In June 2020, the Ministry of Justice published the findings of its Expert Panel on how the family courts in England and Wales identify and respond to risks of harm in private law children cases. Drawing on over 1,200 submissions from individuals and organisations, the report exposed deep-seated systemic problems.

The Panel found that allegations of domestic abuse were frequently minimised, disbelieved, or inadequately assessed. A strong “pro-contact culture” often appeared to take precedence over individual safety concerns. Critically, it highlighted thatchildren’s voices were frequently unheard or muted.

Many children had no direct involvement in proceedings, with their views filtered and “selective listening”: children’s wishes

Submissions also raised fears that raising legitimate safeguarding concerns could trigger counter-allegations of parental alienation, shifting focus away from safety and reframing protective parents (often mothers) as the problem.

The state itself named these harms — in its own report, published by its own ministry, in 2020.

Five years later, the central question remains: what has meaningfully changed?

Subsequent scrutiny has echoed many of the same concerns. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s 2023 report and later updates highlighted the ongoing lack of proper consideration for the voice of the child, especially when allegations of alienating behaviours arise.

The Commissioner noted that children’s resistance is sometimes reframed as evidence of manipulation rather than explored as potentially justified by their experiences. Broader reviews, including from the United Nations and the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee in 2025, have continued to point to harmful delays and systemic pressures affecting families.

This connects directly to a deeper issue in family proceedings: judges are not clinically qualified psychologists or psychiatrists,yet they routinely make authoritative findings about a parent’semotional fitness, psychological state, and parenting capacity. In 2019, for example, a family court judge determined that Kate was an “emotionally unfit parent” — without a formal clinical assessment by a regulated expert using validated tools. On that basis, her son Gabriel was later separated from her.

Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) research has long documented the long-term harm caused by unnecessary disruptions to secure caregiving relationships, just as it shows the damage of exposure to abuse or unresolved conflict.

However, a government report naming the harm is not accountability. Five years on, many families and children are still waiting for consistent, systemic change that truly prioritises safety, hears children’s voices without selective filtering.

We owe it to children like Gabriel — and mothers like me navigating these proceedings — to move beyond naming the problems and deliver meaningful reform.

Sources

• Ministry of Justice (2020).Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Children Cases.

• Domestic Abuse Commissioner (2023).The Family Court and Domestic Abuse: Achieving Cultural Change.

• Family Justice Council (December 2024). Guidance on responding to a child’s unexplained reluctance, resistance or refusal to spend time with a parent and allegations of alienating behaviour.