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.

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

• Ministry of Justice: Victims come first in new justice law
• UK Parliament: Victims and Courts Act 2026
• Victims’ Commissioner: Victim-centred reform, shaped by lived experience
• Women’s Aid response to the Victims and Courts Bill receiving Royal Assent
• Practice Direction 12J: Child Arrangements and Contact Orders where Domestic Abuse is Alleged
• Rape Crisis England & Wales: Support for survivors