Anna’s Blog – Family Court Law – A Change for the Better
In late October, the Family Court issued a substantial change in its guidance. Previously, it was presumed that contact with both parents was in the best interests of a child (under the Children Act 1989), but this presumption has now been removed. The change allows the court to consider the child as a victim where there has been domestic abuse in their home, whether or not they were direct victims or even witness to the abuse. It also allows the court to factor in the impact on the parent who is the victim in the consideration of granting contact with the abusive parent.
This is a substantial victory for domestic abuse campaigners in their goal to reduce the risk to women and children, following disturbing cases of children being harmed while in the care of a parent who had either previously abused them or made known that they were a risk to the child/children. One such real world example was the heartbreaking story of Jack and Paul, who were killed by their abusive father in 2014. When he deliberately set their house on fire to punish their mother, Claire, for leaving him. Claire has since been campaigning for a change to the Family Court guidance. Her husband had been violent to her and the children and had previously said that he could understand fathers killing their children. Despite this, contact was awarded and Claire’s fear, the very worst fear of many women when trying to leave an abusive relationship, became a horrifying reality.
The assertion has long been that the child’s welfare is the paramount consideration but this wasn’t borne out by the presumption of contact. The Review found that the most likely outcome for all child arrangement cases was unsupervised, face-to-face contact even where there were allegations of domestic abuse, harm to the child and indicators of high risks (including convictions and protection orders). It required that even where the child was vehemently opposed to contact, where they feared a parent, or when the emotional damage of contact was evidenced, that the court was mandated to assume contact was in their best interest. There was little evidence that there was ever any follow up from the court as to how families managed in these circumstances.
It is hard to overstate how childhood experiences affect our whole lives. Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE’s) are stressful or traumatic situations or events during childhood or adolescence. They include all types of abuse, including: living with someone who abuses substances, domestic abuse and losing a parent. In 2014, a study found that 47% of the population experienced one ACE, but the impact on the child of experiencing ACE’s is cumulative. If a child experiences more than 4 ACE’s (representing 9% of the population), there are studies that show that they are 7 times more likely to be involved in violence, 11 times more likely to use drugs and 11 times more likely to go to prison. The recent ruling, which limits exposure to abusive environments and removes children from domestic abuse, isn’t just impacting them today; it is changing their future.
It is vital that this change is implemented with care and thought. We need to ensure that the system isn’t just delivering tokenistic training for members of the court regarding the change in guidance, but also striving to change the culture and norms. This needs to come alongside a methodology for following up and evaluating the outcomes issued by the courts and the choices being made, enabling us to move forward with a system and culture in our courts that demands accountability and holds the decisions of judges up for scrutiny.
We are releasing this blog following White Ribbon Day, which was marked yesterday, Tuesday 25th November. White Ribbon Day is a global campaign to end violence against women and girls. The recent ruling is a historic change which we celebrate, yet of course there is still much more to be done.
Further information: