Family Justice System: Domestic Abuse and Safeguarding

Debate between Clive Jones and Richard Quigley

Thursday 21st May 2026 Westminster Hall

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered domestic abuse and safeguarding within the family justice system.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. The family courts make some of the most important decisions that any institution can make. They determine where children will live, how they will maintain relationships with their parents, and how families rebuild their lives after separation. At their best, they provide protection, stability and justice, but far too many survivors of domestic abuse do not experience the family court as a place of safety. Instead, many describe it as a continuation of abuse through legal processes, repeated trauma and unsafe decision making.

Today’s debate is vital because there is now substantial evidence from survivors, frontline organisations, legal professionals and independent reviews that domestic abuse is too often minimised, misunderstood or inadequately recognised in family court proceedings. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s report “Everyday business”, published in 2025, found evidence of domestic abuse in around 87% of the family court cases that it examined. Yet the report concluded that abuse was frequently not treated as an active safeguarding issue. How can that be right? That finding should concern everyone in this House. If abuse is present in the overwhelming majority of cases but is not consistently recognised in decisions about children and contact arrangements, there is clearly a systemic problem that requires urgent attention.

It is important to understand the nature of domestic abuse in this context. Abuse is not always physical violence; it can involve coercive control, intimidation, economic abuse, emotional manipulation, stalking, harassment, and patterns of behaviour designed to dominate and undermine another person. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 rightly recognised coercive and controlling behaviour in law, yet many survivors continue to report that coercive control and post-separation abuse remain poorly understood in family court proceedings. For many perpetrators, separation does not end abuse. Instead, the family court can become another avenue of control through unnecessary litigation, manipulation of child contact arrangements and prolonged interaction with an abusive former partner.

[Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Member agree that perpetrators should not be rewarded through the court process with reduced sentences when they change their plea to guilty at the last minute? It is just a continuation of the coercive and controlling behaviour that they have already displayed.

[Clive Jones]

The hon. Member is absolutely right: somebody should not be rewarded when they have been difficult for months and months—probably years—and then at the last minute change their mind to get a reduced sentence. The judge probably sees them as being helpful, but they have not been helpful for a long time. The hon. Member makes a really good point.

Some have described the family courts process as very traumatising. We must recognise sophisticated tactics like DARVO—deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender—where perpetrators deny the abuse, attack the credibility of the survivor and then present themselves as the true victim. A survivor may therefore find themselves portrayed as hostile, manipulative or obstructive, and genuine attempts to protect children can be reframed by perpetrators as attempts to alienate a child from the other parent. That is one reason why specialist expertise in the courts is so important.

In a child custody case, a constituent of mine was told by a judge to stop making reports of domestic abuse against the ex-partner as it had no relevance to the case, despite their being presented with police reports. The ex-partner also used manipulative DARVO tactics and eventually gained custody of the child. Intimidated by the process, my constituent’s experience highlights the urgent need for stronger protection and specialist expertise in court.

I also want to address concerns surrounding the recent removal of the presumption of parental involvement in cases involving abuse. While many survivors and safeguarding organisations welcomed the reform, there is concern that some perpetrators may increasingly attempt to weaponise allegations against survivors by claiming that they themselves are the victims of abuse, or by claiming parental alienation in response to genuine safeguarding concerns. Domestic abuse specialists like Kaleidoscopic UK have long warned that allegations of so-called parental alienation can be used to discredit survivors and shift attention away from abuse allegations.

The charity Right to Equality undertook a survey on child removals and found that 81% of mothers who had their child removed were accused of parental alienation. It is a strategy routinely weaponised by abusers and often backed by unregulated experts who have no place in the courtroom. These bogus allegations can often lead to a child being removed from a safe parent and transferred to an abusive one. That is precisely why independent domestic violence advisers and the newly created children’s domestic abuse advocates are needed as experts. They can help courts to distinguish genuine safeguarding concerns from manipulative litigation tactics and identify patterns of coercive and post-separation abuse that might otherwise be missed.

