevant to family court.

A litigant in person may know that something is escalating but struggle to explain it in legal terms. They may say “it got worse” or “I knew something had changed” or “I felt he was capable of killing me”. Professionals may dismiss that as subjective fear unless the evidence is properly organised.

Escalation analysis gives language to what survivors often experience before the system catches up.

It helps the court see not only what happened, but where the behaviour appears to be going.

In family court, the question should not be only “did strangulation happen?” The question should be “what does this reveal about the pattern, trajectory and risk?”

Why Visible Injury Is the Wrong Test

One of the most dangerous myths about non-fatal strangulation is that it must leave obvious marks.

It often does not.

The SafeLives non-fatal strangulation training materials highlight that non-fatal strangulation can be difficult to evidence because of a lack of visible injury and that professionals need to understand its link with domestic abuse and sexual violence.

For family court purposes, this matters because respondents may say:

  • “There were no bruises.”
  • “She did not go to hospital.”
  • “There is no medical evidence.”
  • “She is exaggerating.”
  • “It was consensual.”
  • “It was just a heated argument.”
  • “If it was serious, she would have reported it immediately.”

Those arguments can be powerful if the court does not understand non-fatal strangulation properly.

A survivor may not report immediately because they are frightened. They may not seek medical help because they do not realise there could be internal injury. They may be under coercive control. They may fear losing the children. They may have been told no one will believe them. They may have no visible marks. They may be confused, disorientated or unable to remember parts of the incident clearly.

The absence of immediate reporting or visible injury should not automatically be treated as undermining credibility.

The court must look at the full context.

Non-Fatal Strangulation and PD12J

In private law children cases in England and Wales, allegations of domestic abuse should be considered under Practice Direction 12J.

PD12J requires the court to consider the nature of alleged domestic abuse, the impact on the child and parent, and whether a fact-finding hearing is necessary before decisions about child arrangements are made.

Where non-fatal strangulation is alleged, the court should not rush past it.

It may be directly relevant to:

  • whether interim contact is safe;
  • whether contact should be supervised or suspended pending findings;
  • whether a fact-finding hearing is necessary;
  • whether police disclosure is required;
  • whether medical evidence is needed;
  • whether Cafcass has properly assessed risk;
  • whether the child has been exposed to domestic abuse;
  • whether there is a risk of post-separation abuse;
  • whether the parent alleging abuse needs special measures;
  • whether there is a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour.

The court’s welfare analysis under section 1 of the Children Act 1989 cannot be meaningful if serious risk indicators are minimised.

Non-fatal strangulation should be treated as a significant safeguarding issue, not a side allegation.

What Litigants in Person Should Record

If non-fatal strangulation has occurred, the evidence needs to be organised carefully. This is not because the survivor should have to prove everything perfectly. It is because the court process is evidence-led, and serious risk can be missed if it is presented in a fragmented way.

Where safe and possible, a litigant in person should try to gather and preserve:

  • the date and approximate time of the incident;
  • where it happened;
  • how it happened — hands, arm, object, pressure to neck, pressure to mouth or nose, restriction of breathing;
  • how long it lasted, if known;
  • whether consciousness was lost or affected;
  • whether there was dizziness, confusion, memory loss, incontinence, vomiting, headache, neck pain, voice change, swallowing difficulty or breathing difficulty;
  • any photographs of visible injury, taken safely and with date records where possible;
  • any GP, hospital, ambulance, SARC or medical records;
  • any police report, crime reference number, body-worn video, 999 call or officer notes;
  • any messages sent before or after the incident;
  • any admissions, apologies, threats or minimising messages from the perpetrator;
  • whether children saw, heard or were affected by the incident;
  • whether the perpetrator made threats during or after the strangulation;
  • whether there were previous similar incidents;
  • whether the behaviour has increased in frequency or severity;
  • whether separation, court proceedings or contact arrangements triggered escalation.

This information can then be used to create a chronology, position statement, C1A safeguarding form, witness statement, police disclosure request or schedule of allegations.

The purpose is not to overwhelm the court.

The purpose is to make the risk visible.

Do Not Let the Allegation Be Reframed as “High Conflict”

One of the recurring problems in family court is that serious domestic abuse can be reframed as parental conflict.

That is particularly dangerous where non-fatal strangulation is alleged.

“High conflict” suggests mutual hostility. It implies two people who cannot get along. It often leads to co-parenting language, communication apps, separated parenting courses and pressure to move forward.

But non-fatal strangulation is not a communication problem.

It is not poor conflict management.

It is not two parents needing to be more child-focused.

It is potentially lethal violence.

If it sits within coercive control, threats, stalking, harassment or sexual abuse, the correct analysis is safeguarding and risk — not parental conflict.

Litigants in person should be alert to language that minimises the allegation. Examples include:

  • “There are allegations on both sides.”
  • “Both parents need to move on.”
  • “The parents need to communicate better.”
  • “The mother is anxious.”
  • “The father denies the allegation and wants contact.”
  • “There is no visible evidence.”
  • “The child was not directly involved.”
  • “This is historic.”

Some of those observations may be relevant in a proper evidential analysis. But none of them should be used to bypass risk.

The court must ask what the allegation means for safety now.

Police Disclosure May Be Critical

Where non-fatal strangulation has been reported to the police, disclosure may be critical in the family court.

Relevant material may include:

  • incident logs;
  • 999 call recordings;
  • body-worn video;
  • officer notes;
  • photographs;
  • risk assessments;
  • witness statements;
  • custody records;
  • interview summaries;
  • charging decisions;
  • bail conditions;
  • restraining orders;
  • victim personal statements;
  • medical evidence obtained as part of the criminal investigation.

Family courts should be cautious about progressing child arrangements where key police evidence has not been obtained or considered.

That does not mean every case must wait indefinitely for the criminal process. But it does mean the court should not make unsafe decisions in an evidential vacuum.

Where a litigant in person asks for police disclosure, the request should be specific. It should explain why the material is relevant to child welfare, domestic abuse, PD12J, risk assessment and interim safety.

Cafcass Reports Must Be Scrutinised

Cafcass has an important role in private law children cases, but its reports should not be accepted uncritically where serious domestic abuse is alleged.

If non-fatal strangulation is part of the history, the court should ask:

  • Did Cafcass identify non-fatal strangulation as a high-risk factor?
  • Did Cafcass ask targeted questions about context, repetition and escalation?
  • Did Cafcass consider coercive control?
  • Did Cafcass consider the child’s exposure to domestic abuse?
  • Did Cafcass rely too heavily on visible injury or criminal charge status?
  • Did Cafcass distinguish between parental conflict and domestic abuse?
  • Did Cafcass consider whether contact could be used for ongoing control?
  • Did Cafcass recommend safe interim arrangements?
  • Did Cafcass explain why any proposed contact is safe?

A report that minimises non-fatal strangulation should be challenged carefully and respectfully, with reference to evidence, risk, PD12J and the child’s welfare.

The issue is not whether a parent “likes” the recommendation.

The issue is whether the risk analysis is adequate.

Children Are Affected Even If They Did Not See It

Children do not have to witness strangulation directly to be harmed by it.

