Tag Archive for: parental responsibility

You are here: / / parental responsibility

Information relating to parental responsibility within private law proceedings and how it affects decision-making and applications.

Posts

Children, Character and Adult Responsibility: A JSH Law Response to Katharine Birbalsingh

/0 Comments/in /by

Katharine Birbalsingh’s speech is uncomfortable because it forces us to ask a question many adults would rather avoid: what are we actually teaching children about responsibility, duty, truth, resilience and moral character? This is not just an education debate. From a family justice and safeguarding perspective, it goes much deeper. Children are growing up in a world where adult conflict is often normalised, social media shapes identity before maturity has formed, boundaries are confused with harm, and “listening to the child” is sometimes misused as an excuse for adults to step back from their own responsibility. Children need rights, protection and compassion. But they also need adults who are brave enough to lead, set boundaries, tell the truth, model self-control and keep adult problems away from childhood.

Children • Safeguarding • Family Justice • Education

“This Is a Civilisational Failure”: What Katharine Birbalsingh’s Speech Gets Right About Children, Character and Adult Responsibility

Children do not become resilient, responsible and emotionally safe by accident. They need adults, families, schools, courts and communities who are willing to provide boundaries, truth, stability, moral clarity and protection.

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.

The safeguarding point

Listening to children does not mean abandoning adult responsibility. A child can be heard, respected and taken seriously without being made responsible for adult decisions, parental conflict or unsafe family dynamics.

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.

A better balance

Children need both compassion and accountability.

They need both protection and resilience.

They need both rights and responsibilities.

They need adults who can say: “What happened to you matters, and what you do next also matters.”

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.

Healthy boundary Coercive control
Clear, age-appropriate rules explained calmly. Rules used to frighten, isolate, humiliate or dominate.
Consistent consequences linked to behaviour. Punishment that is unpredictable, disproportionate or designed to break the person down.
Encouraging responsibility and repair. Demanding submission, silence or compliance.
Protecting a child from harm. Using “protection” as an excuse to monitor, isolate or control.
Adult authority exercised for the child’s welfare. Adult power exercised for the adult’s ego, image or 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.

The family court reality

When adults do not regulate themselves, children are often forced to adapt around adult dysfunction. That adaptation may look like “choice”, “maturity” or “strong wishes”, but sometimes it is survival, pressure, loyalty conflict or emotional exhaustion.

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.

Practical safeguarding questions

  • Does the child have unrestricted access to adult content?
  • Are they being drawn into misogynistic, violent, extremist or self-harm content?
  • Are they being groomed, pressured, bullied or humiliated online?
  • Are parents using phones to monitor, control or interrogate the child?
  • Is one parent using messages, screenshots or social media to influence the child against the other?
  • Is online activity affecting sleep, school, anxiety, aggression or family relationships?

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.

The legal and safeguarding reality

Children need adults to protect them from harm.

Children need adults to promote their welfare.

Children need adults to model safe behaviour.

Children need adults to tell the truth.

Children need adults to stop making adult conflict their burden.

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.

A safeguarding-aware school asks

  • What has changed?
  • What pattern are we seeing?
  • What is the child communicating through behaviour?
  • Are there safe adults around this child?
  • Is the child being placed under pressure by an adult?
  • What information needs to be shared, and with whom, to safeguard this child?

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.

Practical evidence examples

  • A short chronology of key incidents.
  • A schedule showing dates, behaviour, evidence and impact on the child.
  • School attendance, lateness, behaviour or wellbeing records where relevant.
  • Messages showing unsafe communication or adult conflict being pushed through the child.
  • Examples of the child being asked to choose sides.
  • Evidence of online harm, monitoring, pressure or inappropriate exposure.
  • Clear proposals for safer handovers, communication, boundaries and contact arrangements.

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

Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Family court outcomes depend on the facts, evidence, procedural history, safeguarding issues, the orders sought and the court’s assessment of the child’s welfare. If you are involved in proceedings, consider taking legal advice or obtaining appropriate support with your documents and evidence.

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.

Japan Introduces Joint Custody: What It Means for UK Family Law

/0 Comments/in , /by

Japan has just made a landmark shift in family law, introducing joint custody for the first time in its history. On the surface, this is a domestic legal reform. In reality, it is part of a broader global movement recognising that children benefit from meaningful relationships with both parents after separation. The question for the UK is not whether we recognise this principle — we already do — but whether our system is delivering it in practice.

