Asked by: Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the introduction of telemedicine for first-trimester abortions on the number of criminal prosecutions in England and Wales over the past five years.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The offences that apply in cases of unlawful abortion are administering drugs to procure an abortion and procuring drugs to cause abortion under sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, as well as child destruction under section 1 of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929.
Publicly available Ministry of Justice statistics show the following number of prosecutions brought under those offences:
Proceeded against | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 |
Procuring Illegal Abortion (Sections 58 & 59 Offences Against the Person Act 1861) | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 |
Child Destruction (Section 1 Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
This data is held on a principal-offence basis and therefore reports information relating to the most serious offence that a defendant was dealt for.
The available data does not specify how many of these prosecutions are linked to the use of telemedicine for early medical abortion. The Government has not made an assessment on the connection between the number of prosecutions for unlawful abortions and the availability of telemedicine for early medical abortion.
The Department of Health and Social Care is responsible for the policy relating to telemedicine for early medical abortion.
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department has provided guidance to (a) family court judges and (b) Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service officers on recognising and responding to psychological manipulation and coercive control in cases of parental alienation.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government does not recognise the concept of “parental alienation” syndrome and does not believe it is capable of diagnosis.
The family court is governed by the Family Procedure Rules (FPR) and associated Practice Directions. FPR 1.1 outlines the overall objective of these rules and makes clear that their purpose is to enable the court to ensure (amongst other things) that cases are dealt with “expeditiously and fairly” and that the “parties are on an equal footing” throughout proceedings.
The Government is enhancing transparency in family court proceedings to provide greater accountability, de-mystify legal processes and increase public confidence in the family justice system. Officials have worked with the judiciary to roll out new provisions relating to Transparency Orders, now applicable to all children’s cases in England and Wales. They provide a clear framework for reporting where a journalist or legal blogger has attended a family court hearing to ensure the identities of children and families involved remain protected.
The Family Justice Council published guidance on “responding to a child’s unexplained reluctance, resistance or refusal to spend time with a parent and allegations of alienating behaviour” in 2024. The guidance was endorsed by the President of the Family Division and makes clear that where there are findings of domestic abuse the victim cannot be found to have alienated the child from the other parent. Where an appropriate and justified reason cannot be found for a child’s rejection of the other parent the guidance provides a clear framework for assessing whether alienating behaviours are present.
Cafcass practitioners receive mandatory training on alienating behaviours. Cafcass’ training programme includes training on the domestic abuse practice policy (introduced in 2024) and on indicators of understanding why a child does not want to spend family time with a parent guide. This training makes it clear that the first step in assessing the reasons for a child not wanting to see a parent is to consider whether domestic abuse is a factor and to explore the pattern of behaviours through a trauma-informed lens.
The Government has not undertaken an analysis of the prevalence of “parental alienation” instances in the family court.
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his Department is taking to ensure that family court proceedings are (a) transparent, (b) equitable and (c) free from bias against either parent in cases involving allegations of parental alienation.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government does not recognise the concept of “parental alienation” syndrome and does not believe it is capable of diagnosis.
The family court is governed by the Family Procedure Rules (FPR) and associated Practice Directions. FPR 1.1 outlines the overall objective of these rules and makes clear that their purpose is to enable the court to ensure (amongst other things) that cases are dealt with “expeditiously and fairly” and that the “parties are on an equal footing” throughout proceedings.
The Government is enhancing transparency in family court proceedings to provide greater accountability, de-mystify legal processes and increase public confidence in the family justice system. Officials have worked with the judiciary to roll out new provisions relating to Transparency Orders, now applicable to all children’s cases in England and Wales. They provide a clear framework for reporting where a journalist or legal blogger has attended a family court hearing to ensure the identities of children and families involved remain protected.