They may hear it. They may see the aftermath. They may notice fear, injury, silence, panic, police attendance or parental distress. They may become hypervigilant. They may be used as emotional leverage. They may be pressured to maintain contact with a parent who has made the household feel unsafe.

Under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, a child can be recognised as a victim of domestic abuse if they see, hear or experience the effects of abuse and are related to the victim or perpetrator.

That matters in family court.

The question is not only whether the child was physically present in the room. The question is whether the child has experienced the effects of the abuse and what that means for welfare, safety and future arrangements.

Medical Evidence: Why It Should Not Be Overlooked

Medical evidence can be important, but it must be understood properly.

A lack of medical attendance does not mean the incident did not happen.

A lack of visible injury does not mean there was no danger.

But where medical evidence exists, it can help establish symptoms, injury, timing and impact.

The clinical guidelines on the management of non-fatal strangulation produced through the Institute for Addressing Strangulation provide detailed professional guidance for acute and emergency healthcare responses.

For litigants in person, the practical point is this: if medical help was sought, obtain the records where possible. If symptoms were reported to a GP, hospital, ambulance service, sexual assault referral centre or mental health professional, those records may be relevant.

If medical help was not sought, explain why. Fear, shock, coercive control, lack of visible injury, confusion and not understanding the medical risk may all be relevant context.

When Strangulation Is Raised in a Family Court Statement

A family court statement should not simply say: “He strangled me.”

That may be true, but it may not be enough to help the court understand the risk.

A clearer structure is usually:

  • what happened;
  • how breathing or consciousness was affected;
  • what was said during the incident;
  • what symptoms followed;
  • what the perpetrator did afterwards;
  • whether the children were exposed to it or affected by it;
  • whether there had been earlier abuse;
  • whether there has been escalation;
  • what evidence supports the account;
  • what protective orders or directions are requested.

For example, instead of presenting the allegation as an isolated event, a litigant in person may need to explain:

“This incident occurred after a period of escalating control, including threats, monitoring my movements, financial control and repeated intimidation. It was the first time he placed his hands around my neck. I believed I was going to die. Afterwards, his behaviour did not stop. He continued to threaten me and later used child contact arrangements to pressure me. I ask the court to treat this as part of a pattern of coercive control and escalating risk, not as a one-off argument.”

The wording must always be accurate to the evidence. But the principle is important: the court needs the trajectory, not just the incident.

What Orders or Directions Might Be Relevant?

Depending on the facts, a litigant in person may need to consider asking the family court for directions or orders such as:

  • a fact-finding hearing under PD12J;
  • police disclosure before any progression of contact;
  • medical disclosure where relevant;
  • Cafcass safeguarding analysis that specifically addresses non-fatal strangulation;
  • special measures at hearings;
  • separate waiting arrangements or screens;
  • remote attendance where appropriate;
  • supervised or supported contact only;
  • suspension of direct contact pending findings where risk requires it;
  • indirect contact only where necessary for safety;
  • a prohibited steps order;
  • a non-molestation order where appropriate;
  • clear communication boundaries to prevent post-separation abuse.

These are not automatic. The court will consider the evidence, welfare, proportionality and the specific facts of the case. But where non-fatal strangulation is alleged, the court should not approach interim arrangements as if this is an ordinary parental dispute.

False Certainty Helps No One

It is important to be clear: allegations still need to be considered fairly.

The family court cannot simply assume every allegation is proved. Respondents are entitled to due process. Findings must be made on evidence. The court must avoid prejudging contested facts.

But fairness does not require naivety.

Fairness does not require the court to ignore risk.

Fairness does not require a survivor to keep facilitating unsafe arrangements while the system slowly gathers the evidence it should have prioritised from the start.

The proper approach is not to assume guilt. It is to manage risk intelligently while the facts are being determined.

That distinction matters.

Why This Matters for Litigants in Person

Litigants in person are often expected to navigate complex safeguarding issues without legal representation.

That is difficult in any case.

It is especially difficult where non-fatal strangulation is involved because the survivor may be traumatised, frightened, cognitively affected, financially controlled or still dealing with post-separation abuse.

They may also be facing a respondent who appears calm, articulate and child-focused in court.

That contrast can be devastating. The survivor may appear anxious or emotional. The perpetrator may appear reasonable. The court may then misread presentation as credibility.

This is why evidence structure matters.

A clear chronology, focused statement, targeted disclosure requests and careful PD12J submissions can help prevent serious risk from being lost in the noise of family court proceedings.

Practical Checklist for Litigants in Person

If non-fatal strangulation is part of your case, consider the following practical steps:

  • Seek urgent medical advice if there are symptoms or concerns, even if there are no visible injuries.
  • Report the incident to police if it is safe to do so.
  • Keep a record of crime reference numbers, officer names and dates.
  • Take photographs of any visible injuries, where safe.
  • Save messages, emails, voicemails and social media evidence.
  • Write down your memory of the incident as soon as you safely can.
  • Record symptoms, including voice changes, swallowing difficulty, headaches, dizziness, confusion, memory loss or loss of consciousness.
  • Record what the perpetrator said before, during and after the incident.
  • Record whether children saw, heard or were affected by the incident.
  • Build a chronology showing the wider pattern of coercive control and escalation.
  • Ask the family court for police disclosure where relevant.
  • Ensure the issue is clearly addressed in your C1A, statement or position statement.
  • Challenge any report that minimises strangulation or treats it as ordinary conflict.
  • Ask for special measures if attending court with the alleged perpetrator causes fear or distress.
  • Seek specialist domestic abuse support where possible.

If you are in immediate danger, call 999. If you are not in immediate danger but need domestic abuse support, the National Domestic Abuse Helpline and Women’s Aid provide information and support.

Final Thought

Non-fatal strangulation is not a side issue.

It is not a minor assault.

It is not made safe by the absence of bruising.

It is not properly assessed by ticking “yes” on a risk form and moving on.

It is a critical warning sign.

Robert Kaiser’s work is important because it reminds professionals to stop thinking only in isolated incidents and start analysing escalation. That shift matters in policing, healthcare, safeguarding, advocacy and family court.

For litigants in person, the lesson is practical and urgent: where non-fatal strangulation is part of the history, the court must be helped to see the full pattern.

The frequency.

The intensity.

The loss of restraint.

The threats.

The fear.

The children’s exposure.

The post-separation behaviour.

The risk if it is minimised.

Because when strangulation occurs, the question is not merely whether a past incident happened.

The question is what it tells us about future danger.

And in family court, future danger is exactly what safeguarding is supposed to prevent.

Related Reading

You may also find our article on coercive control, family court and post-separation abuse helpful if your case involves ongoing control after separation.

You may also find our article on Ontario’s Integrated Domestic Violence Court and why the UK should be watching useful when considering how criminal and family court systems should respond to overlapping domestic abuse and safeguarding issues.

Useful External Sources

Need Support Preparing for Family Court?

JSH Law Ltd provides litigation support and McKenzie Friend services for litigants in person dealing with family court, safeguarding, domestic abuse, coercive control, police disclosure, Cafcass reports and child arrangements issues.

If your case involves non-fatal strangulation, coercive control, serious safeguarding concerns, unsafe contact proposals or post-separation abuse, it is important to organise the evidence clearly and frame the risk properly for the court.

