Written by Charlotte Borthwick
Andy Burnham’s appointment as Prime Minister, the Government has announced plans to introduce specialist rape courts as part of its wider strategy to tackle violence against women and girls (VAWG). Burnham has pledged to roll out specialist rape courts across every Crown Court in England and Wales within two years. The initiative aims to prioritise rape cases within the criminal justice system, providing victims with private waiting rooms and entrances, placing the victims’ needs at the centre of the criminal justice process.
In 2025, rape cases were reported to take an average of 424 days to conclude once they reached the Crown Court. Such prolonged proceedings can cause further trauma for victims, who are repeatedly required to revisit their experiences, often leading to the need for some to withdraw from their cases. With this in mind, we, alongside many other women’s organisations, welcome these changes and commend the Government’s commitment to tackling VAWG. At Right to Equality, we are concerned about how this new initiative will affect victims of sexual and domestic abuse who share children with their perpetrator.
Rape in the Family Court vs the Criminal Court
The criminal courts operate within defined statutory frameworks, including the Sexual Offences Act 2003. By contrast, there is no legal definition of rape or consent in family courts. The Family Court approaches domestic abuse allegations through civil law frameworks and with the primary goal of determining what is best for children. Guidance from cases such as Re H-N and Others. Re H-N sought to strengthen the Family Court’s approach by emphasising the importance of recognising patterns of abusive behaviour, while directing judges to consider whether a fact-finding hearing is necessary and proportionate to assessing risk and determining the child’s welfare. However, the reliance on a welfare-based and fact-specific assessment opens up allegations of sexual and domestic abuse to be interpreted through broader assessments of the relationship, rather than through the more clearly defined statutory framework applicable in criminal proceedings. This lack of clarity means rape survivors rely on the judge’s own subjective interpretation. This is concerning when we know that myths and stereotypes about rape and sexual violence remain rife in society, as found by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) when they looked at public attitudes in 2024. A recent report published by Right to Equality found that, of 91 family court judgments that they analysed which contained domestic abuse allegations, 72.5% contained at least one instance of victim blaming, with the most prevalent form of victim-blaming being discrediting and trivialisation. Judicial attitudes in the family court about rape came under public scrutiny in 2020, when Judge Tolson’s comments that an act of non-consensual sex could not be rape because the mother could have physically stopped the father from raping her, were criticsed by Ms Justice Russell at the High Court. Judge Tolson, however, has continued to operate in the family court and recently had another rape case decision overturned at the High Court, when he allowed a man on bail for rape to have overnight contact with his three children.
Since the family courts became open to media attendance in 2023, many examples of survivors being ordered to facilitate contact between their children and their rapist have been reported on. Kristoffer White, a soldier who had served a prison sentence for dragging a teenager off the street and raping her, had also been found to have raped a former partner of his multiple times by the family court. Regardless of these risks and harms, unsupervised community contact was still ordered between him and his daughter, with the judge citing the legislative presumption that parental involvement will further the welfare of the child in the judgment. Thankfully, with specialist representation, this was overturned upon appeal.
Right to Equality’s own survivor ambassador “Rose” spent £100,000 on legal fees to challenge an order that her ex-partner rapist would have contact with her son. Again, with specialist legal representation, she was able to challenge the order and prevent further contact and trauma for her and her child and eventually own the right to speak out under a pseudonym to train other professionals and raise awareness. Earlier this week, Rose wrote to the new Lord Chancellor, Alex Norris, urging him not to forget family courts in his promise to improve the justice system for survivors of rape and serious sexual offences.
We, at Right to Equality, urge the government not to forget about the survivors of sexual offences and their battle to receive protection from the family courts. Members of the government have promised to use “every lever available to drive down VAWG”. When will this apply to the Family Courts?
Special Measures
Even with legislative reforms such as the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, procedural risks still remain all too present. There are concerns surrounding the disclosure of sensitive medical and therapeutic records within the Family Courts, an issue which has already been addressed through legislation in criminal courts. Allowing the acquisition of medical records following a sexual abuse allegation can cause proceedings to become a continuation of post-separation abuse. It may prevent victims from going to the doctor or seeking mental health support in fear that their notes will later be read by their abuser in court. Giving the court the power to disclose highly personal medical records directly to an alleged or proven abuser can cause further trauma for the victim, discourage victims from seeking medical or mental health support, and undermine confidence in the justice system. Organisations such as the British Medical Association (BMA) and domestic abuse charities also warn that wide access to medical data, including through court bundles or digital NHS access, puts vulnerable people at risk and is another reason as to why the Family Court system needs to be reassessed when it comes to cases of domestic abuse. In addition, Independent Domestic Violence Advisors (IDVAs) and Independent Sexual Violence Advisors (ISVAs) are not consistently recognised or integrated within Family Court proceedings. IDVAs and ISVAs provide valuable practical and emotional support to survivors in family court processes, which can be retraumatising and highly stressful, especially when the perpetrator is also in court. Despite research showing that domestic abuse features in up to 73% of observed family court hearings and 87% of case files, there remains a stark and systematic lack of IDVA and ISVA representation compared to that in the criminal justice system. Section 13 of the Courts and Tribunals Bill, currently progressing through Parliament, includes a clause that will create a legislative presumption that the application for an independent supporter, such as an IDVA or ISVA, to support a victim during criminal proceedings, will be granted, unless contrary to the interests of justice. There is no such presumption in family proceedings.
The failure to provide equivalent protections in the Family Court leaves survivors and their children to navigate a system in which they may remain exposed to serious and potentially life-changing risks. Although the changes proposed within the Criminal Court system are welcome, we urge the Government not to overlook those who remain forced to fight for the protection of both themselves and their children, without the same promise of new, specialised protections.
Published 15th October 2026