The Family Justice Council published guidance on “responding to a child’s unexplained reluctance, resistance or refusal to spend time with a parent and allegations of alienating behaviour” in 2024. The guidance was endorsed by the President of the Family Division and makes clear that where there are findings of domestic abuse the victim cannot be found to have alienated the child from the other parent. Where an appropriate and justified reason cannot be found for a child’s rejection of the other parent the guidance provides a clear framework for assessing whether alienating behaviours are present.
Cafcass practitioners receive mandatory training on alienating behaviours. Cafcass’ training programme includes training on the domestic abuse practice policy (introduced in 2024) and on indicators of understanding why a child does not want to spend family time with a parent guide. This training makes it clear that the first step in assessing the reasons for a child not wanting to see a parent is to consider whether domestic abuse is a factor and to explore the pattern of behaviours through a trauma-informed lens.
The Government has not undertaken an analysis of the prevalence of “parental alienation” instances in the family court.
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment his Department has made of the prevalence of parental alienation instances in family court cases in England and Wales.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government does not recognise the concept of “parental alienation” syndrome and does not believe it is capable of diagnosis.
The family court is governed by the Family Procedure Rules (FPR) and associated Practice Directions. FPR 1.1 outlines the overall objective of these rules and makes clear that their purpose is to enable the court to ensure (amongst other things) that cases are dealt with “expeditiously and fairly” and that the “parties are on an equal footing” throughout proceedings.
The Government is enhancing transparency in family court proceedings to provide greater accountability, de-mystify legal processes and increase public confidence in the family justice system. Officials have worked with the judiciary to roll out new provisions relating to Transparency Orders, now applicable to all children’s cases in England and Wales. They provide a clear framework for reporting where a journalist or legal blogger has attended a family court hearing to ensure the identities of children and families involved remain protected.
The Family Justice Council published guidance on “responding to a child’s unexplained reluctance, resistance or refusal to spend time with a parent and allegations of alienating behaviour” in 2024. The guidance was endorsed by the President of the Family Division and makes clear that where there are findings of domestic abuse the victim cannot be found to have alienated the child from the other parent. Where an appropriate and justified reason cannot be found for a child’s rejection of the other parent the guidance provides a clear framework for assessing whether alienating behaviours are present.
Cafcass practitioners receive mandatory training on alienating behaviours. Cafcass’ training programme includes training on the domestic abuse practice policy (introduced in 2024) and on indicators of understanding why a child does not want to spend family time with a parent guide. This training makes it clear that the first step in assessing the reasons for a child not wanting to see a parent is to consider whether domestic abuse is a factor and to explore the pattern of behaviours through a trauma-informed lens.
The Government has not undertaken an analysis of the prevalence of “parental alienation” instances in the family court.
Asked by: Amanda Martin (Labour - Portsmouth North)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what proportion of Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service section 7 reports recommend shared care; and what training is given to officers of that service on (a) parental alienation and (b) equal parenting.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
Cafcass does not record data on the proportion of section 7 reports that recommend shared care. This information is not recorded centrally, and the data would only be available from individual case file review at a disproportionate cost.
The Government does not recognise the concept of “parental alienation” syndrome and does not think it is capable of diagnosis. Cafcass practitioners receive mandatory training on alienating behaviours. Cafcass’ training programme includes training on the domestic abuse practice policy (introduced in 2024) and on indicators of understanding why a child does not want to spend family time with a parent guide. This training makes it clear that the first step in assessing the reasons for a child not wanting to see a parent is to consider whether domestic abuse is a factor and to explore the pattern of behaviours through a trauma-informed lens.
Cafcass’ Practice Quality Standards prioritise the safety of the child and require practitioners to assess the risks to children and the risk of future harm. They require practitioners to make certain that their recommendations regarding with whom the child spends time or lives with flow directly from a detailed assessment and analysis of the nature of any risks to the child posed by one or both parents.
Asked by: Amanda Martin (Labour - Portsmouth North)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the average waiting time is for first hearings in private family law cases.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The average waiting time for first hearings in private family law cases is nine weeks, as at Q2 2025 (April to June 2025). This is an improvement of one week when compared to the end of Q1 2025 (January to March 2025) and a two-week reduction when compared to 2022.