JSH Law can assist with position statements, chronologies, C1A preparation, evidence organisation, safeguarding summaries, Cafcass report analysis, police disclosure requests, hearing preparation and family court documentation.

Contact JSH Law Ltd to discuss litigation support for your case.

Regulatory & Editorial Notice

This article is published by JSH Law Ltd for general information and public legal education only. It is not legal advice, medical advice, safeguarding advice or crisis support, and should not be relied upon as a substitute for advice from a qualified solicitor, barrister, healthcare professional, police officer, safeguarding professional or specialist domestic abuse service about the facts of an individual case.

If you are in immediate danger, call 999. If you have experienced strangulation or suffocation and have symptoms such as breathing difficulty, difficulty swallowing, weakness, confusion, loss of consciousness, worsening headache, voice changes or neurological symptoms, seek urgent medical help.

JSH Law Ltd provides litigation support and McKenzie Friend services to litigants in person. JSH Law Ltd is not authorised or regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority or any other approved legal services regulator. It does not conduct litigation, does not carry out reserved legal activities, and has no automatic right of audience. Where court attendance or advocacy support is requested, any right to address the court is subject to the court’s permission.

This article credits and discusses the work of Robert Kaiser for public-interest commentary and legal education. External references are included for context and further reading. Inclusion of a source does not imply endorsement by that author or organisation, nor endorsement of this article by them.

Victims and Courts Act 2026: A Step Forward for Survivors, Children and Family Court Safety

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Victims and Courts Act 2026 is now law. For survivors, children and families who have been forced to navigate a justice system that too often separates criminal justice from family safety, this is a significant moment. The Act introduces important protections around parental responsibility, victim voice, sentencing accountability and the ability of survivors to speak out.

Victims and Courts Act 2026: A Step Forward for Survivors, Children and Family Court Safety

The Victims and Courts Bill has now received Royal Assent and become the Victims and Courts Act 2026. For survivors, children, and families who have been forced to navigate a justice system that too often places process above protection, this is a significant moment.

The new law introduces important changes for victims and bereaved families. It includes measures requiring offenders to attend sentencing hearings, extending time limits for victims to challenge unduly lenient sentences, restricting the misuse of non-disclosure agreements, strengthening the role of the Victims’ Commissioner, and — crucially for family justice — restricting the exercise of parental responsibility by offenders sentenced for serious child sexual abuse and where rape has resulted in the birth of a child.

This matters because parental responsibility is not a symbolic label.

It is legal power.

It can affect decisions about a child’s education, medical treatment, travel, religion, name, records, passports, and day-to-day life. In the wrong hands, it can also be used as a tool of control.

For too long, survivors have had to fight through the family court to limit the involvement of dangerous offenders in their children’s lives. That has meant cost, trauma, delay, legal complexity and repeated exposure to the very person whose offending created the risk in the first place.

The Ministry of Justice has described the Victims and Courts Act 2026 as a law that puts victims’ needs, voices and rights at the heart of the justice system. That is the right ambition. But the real test will be how these protections work in practice for survivors, children, and litigants in person.

Key Takeaways for Survivors, Parents and Litigants in Person
  • The Victims and Courts Act 2026 received Royal Assent on 30 April 2026.
  • The Act includes new restrictions on the exercise of parental responsibility by offenders sentenced for serious child sexual abuse and where rape has resulted in the birth of a child.
  • This is important because parental responsibility can be used to interfere with a child’s education, medical care, travel, identity and family life.
  • The Act also includes measures on sentencing attendance, unduly lenient sentence reviews, non-disclosure agreements and the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner.
  • For family court users, the question is whether these reforms will reduce the burden on survivors who have previously had to return to court to protect children from dangerous offenders.
  • The Act is a step forward, but it is not the end of the argument. Implementation, training, court culture, legal aid, specialist support and safeguarding practice will determine whether it works in real life.

Why This Law Matters

The Victims and Courts Act 2026 is wide-ranging legislation. It does not deal only with family law. It sits at the intersection of criminal justice, victim support, sentencing, public confidence, court accountability and child protection.

But one of its most important family justice implications is the restriction of parental responsibility for certain sexual offenders.

The Government has confirmed that the Act will protect children by restricting the exercise of parental responsibility where an offender has been sentenced for serious child sexual abuse, and where rape has resulted in the birth of a child.

That is a significant legislative shift.

Because for many survivors, the criminal conviction is not the end of the harm.

It is often the beginning of another battle.

A survivor may have reported rape or child sexual abuse. There may have been a criminal investigation. There may have been a trial. There may have been a conviction. There may have been a sentence. But after all of that, the family court may still become another arena in which power and control continue.

That is especially true where the offender has parental responsibility.

Parental responsibility can provide a route into the child’s life, the survivor’s life, and the decision-making framework around the family. It can require the survivor to engage, respond, negotiate, seek consent, provide information, or apply back to court.

That is why this reform matters.

It recognises something that survivors and family court practitioners have understood for years: legal status can be weaponised.

Parental responsibility is not just a legal label. In the wrong hands, it can become a tool of continuing control.

Parental Responsibility Is Power

In family law, parental responsibility refers to the legal rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority a parent has in relation to a child.

In ordinary family life, it allows parents to make important decisions for their children. That is not controversial. Children need adults with legal authority to make decisions in their best interests.

But the problem arises when parental responsibility is held by someone who has committed serious sexual offending, including child sexual abuse, or where rape has resulted in the birth of the child.

In those circumstances, the question becomes stark:

Why should a survivor or child have to keep returning to court to restrict the power of someone whose criminal conduct has already demonstrated serious risk?

This is not about punishment for its own sake.

It is about child protection.

It is about survivor safety.

It is about preventing the family court from becoming the next battleground after the criminal court has finished.

It is also about recognising that family law cannot operate in a vacuum. Where there has been serious criminal offending, especially sexual offending involving children or rape, that context must shape how parental responsibility is treated.

Children Born of Rape: The Loophole That Should Never Have Existed

One of the most disturbing aspects of the previous legal landscape was the position of children born as a result of rape.

For survivors, this was never merely an abstract legal issue. It meant that the perpetrator of rape could still have legal status in relation to the child conceived through that crime. It meant the survivor could be forced into contact with the offender through decision-making, applications, correspondence, or family court proceedings.

That is not protection.

That is retraumatisation dressed up as process.

The reform is therefore profoundly important. It recognises that where rape has resulted in the birth of a child, the legal system must not hand the offender a continuing mechanism of power over the survivor and child.

The campaigning around this issue has been driven by survivors and parliamentarians who understood the cruelty of forcing victims to fight in family court after surviving rape. Their work has exposed a truth the system should have confronted long ago: a child’s welfare cannot be separated from the circumstances in which legal power is being exercised.

Where parental responsibility becomes a route to further control, the law must intervene.

Serious Child Sexual Abuse and Parental Responsibility

The Act also addresses offenders sentenced for serious child sexual abuse.

This is essential because child sexual abuse is not merely a criminal offence against an individual child. It is evidence of profound safeguarding risk.

