Summary

Katharine Birbalsingh’s ARC26 speech, titled “This is a civilisational failure!”, argues that the West’s moral crisis is connected to the values adults have taught children. Her focus is education, culture, duty, responsibility and moral character. This article looks at that argument from a JSH Law perspective: family justice, safeguarding, children’s welfare, social media, parental responsibility, coercive control, litigation abuse and the reality of what happens when adults fail to provide children with safe, stable and morally coherent leadership.

Katharine Birbalsingh is not a neutral figure in public debate. She is known for strong views on discipline, education, culture and responsibility. Her school, Michaela Community School in London, has attracted both admiration and criticism for its strict ethos and high expectations. Ofsted’s 2023 report recorded that the school continued to be outstanding, noting exceptionally high expectations for behaviour, academic work and personal development.

That does not mean every person will agree with every word she says. They will not. That is not the point.

The point is that she is asking a question many adults would rather avoid:

What are we actually teaching children about life, duty, truth, responsibility, resilience and moral agency?

That question matters deeply in family justice.

Because by the time families arrive in the family court, the issue is rarely just one isolated argument, one missed contact, one unpleasant message, one school dispute, one failed handover or one parenting disagreement. What the court often sees is the end result of patterns: adult conflict, poor boundaries, coercive behaviour, emotional dysregulation, unsafe communication, entrenched grievance, parental alienating behaviours, domestic abuse, social media escalation, financial pressure and adults using children as witnesses, messengers, weapons or emotional support.

That is where the phrase “civilisational failure” lands differently.

It is not just about schools.

It is about what happens when adults abandon their responsibility to form, protect and guide children.

Children Need More Than Rights Language

Children have rights. That matters. Children must be listened to. Their wishes and feelings matter. Their safety matters. Their identity matters. Their emotional wellbeing matters. Their autonomy develops as they mature.

But children also need adults to understand something that modern systems sometimes avoid saying clearly:

Children are still children.

They are not miniature adults. They should not be expected to carry adult conflict, adult ideology, adult loneliness, adult emotional need or adult decision-making. They should not be placed in the middle of parental warfare and then told it is “their choice”. They should not be handed a smartphone, exposed to adult content, pressured by algorithms and then blamed for becoming anxious, reactive, sexualised, aggressive, withdrawn or confused.

A child’s voice matters. But a child’s voice is not the same thing as adult abdication.

In family court language, this distinction is crucial. The court may consider a child’s wishes and feelings, having regard to age and understanding, but the child’s welfare remains the court’s paramount consideration when deciding questions about upbringing under section 1 of the Children Act 1989.

That is not accidental. It reflects a hard truth: children may have strong wishes, but adults and courts still have a duty to assess safety, context, pressure, manipulation, welfare and long-term impact.

The Problem With Outsourcing Character Formation

One of the strongest themes in Birbalsingh’s speech is the idea that children are being taught to see the world through narrow and destructive frames: oppressor and oppressed, grievance and blame, identity and victimhood.

That point needs careful handling.

There are real victims. Domestic abuse is real. Coercive control is real. Racism is real. misogyny is real. poverty is real. disability discrimination is real. institutional failure is real. Children who are harmed should not be told to “toughen up” while adults protect the systems or people who failed them.

But there is also a serious danger when children are taught that identity alone explains everything, that personal responsibility is oppressive, that boundaries are harm, that discipline is abuse, that all discomfort is trauma, and that the correct response to difficulty is always blame.

That is not empowerment.

It leaves children fragile, reactive and dependent on external validation.

Real safeguarding is not about wrapping children in cotton wool. It is about helping them become safe, capable, truthful, resilient and morally responsible people.

Boundaries Are Not Abuse

This is where the conversation becomes difficult, particularly for those of us working around domestic abuse, coercive control and safeguarding.

We need to be precise.

Boundaries are not the same as control.

Discipline is not the same as domination.

Authority is not the same as coercion.

But abusive adults often misuse the language of discipline, respect, culture, religion, family values and parental authority to justify harmful behaviour. That is why we must distinguish healthy structure from coercive control.

Family courts, schools, social workers, Cafcass and professionals must be able to hold both truths at once.

Children need boundaries.

Children also need protection from adults who weaponise boundaries.

Family Justice Shows Us What Happens When Adults Fail

In family proceedings, the court often has to pick through the wreckage of adult failure.

A parent refuses to communicate safely.

A child is told too much.

A parent presents adult grievances as the child’s wishes.

Contact becomes a battleground.

Allegations are minimised, exaggerated, ignored or weaponised.

Domestic abuse is reframed as “conflict”.

Coercive control is missed because professionals look for single incidents rather than patterns.

A child learns that love means loyalty tests, emotional pressure, secrecy or fear.

This is why character formation cannot be treated as a soft issue. It has legal, emotional and safeguarding consequences.