Japan’s Shift to Joint Custody: A Landmark Reform the UK Family Justice System Cannot Ignore

Key Takeaways for Litigants in Person:
  • Japan has introduced joint custody for the first time — after decades of sole custody being the default.
  • This reflects a global shift toward recognising the importance of both parents in a child’s life.
  • The UK already recognises shared parental responsibility — but practical outcomes often fall short.
  • Courts must balance safeguarding with maintaining meaningful relationships — not default to exclusion.
  • Strategic preparation, evidence, and clarity of proposal remain critical in securing contact.

For decades, Japan stood apart from other developed nations as a jurisdiction that did not recognise joint custody following divorce. That has now changed.

In a landmark reform to its Civil Code, Japan has introduced the legal framework for joint custody of children after separation. This marks the first significant shift in its child-rearing laws in over a century.

At first glance, this may appear to be a domestic legal update. It is not. It is a signal — and one that the UK family justice system should be paying very close attention to.

What Has Changed in Japan?

Historically, Japan operated under a strict sole custody model. Following divorce, one parent — typically the mother — would retain full parental authority, while the other parent often lost meaningful involvement in the child’s life.

The new reform introduces the ability for parents to negotiate joint custody arrangements, allowing both parents to retain legal responsibility and involvement in decision-making.

This does not mean joint custody will be automatic. It will depend on agreement or court determination. But the shift is fundamental:

  • From exclusion → to inclusion
  • From control → to shared responsibility
  • From parental loss → to continued parental identity

Why This Matters Globally

Japan was the last G7 country not to recognise joint custody. That is no longer the case.

This reform reflects a broader international consensus:

  • Children benefit from meaningful relationships with both parents (absent risk)
  • Parental responsibility should not be extinguished by relationship breakdown
  • Legal frameworks must evolve to reflect modern parenting realities

In other words, the direction of travel is clear: co-parenting is no longer optional — it is expected.

The UK Position: Strong on Paper, Inconsistent in Practice

In England and Wales, the law already recognises parental responsibility for both parents under the Children Act 1989.

The court’s guiding principle is clear:

  • s.1(1) — the child’s welfare is paramount
  • s.1(2A) — presumption of parental involvement

On paper, this aligns with the principles now being adopted in Japan.

But in practice, the reality experienced by many litigants in person tells a different story.

The Practical Gap

Time and again, we see:

  • Indirect contact being used as a long-term holding position
  • Delay in progressing cases to meaningful live contact
  • Over-reliance on safeguarding processes without proportional progression
  • Parental relationships eroded through procedural inertia

This is where the issue lies — not in the law, but in its application.

Safeguarding vs. Relationship Preservation

The central tension in all family proceedings is this:

How do we protect children without unnecessarily severing relationships?

Japan’s reform implicitly acknowledges that exclusion should not be the default outcome of separation.

The UK system, however, often finds itself leaning toward caution in a way that can become counterproductive.

Safeguarding is essential. But safeguarding must be:

  • Evidence-based
  • Proportionate
  • Subject to ongoing review

Without this, temporary restrictions risk becoming permanent outcomes.

What This Means for Litigants in Person

If you are navigating the family court system without legal representation, this development reinforces an important point:

You must actively demonstrate why continued involvement is in your child’s best interests.

The court will not build your case for you.

Strategic Priorities

  • Present a clear, structured contact proposal (step-up plan)
  • Demonstrate insight into any concerns raised
  • Provide organised, chronological evidence
  • Focus consistently on the child’s welfare — not parental grievance

The strongest cases are not emotional. They are structured, measured, and forward-looking.

A System at a Crossroads

Japan’s move is not just about custody. It is about legal philosophy.

It raises a broader question for jurisdictions like the UK:

Are we truly facilitating co-parenting — or are we managing separation through controlled disengagement?

The answer will define the next decade of family justice reform.

Final Thoughts

This reform should not be viewed in isolation. It is part of a wider shift toward recognising that children do not benefit from losing a parent — except where there is clear and evidenced risk.

The UK has the legal framework. What it needs now is consistent, confident application.

Because ultimately, the objective is simple:

Not just to resolve disputes — but to preserve relationships wherever it is safe to do so.

Need support with your family court case?
Book a consultation: https://jshlaw.co.uk/contact/

Regulatory & Editorial Notice: JSH Law Ltd is not a firm of solicitors and does not provide reserved legal activities. This article is provided for general information and commentary only and does not constitute legal advice. Commentary on international legal developments is based on publicly available reporting and is intended for educational and comparative purposes.

Portfolio Items