The Government has stated that the Act will restrict the exercise of parental responsibility where an offender is convicted of serious child sexual abuse and sentenced to four years or more.

This matters even where the offence is not against the offender’s own child.

A parent who has committed serious sexual offences against any child raises obvious and serious welfare concerns. The family court should not treat that risk as peripheral simply because the specific victim was not the child in the family proceedings.

Safeguarding requires pattern recognition.

It requires common sense.

It requires the court to ask not merely, “Was this child the direct victim of the offence?” but, “What does this offending tell us about risk, judgment, sexual boundaries, power, control, empathy and child safety?”

For too long, family courts have sometimes treated criminal conduct and parental status as if they sit in separate legal compartments. That is wrong.

A child’s welfare requires the whole picture.

The family court should not require survivors to re-prove obvious risk after the criminal court has already dealt with serious sexual offending.

This Is Not Anti-Father. It Is Pro-Child Protection.

Predictably, reforms of this kind can be mischaracterised.

Some will frame this as an attack on fathers. It is not.

It is an intervention aimed at serious sexual offending, child protection and survivor safety.

The issue is not whether fathers matter. They do.

The issue is not whether children benefit from safe, loving, consistent relationships with both parents where that is genuinely in their welfare interests. They often do.

The issue is whether a person convicted of serious sexual offending, or whose rape resulted in the birth of a child, should be able to use parental responsibility as a continuing form of power.

The answer should be no.

Family law must be child-centred, not adult-entitlement-centred.

Parental responsibility exists for the benefit of the child. It should never become a shield for an offender or a weapon against a survivor.

The Family Court Has Been Used as a Tool of Post-Separation Abuse

This reform also sits within a wider problem: the use of family proceedings as a tool of post-separation abuse.

Survivors of domestic abuse, coercive control, stalking, harassment and sexual violence frequently describe the court process itself becoming part of the abuse. Repeated applications. Threats of proceedings. Demands for information. Attempts to control schooling or medical decisions. Contact applications made without genuine child-focused motivation. Complaints to agencies. Weaponised parental responsibility.

The family court can become the place where coercive control changes form.

Before separation, control may have been exercised through money, movement, isolation, intimidation, sexual violence, threats, surveillance or emotional abuse.

After separation, control may be exercised through legal process.

That is why reforms restricting parental responsibility in the most serious cases are so important. They acknowledge that the law itself can create opportunities for continuing harm if it does not recognise how power operates after separation.

You can read more about this wider issue in our article on coercive control, family court and post-separation abuse.

Victims Must Not Be Prevented from Speaking Out

Another important aspect of the Victims and Courts Act 2026 is the restriction on the use of non-disclosure agreements to prevent victims from speaking out about criminal conduct.

The Government announcement states that the new legislation will ensure NDAs cannot prevent victims from speaking out about criminal conduct to anyone, for any reason.

That matters because silence can protect institutions, perpetrators and reputations at the expense of survivors.

There are legitimate reasons for confidentiality in some contexts. But confidentiality should not become a mechanism for suppressing crime, controlling victims or preventing public interest disclosures.

For survivors of sexual violence, domestic abuse and child abuse, the right to speak can be part of recovery, accountability and safety.

Victims should not be trapped in silence by legal documents designed to protect the powerful.

Offenders Attending Sentencing: Why It Matters

The Act also introduces measures requiring offenders to attend sentencing hearings, with consequences where they refuse.

Some people may see this as symbolic.

It is not.

For victims and bereaved families, sentencing is often one of the only moments where the harm is formally acknowledged in open court. It may be the moment where a victim personal statement is read. It may be the moment where the court recognises the seriousness of what happened. It may be the moment where the offender is required to face the consequences of their actions.

When an offender refuses to attend, that absence can compound the harm.

The Victims’ Commissioner has described how bereaved families campaigned for this change after experiencing the additional pain caused by offenders refusing to appear at sentencing.

This is not about theatre.

It is about dignity.

It is about accountability.

It is about the justice system recognising that victims are not merely witnesses in proceedings owned by the state.

Longer Time to Challenge Unduly Lenient Sentences

The Act also extends the time available for victims and bereaved families to ask for sentences to be reviewed under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme.

The Government has confirmed that victims and families will have longer than the current 28 days to challenge sentences they consider too lenient. The Victims’ Commissioner has described the reform as giving victims and bereaved families up to six months to ask for a sentence to be reconsidered where it is in the interests of justice.

This matters because victims do not experience sentencing as an administrative deadline.

They may be grieving. They may be traumatised. They may not understand the scheme. They may not receive clear information in time. They may need advice. They may need to process the sentence before they can even begin to consider whether it should be challenged.

A rigid 28-day deadline has never reflected the lived reality of trauma.

Extending the time period is not a technical change. It is a humane one.

Legislation Alone Is Never Enough

This Act is a step forward.

But legislation alone does not protect people.

Implementation does.

Training does.

Judicial understanding does.

Specialist support does.

Legal aid does.

Clear guidance does.

Safe court processes do.

Prompt disclosure does.

Proper scrutiny of reports does.

That is why the response from specialist organisations matters. Women’s Aid has welcomed aspects of the Act, including restrictions on parental responsibility and measures around NDAs and unduly lenient sentences, but has also warned that the approach needs to go further and that specialist services require proper resourcing.

That warning should be taken seriously.

A law can create rights on paper. But if survivors cannot access advice, cannot obtain representation, cannot navigate the court process, cannot secure evidence, cannot enforce orders, or cannot get specialist support, those rights may not translate into safety.

The Remaining Family Court Problem

The Act addresses some of the most serious situations involving sexual offending and parental responsibility.

But there remains a wider family court problem.

Many survivors are not dealing with a rape conviction.

Many survivors are not dealing with an offender sentenced to four years or more for serious child sexual abuse.

Many survivors are dealing with coercive control, domestic abuse, stalking, harassment, threats, economic abuse, emotional abuse, litigation abuse, child exposure to abuse, and unsafe contact proposals.

In those cases, the family court still has to do the hard work of risk assessment.

It must apply Practice Direction 12J properly.

It must stop treating domestic abuse as background conflict.

It must scrutinise Cafcass reports and professional recommendations.

It must understand post-separation abuse.

It must stop assuming that contact progression is always the correct destination.

It must recognise that children can be harmed not only by direct violence, but by fear, coercion, manipulation, exposure to abuse and being used as conduits for control.

The Victims and Courts Act 2026 is important.

But it does not remove the need for deeper family court reform.

What Litigants in Person Need to Understand

For litigants in person, the key practical point is this: the law is changing, but the details matter.

If your case involves serious sexual offending, rape resulting in the birth of a child, child sexual abuse, domestic abuse, coercive control, parental responsibility, or unsafe contact, you should not assume that the court will automatically understand the full picture without clear evidence and careful presentation.

You may need to gather and organise:

  • criminal conviction details;
  • sentencing remarks;
  • restraining orders or protective orders;
  • police disclosure;
  • Cafcass safeguarding letters;
  • social care records;
  • school or medical evidence;
  • messages, emails or digital evidence;
  • chronologies showing patterns of behaviour;
  • evidence of litigation abuse or post-separation control;
  • impact on the child;
  • clear proposals for safe arrangements.