That is why evidence-led family justice matters.

Courts need more than accusation and counter-accusation. They need clear chronology, patterns of behaviour, examples, impact on the child, safeguarding analysis and practical proposals. Professionals need to ask not only, “What does the child say?” but also:

• What has the child been exposed to?
• Who has had influence over the child’s narrative?
• Is the child being placed in a loyalty conflict?
• Has one parent used litigation, money, communication or contact arrangements as pressure?
• Are there patterns of intimidation, monitoring, isolation or emotional manipulation?
• What would make this child safer, calmer and more secure?

Social Media Has Changed Childhood

Birbalsingh’s speech also points toward a wider cultural problem: children are being shaped by social media, algorithms and online culture at a scale adults have not properly controlled.

We should be honest about this.

Many children now receive moral instruction from platforms designed to capture attention, provoke reaction, reward outrage and keep users scrolling. That is not a neutral environment. It changes language. It changes expectations. It changes how children understand identity, relationships, sex, conflict, popularity, shame, humiliation, violence and status.

The Online Safety Act 2023 reflects Parliament’s recognition that online platforms have duties in relation to illegal content and children’s exposure to harmful material. Government materials on the Act describe duties on platforms to protect child users and enforce age limits more consistently.

But legislation alone will not raise children.

Parents, schools and communities cannot simply say, “The platform should sort it.” Of course platforms should be held to account. But adults also need to know what children are watching, who they are speaking to, what messages are shaping them and whether online life is becoming a substitute parent.

The Legal Framework: Welfare, Safeguarding and Adult Responsibility

From a family law perspective, this debate must come back to welfare.

Under section 1 of the Children Act 1989, when a court determines any question about a child’s upbringing, the child’s welfare is the court’s paramount consideration. That principle is not sentimental. It is practical. It requires the court to look beyond adult entitlement and focus on what is best for the child.

Safeguarding guidance also places responsibility on adults and agencies. Keeping Children Safe in Education 2025 sets out the legal duties schools and colleges must follow to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. Working Together to Safeguard Children 2026 emphasises multi-agency responsibility, clarity of roles and effective support for children who need help and protection.

So when we talk about moral character, discipline, responsibility and culture, we should not treat those as abstract political ideas. They sit alongside very real legal and safeguarding duties.

That applies whether the adult is a parent, teacher, social worker, Cafcass officer, solicitor, McKenzie Friend, religious leader, politician, platform owner or judge.

A Trauma-Informed Response Does Not Mean No Standards

One of the mistakes in public debate is the false choice between compassion and standards.

Some people talk about discipline as if children simply need to be controlled.

Others talk about trauma as if expectations are inherently harmful.

Both positions are too crude.

A trauma-informed approach does not mean children should have no boundaries, no consequences, no responsibility and no expectations. It means adults understand that behaviour may be communication, that fear changes the nervous system, that shame can escalate harm, and that children who have experienced instability may need calm, predictable, relationally safe structure.

In other words: trauma-informed practice should make adults better at boundaries, not afraid of them.

Children who have been harmed do not need chaos dressed up as kindness. They need safety, predictability, attunement, truth and adults who can stay regulated.

This is particularly important in domestic abuse cases.

A child who has lived with coercive control may be hypervigilant. A child who has witnessed violence may become aggressive, withdrawn, compliant or controlling. A child caught in post-separation abuse may say what they think the powerful adult wants to hear. A child who has been emotionally parentified may appear mature while carrying entirely inappropriate burdens.

The answer is not permissiveness.

The answer is safe, skilled, evidence-led adult leadership.

What This Means for Parents

Parents do not need to be perfect. No parent is.

But children do need parents who are willing to take responsibility.

That means:

• Do not involve children in adult disputes.
• Do not show children court documents, hostile messages or adult allegations unless there is a clear safeguarding reason and professional advice.
• Do not use “the child’s wishes” as a shield for adult manipulation.
• Do not undermine the other safe parent to secure loyalty.
• Do not outsource parenting to devices.
• Do not confuse permissiveness with love.
• Do not confuse control with protection.
• Do not make children responsible for your loneliness, anger or emotional regulation.

Positive parenting is not weak parenting. It involves warmth, structure, honesty, repair and consistency.

Children need to know that adults can apologise. They need to see adults resolve conflict without threats. They need to hear adults say, “That was not acceptable,” without humiliation or cruelty. They need to learn that love is not the absence of boundaries.

What This Means for Schools

Schools cannot replace families. But they are often the first place where the impact of family breakdown, domestic abuse, neglect, poor sleep, online harm and emotional insecurity becomes visible.

A school culture that values behaviour, kindness, duty, learning and personal responsibility can be protective. It can give children stability. It can give them a model of adult authority that is calm and predictable. It can create a place where children are not ruled by the loudest, most aggressive or most disruptive pupil in the room.