At the centre of all of this is children. Children are not passive witnesses to domestic abuse. We know from extensive evidence that exposure to abuse and an environment of fear and instability can have profound, lifelong effects on emotional wellbeing, mental health, educational attainment and future relationships. The consequences of unsafe decisions in the family courts can be devastating. Women’s Aid has documented 67 child deaths over the last 30 years linked to abusive contact arrangements. We are not talking about abstract statistics, but children whose safety should have been paramount and families left with unimaginable grief.

Every one of those cases demands that we ask difficult questions about whether the system is adequately equipped to identify risk and respond appropriately. We must also acknowledge the wider human cost of domestic abuse. Home Office data recorded 98 suspected suicides following domestic abuse in the year to March 2024. Behind each figure is a life lost and a family devastated. The statistics remind us that domestic abuse is not a private matter; it is a serious public protection issue.

I pay tribute to the work of survivor-led organisations such as Kaleidoscopic UK, whose representatives are in the Gallery. Its members have campaigned tirelessly for reform in this area, and support adults and children affected by domestic abuse. Many of those involved with Kaleidoscopic are themselves survivors of abuse and have first-hand experience of navigating the family court system. Policymakers and justice institutions should listen carefully to those experiences when considering how the family court system can better protect vulnerable families.

I want to be clear that there are many dedicated professionals within the family justice system who are committed to safeguarding children and supporting families under immense pressure. This debate is not about criticising individuals; it is about asking whether the system as a whole is sufficiently equipped to deal with the complex realities of domestic abuse. I believe there is a strong case for the mandatory involvement of independent domestic violence advisers as specialist domestic abuse experts within the family court process. IDVAs understand patterns of coercive control, risk escalation, post-separation abuse, and the barriers that victims and children face in disclosing abuse. They possess specialist expertise that can help to identify risks that might otherwise be overlooked.

At present, however, access to specialist domestic abuse expertise within the family courts is very inconsistent. That inconsistency can lead to inconsistent outcomes and an unacceptable postcode lottery for survivors and children. Independent domestic abuse experts could help courts to identify patterns of abuse that are not immediately visible; strengthen safeguarding assessments by ensuring that risk assessments fully account for the realities of post-separation abuse; and improve consistency across the system and survivors’ confidence in the family justice process.

Importantly, this is not about undermining judicial independence. Judges must of course remain the ultimate decision makers, but they should have access to the best expertise available when dealing with complex safeguarding matters involving domestic abuse and child welfare. Sadly, several of my constituents have experienced being undermined and ignored in court by a judge who has had complaints made against them for overlooking their allegations of abuse and refusing to recognise abusive tactics in court. Having an expert present in this setting would provide my constituents, and all victims, with much more protection and understanding.

This House has already recognised the seriousness of domestic abuse through landmark legislation and policy reforms. The Domestic Abuse Act was a significant step forward. The recent removal of the presumption of parental involvement in cases involving abuse was also welcome and necessary, but legislation alone is not enough if implementation within systems and institutions does not reflect the realities that survivors face. In most cases, relationships between children and parents are important and beneficial, but where abuse is present, safety must always come first. The welfare of a child must remain the court’s paramount consideration, not simply the continuation of contact in principle.

There is also the broader issue of the culture in the family justice system. Survivors and advocacy organisations have raised concerns about myths and misconceptions surrounding domestic abuse, including assumptions about why victims remain in abusive relationships, expectations around perfect victim behaviour, and misunderstandings about post-separation abuse. Specialist domestic abuse expertise can help challenge those misconceptions and ensure that decisions are grounded in evidence and understanding.

I acknowledge the important work carried out by organisations supporting survivors every day: Women’s Aid, Refuge, Rights of Women, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Kaleidoscopic UK and many others have consistently highlighted these issues and advocated for reform. Their work has brought forward evidence that this House cannot ignore. Members across the House will know from their constituency casework that these concerns are not isolated incidents, and will have heard from constituents who feel failed by a system that was supposed to protect them and their children. Those experiences deserve to be heard.

This debate is about recognising the complexities of domestic abuse and that improving safeguarding within the family courts is both necessary and achievable. Family court decisions shape lives for years—sometimes generations—so I urge the Government to embed domestic abuse experts more effectively within the family justice system, to ensure that survivors and children are truly protected throughout court proceedings and beyond. Above all, we must build a family justice system that survivors can trust, that properly understands domestic abuse and that places the safety and welfare of children at the heart of every decision.