Family court decisions are evidence-led. Even where the law is on your side, presentation matters.

The danger for litigants in person is that serious issues can be minimised if they are not framed properly.

That is why chronology, safeguarding analysis, documentary evidence and clear position statements matter.

What Should Happen Next?

There are several things to watch now.

  • How quickly the relevant provisions are commenced and implemented.
  • What guidance is issued to criminal courts, family courts, Cafcass, local authorities and victim support services.
  • How courts identify relevant cases where parental responsibility restrictions should apply.
  • Whether survivors are told clearly about their rights.
  • Whether litigants in person can understand and rely on the new protections.
  • Whether the family court still requires unnecessary applications where protection should flow from the criminal outcome.
  • Whether legal aid and specialist support are available in practice.
  • Whether the reforms are monitored for consistency and effectiveness.

The Act should reduce the burden on survivors. It should not create a new procedural maze.

The point of reform is not simply to create new legal wording. It is to change what happens to real people.

This Is a Step Forward. But It Must Not Be the Last Step.

The Victims and Courts Act 2026 is a significant development for victims’ rights and child protection.

It closes loopholes that should never have existed.

It recognises that serious sexual offending is not irrelevant to parental responsibility.

It acknowledges that victims should not be silenced by NDAs.

It gives victims and bereaved families more time to challenge sentences they believe are unduly lenient.

It strengthens the position of the Victims’ Commissioner.

It recognises that offenders should not be able to avoid the accountability of sentencing by simply refusing to attend.

But there is still work to do.

Survivors need protection before, during and after criminal proceedings.

Children need family courts that understand risk.

Litigants in person need procedures they can actually navigate.

Specialist support services need proper funding.

Judges and professionals need training in coercive control, sexual violence, trauma, post-separation abuse and litigation abuse.

And family law must continue moving away from adult entitlement and towards genuine child safety.

Final Thought

This law matters because it recognises a basic truth: victims and children should not be left to carry the burden of protecting themselves from offenders who have already caused serious harm.

For children born of rape, and for families affected by serious child sexual abuse, the law should not hand the offender continuing power and then expect the survivor to fight to remove it.

That was never justice.

It was process without protection.

The Victims and Courts Act 2026 is an important correction.

Now the challenge is implementation.

The courts, agencies and professionals responsible for applying this law must ensure it works not only in legal theory, but in the lives of the survivors and children it is supposed to protect.

Because the measure of this Act will not be the press release.

It will be whether fewer victims are silenced.

Whether fewer children are placed at risk.

Whether fewer survivors are forced back into family court to fight battles the criminal justice system has already made obvious.

And whether, at last, the justice system begins to understand that victim protection and child protection are not separate issues.

They are often the same fight.

Related Reading

You may also find our article on Ontario’s Integrated Domestic Violence Court and why the UK should be watching helpful when thinking about how criminal and family court processes should be better connected in domestic abuse and safeguarding cases.

You may also find our article on coercive control, family court and post-separation abuse helpful if you are dealing with family proceedings where abuse has continued after separation.

Useful External Sources

Need Support Navigating Family Court or Safeguarding Issues?

JSH Law Ltd provides litigation support and McKenzie Friend services for litigants in person dealing with family court, safeguarding, domestic abuse, coercive control, parental responsibility and child arrangements issues.

If your case involves serious safeguarding concerns, criminal proceedings, police evidence, unsafe contact, coercive control, post-separation abuse or parental responsibility disputes, it is important to organise the evidence clearly and frame the issues properly for the court.

JSH Law can assist with position statements, chronologies, evidence organisation, safeguarding summaries, Cafcass report analysis, hearing preparation and family court documentation.

Contact JSH Law Ltd to discuss litigation support for your case.

Regulatory & Editorial Notice

This article is published by JSH Law Ltd for general information and public legal education only. It is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as a substitute for advice from a qualified solicitor, barrister, criminal law specialist, family law specialist or safeguarding professional about the facts of an individual case.

Law and guidance may change. The practical effect of the Victims and Courts Act 2026 will depend on commencement, regulations, court rules, statutory guidance, judicial practice, agency implementation and any future legal challenge.

JSH Law Ltd provides litigation support and McKenzie Friend services to litigants in person. JSH Law Ltd is not authorised or regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority or any other approved legal services regulator. It does not conduct litigation, does not carry out reserved legal activities, and has no automatic right of audience. Where court attendance or advocacy support is requested, any right to address the court is subject to the court’s permission.

External references are included for context, commentary and public-interest discussion. Inclusion of a source does not imply endorsement by that organisation, nor endorsement of this article by them.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026: Why Home Educating Families Are Right to Be Concerned

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 is now law. It has been presented as a children’s wellbeing and safeguarding reform. But beneath the reassuring language sits a deeper question: how far should the state be permitted to move into ordinary family life, parental decision-making and lawful home education?

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026: The State Has Just Moved Closer to the Family Home

The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 received Royal Assent on 29 April 2026. It is now law. For home educating families, SEND parents, and anyone concerned about the balance between family life and state power, this is not a small development.

For many people, that sentence will pass them by. It will sound like another education reform. Another safeguarding measure. Another piece of legislation wrapped in the comforting language of “wellbeing”.

But for families who have spent months reading the detail, raising concerns, writing to MPs, submitting evidence, campaigning, explaining, warning and trying to be heard, it is a hard day.

Because beneath the headline policies — free breakfast clubs, school uniform limits, attendance measures and the language of children’s welfare — sits something far more serious.

This Act shifts the balance between family and state.

It does so in a way that should concern every family in England, not only those who home educate.

Key Takeaways for Parents and Home Educating Families
  • The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 is now law, but many practical effects will depend on commencement, regulations, statutory guidance and local authority implementation.
  • The Act introduces Children Not in School registers, meaning local authorities will have a stronger statutory role in identifying and recording children educated outside school.
  • For some children and circumstances, the legal landscape around removing a child from school or continuing home education will become more restrictive.
  • Families with SEND children should be particularly alert, because many children leave school due to unmet need, trauma, anxiety, neurodivergence, bullying or school-based distress.
  • Safeguarding matters. But safeguarding powers must be evidence-based, proportionate, accountable and carefully distinguished from lawful parental choice.
  • The next battle will be implementation: guidance, local authority practice, data protection, appeals, complaints and legal challenge where powers are misused.

This Is Not Just About Home Education

It would be very easy for the public to misunderstand this Act as a narrow measure aimed only at “children not in school”. That is how much of the debate has been framed. Home educators have been presented as the group affected, and therefore everyone else has been invited to look away.

That is a mistake.

The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 is not simply about education. It is about information, monitoring, state oversight, parental decision-making, safeguarding thresholds and the relationship between the family and public authorities.

It introduces Children Not in School registers. It strengthens duties around information sharing. It supports a more joined-up approach to identifying children across public services. It changes the practical landscape for families who choose, or are forced by circumstance, to educate outside the school system.

It also creates a more restrictive landscape for some families where home education is sought in circumstances that trigger additional local authority oversight.

That is a constitutional shift in ordinary family life.