But schools also have to be alert to safeguarding realities.

A child who is repeatedly late, exhausted, anxious, aggressive, hungry, withdrawn, unusually compliant or suddenly refusing contact with a parent may not simply be “difficult”. There may be something happening at home. There may be coercive control. There may be neglect. There may be a parent using the child as a messenger. There may be online harm. There may be fear.

The best school cultures hold standards and curiosity together.

What This Means for Family Court Cases

For litigants in person, this discussion is not theoretical. It affects how cases should be prepared.

If you are involved in children proceedings, do not simply say:

“The other parent is damaging the child.”

That may be true. But the court needs evidence, examples, dates, patterns, impact and practical proposals.

Better questions are:

• What exactly has happened?
• When did it happen?
• How do I know?
• What was the child’s presentation before and after?
• Is there a pattern?
• What evidence supports it?
• What order am I asking the court to make?
• How does that order promote the child’s welfare?
• How does it reduce conflict or safeguarding risk?

A welfare-focused case is not built on outrage. It is built on clarity.

If your concern is emotional harm, coercive control, alienating behaviour, unsafe communication, online exposure, neglect, educational instability or the child being burdened with adult issues, organise the evidence properly.

Courts are more likely to understand patterns when those patterns are set out calmly and chronologically.

The Bigger Point: Children Need Adults to Be Adults

The reason Birbalsingh’s speech has resonated is because many people can feel that something has gone wrong.

Children are anxious.

Parents are overwhelmed.

Teachers are exhausted.

Family courts are overloaded.

Social media is shaping children faster than adults can respond.

Professionals are often afraid to speak plainly.

And too many children are left to navigate adult confusion without enough guidance, protection or moral structure.

We do not fix that by shouting slogans at one another.

We fix it by taking adult responsibility seriously again.

That means:

• Parents setting loving, consistent boundaries.
• Schools creating safe, purposeful cultures.
• Courts focusing on welfare, evidence and long-term impact.
• Professionals naming coercive control and emotional harm where it exists.
• Adults refusing to use children as weapons in adult disputes.
• Platforms being held to account for the environments they create.
• Communities rebuilding expectations around duty, service, truth and care.

This is not nostalgia. It is safeguarding.

Children need freedom, but freedom without formation is abandonment.

Children need compassion, but compassion without truth is sentimentality.

Children need rights, but rights without responsible adults are not enough.

For Litigants in Person: Make the Court’s Job Easier

If you are a litigant in person dealing with child arrangements, safeguarding concerns, coercive control, alienating behaviours or post-separation abuse, the court needs help to see the pattern clearly.

Do not bury the issue in long emotional statements. Do not send pages of screenshots with no explanation. Do not assume the court will automatically understand the significance of behaviour that has taken months or years to unfold.

Your job is to make the court’s job easier.

That means presenting:

• the issue;
• the evidence;
• the pattern;
• the impact on the child;
• the safeguarding risk;
• the practical order sought;
• why that order is in the child’s welfare interests.

The strongest family court documents are calm, specific and child-focused. They do not need to be dramatic. They need to be clear.

How JSH Law Can Help

JSH Law supports people navigating the family court, particularly where there are concerns about domestic abuse, coercive control, safeguarding, child arrangements, emotional harm, post-separation abuse, litigation abuse or overwhelming evidence.

Support can include:

• organising evidence into clear schedules;
• preparing chronologies;
• drafting or improving witness statements;
• helping prepare position statements;
• reviewing Cafcass or section 7 report concerns;
• preparing for hearings;
• identifying safeguarding patterns and welfare impact;
• helping litigants in person present their case clearly and calmly.

The aim is simple: to help you present the reality of what is happening in a way the court can understand and act on.

Book a consultation Contact JSH Law

Conclusion

Katharine Birbalsingh’s speech will divide opinion. Strong speeches usually do.

But the underlying question should not be dismissed:

What kind of adults are we forming?

For those of us concerned with family justice, safeguarding and children’s welfare, that question is urgent.

Children need adults who are compassionate enough to protect them and courageous enough to guide them.

They need adults who can tell the truth without cruelty.

They need adults who understand that boundaries are not the enemy of love.

They need adults who stop turning adult conflict into childhood trauma.

They need homes, schools, courts and communities that take welfare seriously in practice, not just in language.

If we fail at that, then yes, we are looking at something much deeper than an education debate.

We are looking at a failure of adult responsibility.

Sources and further reading

• “This is a civilisational failure!” – Katharine Birbalsingh [ARC26]
• Children Act 1989, section 1: welfare of the child
• Keeping Children Safe in Education 2025
• Working Together to Safeguard Children
• Online Safety Act explainer
• Ofsted report: Michaela Community School, 2023