Only cases with a recorded proceeded hearing are included in the calculation (receipt to hearing). 'Proceeded' cases are those where the hearing was not vacated, and the case had not closed before the hearing was due.
Asked by: James MacCleary (Liberal Democrat - Lewes)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his Department is taking to prevent parental alienation.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government does not recognise the concept of “parental alienation” syndrome and does not think it is capable of diagnosis.
When proceedings involve allegations of this nature, the family court has processes to follow. Case law is clear that the court’s focus should be on identifying particular behaviour that is found to have taken place and the impact that behaviour may have had on the relationship with the child, rather than seeking to apply the label of “parental alienation”.
In December 2024 the Family Justice Council published guidance on “responding to a child’s unexplained reluctance, resistance or refusal to spend time with a parent and allegations of alienating behaviour”. The guidance is clear that where domestic abuse is found the victim cannot be found to have “alienated” the child. It provides a comprehensive overview of the reasons a child may reject a parent, including harmful parenting, and provides a clear framework for assessing whether alienating behaviours are present. Where alienating behaviours are found the guidance provides clear next steps.
Asked by: James MacCleary (Liberal Democrat - Lewes)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his Department is taking to help protect victims of predatory marriages.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government takes the issue of predatory marriage very seriously. Causing a person who lacks mental capacity to enter into a marriage is a criminal offence of forced marriage under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. In cases involving some vulnerable adults who lack the capacity to consent, coercion or pressure is not required for a marriage to be considered forced. The offence of forcing someone into a marriage carries a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment. Where it is suspected that a person is not entering into a marriage of their own free will or lacks the mental capacity to understand the nature of the marriage contract and to consent to it, proceedings will be stopped or deferred until the registrar is satisfied that the individual has the capacity to make an informed decision to marry.
The Government is giving careful consideration to recommendations for the reform of the law of wills following a report by the Law Commission published in May. This included measures that would help prevent predatory marriage, such as repealing the law that marriage has the effect of revoking an existing will.
Asked by: Amanda Martin (Labour - Portsmouth North)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what proportion of Child Arrangement Orders were (a) shared care and (b) sole residency since 2019.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The requested information is not recorded centrally. The relevant data could only be obtained by an analysis of individual case files at disproportionate cost.
The welfare of the child is paramount in any decision regarding child arrangements. In determining the child’s welfare needs, the court will apply the factors set out in the ‘welfare checklist’ in the Children Act 1989. These include the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned, the impact on the child of any change in circumstances, and how capable each parent is of meeting the child’s needs. The court will also consider any harm the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering, which could include any harm from witnessing domestic abuse.
Asked by: Jess Brown-Fuller (Liberal Democrat - Chichester)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the levels of (a) protection and (b) support for male victims of (i) domestic violence, (ii) harassment and (iii) intimidation through the criminal justice system.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
We recognise that men and boys experience crimes associated with domestic abuse, such as stalking, harassment, and sexual violence. That is why we are committed to ensuring male victims and survivors get the support they need. We are working tirelessly across government to deliver the Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy as soon as possible, which will set out commitments for all victims, including for men and boys who are victims of abuse.
We know male victims may face different barriers to accessing support. This Government funds specialist services for victims of these crimes, including services for male victims, such as Respect, Galop, SignHealth, Hourglass, and Mankind UK. This includes the Men’s Advice Line, run by Respect, which offers vital support to male victims of domestic abuse.
Alongside this, we have committed to a range of measures which apply to all victims of sexual crimes and domestic abuse, regardless of gender. These include piloting the domestic abuse protection order (DAPOs), exploring options for fast-tracking rape cases, and working to introduce independent legal advocates for adult rape victims. Special measures, such as screens and live links, are also available to help vulnerable and intimidated victims and witnesses to give their best evidence at court.