Home education in England has never been a loophole. It has never been some strange exemption granted by the state to a small group of awkward parents. It is part of the basic legal structure of education in this country.

The legal duty to secure a child’s education rests on the parent. The state provides schools. Parents may choose to use them. But school is not, and has never been, the only lawful way of educating a child.

That distinction matters.

Once the state begins from the assumption that children outside school are a category requiring automatic registration, monitoring and possible intervention, the legal culture changes. The parent is no longer treated simply as the primary decision-maker. The parent becomes a person whose decision must be recorded, scrutinised and, in some circumstances, approved or challenged.

Home education is not a loophole. It is a lawful expression of parental responsibility.

The Language of Wellbeing Should Not Blind Us to the Power Being Created

No sensible person is against children’s wellbeing.

No responsible parent is against safeguarding.

No one who works in family law, education disputes, SEND, safeguarding or child protection can seriously deny that there are children who fall through gaps, children who are harmed, children who are invisible to services, and children who desperately need adults around them to act sooner and better.

But safeguarding cannot become a blank cheque.

The word “safeguarding” is now used so frequently, and with such moral force, that it can shut down scrutiny. Anyone who questions the proportionality of state power risks being painted as someone who does not care about children.

That is intellectually lazy and legally dangerous.

Safeguarding must be evidence-based. It must be proportionate. It must be targeted. It must be accountable. It must distinguish between actual risk and lawful parental difference.

A family choosing home education is not, in itself, a safeguarding concern.

A child learning outside the classroom is not, in itself, evidence of neglect.

A parent deciding that school is not the right environment for their child is not, in itself, a red flag.

Yet the architecture of this Act risks normalising precisely that suspicion: that parents who step outside the school system must be seen, recorded and managed.

The Register Is Not Neutral

Supporters of compulsory registers often present them as harmless. They say: “If you have nothing to hide, why would you object?”

That argument should always make us pause.

The same argument has been used throughout history to justify unnecessary intrusion into private life. It misunderstands the issue. The question is not whether parents have something to hide. The question is whether the state has justified the level of power it is taking.

A register is not just a list.

A register creates a category.

It tells public authorities that a particular group of children and families require administrative visibility because of the educational route they have chosen. It creates data duties. It creates compliance expectations. It creates the basis for future policy expansion.

Once a register exists, the next questions follow quickly:

  • What information must parents provide?
  • How often must it be updated?
  • Who can access it?
  • How long will information be retained?
  • What happens if information is said to be incomplete?
  • What happens if a local authority officer disagrees with the educational approach?
  • What happens if a parent refuses a home visit?
  • What happens if informal learning is misunderstood as a lack of learning?
  • What happens if a family is mislabelled because a professional does not understand home education?

Those are not theoretical concerns. They are practical concerns. They are the kind of concerns families already face in dealings with local authorities, particularly where children have special educational needs, disabilities, anxiety, trauma, neurodivergence, school-based distress or a history of being failed by professionals.

The power imbalance is obvious. A parent is trying to raise and educate their child. A local authority holds statutory power. If the local authority misunderstands, misrecords, overreaches or acts on an institutional assumption, the family is the one left fighting.

Permission Is Not the Same as Notification

The most troubling part of this new landscape is not merely registration. It is the movement towards a system where, in certain circumstances, families may need permission before home education can begin or continue.

Permission is not notification.

Notification says: “This is the lawful decision we have made for our child.”

Permission says: “Please may we make this decision?”

That distinction is fundamental.

There will be arguments that permission requirements apply only to particular categories of children or particular risk contexts. That is how state power is often introduced: narrowly, cautiously, in language that sounds reasonable.

But once the principle is accepted that the state can require permission before a parent educates otherwise than at school, the legal and cultural boundary has moved.

Families who have already been failed by the system are likely to feel that most sharply.

These are the families whose children were not safe in school. Not because of parental ideology. Not because the parent was difficult. But because the school environment had become harmful, unsuitable, inaccessible or unbearable.

Families of autistic children.

Families of children with ADHD, sensory processing difficulties, trauma, anxiety or emotionally based school avoidance.

Families who fought for an Education, Health and Care Plan and were refused.

Families who watched their child deteriorate while professionals held meetings, produced paperwork, delayed assessments, minimised concerns and told the parent to be patient.

Families who eventually removed their child from school because the alternative was watching that child break.

Those families do not need more suspicion.

They need honesty about why they left.

The SEND Context Cannot Be Ignored

Any serious discussion about home education has to confront the SEND crisis.

Too many children are not leaving school because their parents woke up one morning and fancied doing something different. They are leaving because the system is not meeting their needs.

The official tribunal statistics for the academic year 2024/25 are stark. HMCTS recorded 25,000 registered SEN appeals. Of the cases decided by the tribunal, 99% were in favour of the appellant.

In plain English, when parents managed to get all the way to a tribunal decision, the tribunal overwhelmingly found in their favour.

That does not prove that every local authority decision is wrong. It does not mean every element of every appeal was successful. But it tells us something deeply uncomfortable about the system families are being forced to navigate.

Parents are not imagining the problem.

Parents are not simply being demanding.

Parents are not always refusing support or rejecting professionals.

In many cases, parents are fighting for provision their children should have received without a legal battle.

Against that background, handing local authorities more power over home educating families should concern everyone. The same system that so often fails to assess properly, plan properly, fund properly, communicate properly and respond promptly is now being given a stronger role in monitoring families who have left that system.

That is not a small thing.

It is not anti-safeguarding to ask whether those powers will be used fairly.

It is not anti-child to ask whether the wrong families will be targeted.

It is not extreme to ask whether local authorities, already under pressure and often adversarial in SEND disputes, are the right bodies to be given wider discretion over parental education choices.

The same system that failed to meet a child’s needs should not be allowed to treat the parent’s rescue route as evidence of risk.

The Digital Profile Point Matters

One of the most concerning parts of the wider reform agenda is the move towards stronger data linkage across public services.

Again, the policy language sounds attractive. Better information sharing. Joined-up services. Children not falling through cracks. Professionals having the right information at the right time.

In genuine safeguarding cases, good information sharing can save lives.

But a more extensive data-sharing architecture also raises serious questions about privacy, proportionality, accuracy and long-term consequences.

A child is not a data project.

A family is not a risk file.

A parent’s lawful choice should not become a permanent shadow across education, health, social care and policing systems.

Data can be wrong. Context can be lost. Professional opinion can be mistaken. Concerns can be recorded in a way that sounds more serious than the reality. A parent who challenges a school or a local authority can be labelled difficult. A neurodivergent child’s distress can be misunderstood. A family’s decision to home educate can be misread through a safeguarding lens.

Once information is linked, shared and embedded across systems, a family may spend years trying to correct a narrative they did not write.

That is why legal safeguards matter.

That is why proportionality matters.

That is why data accuracy rights must be real, practical and enforceable.

And that is why “wellbeing” cannot be allowed to become a soft word for surveillance.

What My Child Learned by the Sea

There is also something else that gets lost in these debates.

The beauty of childhood.

The reality of learning.

The fact that education is not confined to worksheets, desks, formal lessons and adult-designed outcomes.

This week, one family described being in Minehead with their young son as their home education journey truly begins. They have not applied for a school place for September. He has never been to nursery. Instead, he has been climbing towers, launching himself down huge slides, playing in waves, building sandcastles, clambering over rocks, spending time with good friends and playing with children he had never met before.

He watched an acrobatics show. He came face to face with a T-Rex. He went bowling. He played in the arcade. He swam and splashed in the pool. He spotted familiar numbers and letters everywhere he went.

There was no worksheet.

There was no lesson plan.

There was no artificial division between “learning time” and “life”.

And yet, in that ordinary week by the sea, he covered every one of the seven areas of learning in the Early Years Foundation Stage:

  • communication and language;
  • personal, social and emotional development;
  • physical development;
  • literacy;
  • mathematics;
  • understanding the world; and
  • expressive arts and design.

This is what many policymakers fail to understand.

Education is not the same as schooling.

A child can learn through conversation, movement, water, sand, numbers on signs, questions in the car, friendships, fear, courage, stories, shows, games, nature, repetition, curiosity and play.

A child can learn deeply without being formally instructed every minute of the day.

That is not neglect.

That is childhood.

Freedom Is Not the Enemy of Safeguarding

The public debate has too often created a false choice.

Either you support safeguarding, or you support parental freedom.

That is wrong.

A mature legal system must protect both.

Children must be protected from abuse, neglect and exploitation. That is non-negotiable.

But children must also be protected from unnecessary state intrusion, inaccurate professional narratives, institutional overreach and policies that treat their family as suspicious without evidence.

Parents should not be above the law.

But neither should local authorities be above scrutiny.

That is the point that keeps being missed.

When a parent fails a child, the language is direct. The parent is neglectful. The parent is unsafe. The parent must be monitored. The parent must be assessed.

But when a system fails a child, the language becomes vague. Lessons will be learned. Processes will be reviewed. Resources are stretched. Communication could have been better.

That imbalance matters.

The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act gives the state more tools to look at families. But families also need stronger tools to challenge the state.

If safeguarding powers are expanded, accountability must be expanded too.

If data sharing increases, data accuracy rights must be real and enforceable.

If local authorities can question home education more aggressively, parents must have clear routes to challenge unreasonable decisions.

If families are expected to prove suitability, public authorities must also be required to prove proportionality.

What Should Happen Next?

The Act is now law, but the story is not over.

Implementation matters.

Guidance matters.

Regulations matter.

Local authority training matters.

Data protection practice matters.

Appeals, complaints, judicial review and public law scrutiny will matter.

Families, campaigners, lawyers, education advocates, SEND specialists and civil liberties groups must now watch the implementation closely.

The key questions will include:

  • How will local authorities apply the Children Not in School register?
  • What information will parents be required to provide?
  • How will informal, autonomous and child-led education be understood?
  • Will local authorities respect different educational philosophies?
  • How will data be stored, shared, corrected and challenged?
  • What safeguards will protect families from overreach?
  • How will SEND families be protected from being penalised for system failure?
  • What remedies will exist when local authorities act unlawfully or disproportionately?
  • How will families be told about their rights?
  • How will decision-making be recorded and reviewed?

These questions must not be left to internal local authority culture.

They require proper legal scrutiny.

Home Education Is Not a Problem to Be Solved

There will always be families who misuse freedom. There will always be cases where professionals need to intervene. There will always be children who need protection.

But that does not justify treating an entire educational choice as a risk category.

Home education is not a problem to be solved.

It is a lawful expression of parental responsibility.

For some children, it is a positive philosophical choice.

For others, it is a rescue route from a school system that has failed them.

For many families, it is flexible, responsive, relational and deeply child-centred.

It allows children to learn at their own pace. It allows neurodivergent children to breathe. It allows anxious children to recover. It allows families to build education around life rather than forcing life to fit around institutional systems.

That freedom is valuable.

It should not be surrendered casually.

We Are Not a Nation of Suspects

The deeper issue is this: what kind of relationship do we want between families and the state?

Do we want a society where parents are presumed capable unless there is evidence to the contrary?

Or do we want a society where parents must increasingly prove themselves to public bodies before ordinary family decisions are respected?

Do we want safeguarding systems that focus on real risk?

Or do we want broad monitoring systems that capture everyone because the state lacks the confidence or competence to target intervention properly?

Do we want children seen as whole human beings?

Or as data points moving through education, health, social care and policing systems?

These are not abstract questions. They will affect real families.

They will affect the mother whose autistic child stopped eating because school was unbearable.

They will affect the father who removed his child after bullying was ignored.

They will affect the family who could not get an EHCP.

They will affect the child whose learning happens through beaches, museums, libraries, conversations, kitchens, gardens, workshops, music, movement and play.

They will affect families who are already tired from fighting systems that do not listen.

We are not a nation of suspects.

Our children are so much more than data points.

And parents who choose a different educational path should not be treated as a safeguarding problem merely because they have chosen differently.

The Road Ahead

The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 is now part of the legal landscape.

That is the reality.

But it is not the end of the argument.

The next stage is implementation. That is where vague assurances become real procedures. That is where statutory language becomes local authority practice. That is where families will discover whether this Act is applied with restraint, or whether it becomes another mechanism by which parents are pressured, mislabelled and worn down.

The fight now is for proportionality, accountability, transparency and respect for family life.

It is for clear guidance that recognises home education as lawful.

It is for SEND families not to be punished for the failures of the school system.

It is for data rights that mean something in practice.

It is for safeguarding that protects children without treating every parent as a risk.

And it is for the simple but profound freedom to raise and educate children in ways that meet their needs, respect their individuality and allow them to flourish.

On a mid-week break by the sea, watching a child run into the waves with the sun setting behind him, that freedom does not look reckless.

It looks precious.

It looks human.

It looks worth defending.

There is a long road ahead.

But it is not over.

Related Reading

You may also find our related article on integrated court responses, safeguarding and family justice reform useful when thinking about how fragmented systems affect litigants in person and families trying to protect children.

Useful External Sources

Need Support with Home Education, SEND or Local Authority Correspondence?

JSH Law Ltd provides litigation support, drafting assistance and McKenzie Friend support for parents and litigants in person dealing with education, SEND, safeguarding and family court issues.

If you are facing pressure from a local authority, school, children’s services or another public body, it is important to keep clear records, respond carefully and understand the legal framework before positions become entrenched.

JSH Law can assist with correspondence, document preparation, chronology building, complaint drafting, tribunal preparation and family court related safeguarding issues.

Contact JSH Law Ltd to discuss support with your case.

Regulatory & Editorial Notice

This article is published by JSH Law Ltd for general information and public legal education only. It is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as a substitute for advice from a qualified solicitor, barrister, education law specialist or other suitably qualified professional about the facts of an individual case.

Law and guidance may change. The practical effect of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 will depend on commencement provisions, regulations, statutory guidance, data protection practice, local authority implementation and any future legal challenge.

JSH Law Ltd provides litigation support and McKenzie Friend services to litigants in person. JSH Law Ltd is not authorised or regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority or any other approved legal services regulator. It does not conduct litigation, does not carry out reserved legal activities, and has no automatic right of audience. Where court attendance or advocacy support is requested, any right to address the court is subject to the court’s permission.

External references are included for context, commentary and public-interest discussion. Inclusion of a source does not imply endorsement by that organisation, nor endorsement of this article by them.

Safeguarding in Family Court: What Litigants Must Know

/0 Comments/in , /by

Safeguarding is one of the most misunderstood aspects of Family Court proceedings. It is not a slogan or a weapon — it is a structured legal framework focused on identifying and managing risk to a child. In private law cases, safeguarding concerns often involve domestic abuse, coercive control, emotional harm, substance misuse, or exposure to high conflict. This article explains how safeguarding operates under section 1 of the Children Act 1989, how Practice Direction 12J applies where domestic abuse is alleged, and how courts assess future risk rather than punish past behaviour. It also clarifies the distinction between private law safeguarding and public law child protection proceedings. For litigants in person, understanding this structure is critical. Courts respond to evidence, chronology, and proportionate proposals — not emotional narrative alone. Whether you are raising safeguarding concerns or responding to allegations, this guide sets out how to approach the issue strategically and lawfully.

Safeguarding & Child Protection in Family Court: What Litigants in Person Must Understand

Domestic Abuse & Safeguarding Cluster  |  England & Wales  |  A practical guide for litigants in person

Key takeaways for litigants in person

  • “Safeguarding” is not a buzzword — it is a structured legal framework focused on risk and welfare.
  • The child’s welfare is paramount under section 1 of the Children Act 1989.
  • Domestic abuse, coercive control and emotional harm must be framed within the correct legal structure (especially PD12J).
  • The court is forward-looking: it asks what arrangements reduce risk going forward.
  • Evidence, chronology and proportional proposals matter more than emotional narrative.
  • If safeguarding is raised, it must be articulated clearly and supported — not assumed.

“Safeguarding” is one of the most overused and misunderstood words in family proceedings. It is often invoked as a moral accusation. It is rarely understood as a legal structure.

If you are a litigant in person involved in private children proceedings, understanding safeguarding and child protection is not optional. It is foundational.

This article explains:

  • What safeguarding actually means in legal terms.
  • How child protection differs from private law safeguarding.
  • How domestic abuse intersects with safeguarding.
  • What courts are legally required to consider.
  • How to structure your case properly if risk is present.

1. The Legal Foundation: Welfare Is Paramount

Every safeguarding discussion in private law begins with section 1 of the Children Act 1989.

The statute states that when a court determines any question relating to the upbringing of a child, the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration.

You can read it here: Children Act 1989 – Section 1 .

The court must also consider the welfare checklist under s.1(3), including:

  • The child’s wishes and feelings (in light of age and understanding).
  • Physical, emotional and educational needs.
  • The likely effect of any change in circumstances.
  • Age, sex, background and relevant characteristics.
  • Any harm suffered or risk of harm.
  • How capable each parent is of meeting needs.

Safeguarding sits squarely within “harm suffered or risk of harm”.

2. What “Safeguarding” Means in Private Law Proceedings

In private children cases (usually applications under section 8 of the Children Act), safeguarding refers to identifying and managing risk to the child.

This may include:

  • Domestic abuse (physical, emotional, coercive control).
  • Substance misuse.
  • Mental health concerns.
  • Neglect.
  • Emotional harm.
  • Exposure to conflict.

Early in proceedings, Cafcass conducts safeguarding checks:

  • Police checks.
  • Local authority checks.
  • Telephone interviews with parties.

Cafcass guidance: Cafcass – Parents & Carers .

Their safeguarding letter informs the court’s initial risk assessment.

3. Domestic Abuse and Practice Direction 12J

Where domestic abuse is alleged or admitted, the court must apply Practice Direction 12J.

You can read it here: Practice Direction 12J .

PD12J requires the court to:

  • Consider whether a fact-finding hearing is necessary.
  • Assess risk before making child arrangements orders.
  • Ensure that contact does not expose child or resident parent to harm.

Critically, the court must assess whether abuse has an ongoing impact on:

  • The child’s emotional wellbeing.
  • The resident parent’s ability to support contact.
  • Future risk of coercive dynamics.

Simply alleging abuse is not enough. It must be structured in line with PD12J.

4. Safeguarding vs Child Protection (Private vs Public Law)

It is essential to distinguish:

Private Law (Section 8 Proceedings)

  • Disputes between parents.
  • Cafcass involved.
  • Focus on child arrangements.

Public Law (Care Proceedings)

  • Local authority applies under section 31 Children Act 1989.
  • Threshold criteria must be met (significant harm).
  • Child protection plans and care orders considered.

Local authority guidance: Working Together to Safeguard Children .

Many litigants conflate these two systems. They operate differently.

5. Emotional Harm: The Most Difficult Category

Emotional harm is often central to safeguarding disputes. It is also the hardest to evidence.

Emotional harm may include:

  • Exposure to high conflict.
  • Undermining of primary attachment figure.
  • Coercive control within family system.
  • Manipulation through child.

Courts require:

  • Specific incidents.
  • Observable behaviour.
  • Professional evidence (where available).
  • Impact on the child.

Generalised claims (“the child is anxious”) are weaker than structured evidence (“the child began bedwetting after X incident; GP appointment dated…”).

6. The Court’s Risk Analysis: Forward-Looking

Courts are not primarily punishing past behaviour. They are assessing future risk.

Judges ask:

  • What is the likelihood of harm recurring?
  • What safeguards reduce risk?
  • Can harm be mitigated through structure?

That might mean:

  • Supervised contact.
  • Indirect contact only.
  • Communication through parenting apps.
  • Non-molestation orders.

Family Law Act 1996 protective orders: Family Law Act 1996 Part IV .

7. Common Mistakes Litigants Make in Safeguarding Cases

  • Submitting 100+ pages of unstructured material.
  • Assuming the court “will see it”.
  • Failing to distinguish adult conflict from child harm.
  • Failing to propose workable alternatives.
  • Using inflammatory language.

The court responds better to:

  • Chronology.
  • Focused allegations.
  • Clear link to welfare checklist.
  • Proportionate proposals.

8. If You Are Raising Safeguarding Concerns

  1. Create a dated chronology.
  2. Identify evidence for each allegation.
  3. Link concerns to welfare checklist factors.
  4. Propose structured safeguards.
  5. Remain calm and focused.

Safeguarding is strongest when it is structured.

9. If Safeguarding Allegations Are Raised Against You

  • Respond specifically, not defensively.
  • Provide evidence.
  • Propose safeguards where appropriate.
  • Show insight where necessary.

Denial alone is rarely persuasive. Reasoned rebuttal is.

10. Safeguarding Is Not a Weapon

The court is alert to tactical use of allegations. That does not mean genuine concerns are dismissed. It means credibility matters.

Safeguarding should always focus on:

  • Child safety.
  • Proportionality.
  • Stability.

Book a 15-minute consultation (phone)

If safeguarding is central to your case and you need help structuring your position clearly and lawfully, you can book a consultation below.

6 Useful Links

Regulatory & Editorial Notice

This article is provided for general information and commentary only. It does not constitute legal advice. JSH Law provides litigation support services to litigants in person and does not conduct reserved legal activities.