Cases involving child sexual abuse (CSA) allegations are among the most serious and sensitive matters the family courts handle. Yet in private law children proceedings, there is a dangerous gap in data, research, and consistent professional practice. Too often, protective parents raising CSA concerns are treated with suspicion, while unsafe contact can be ordered and repeated litigation can be used to prolong harm.
Right to Equality is campaigning for urgent reform so that family courts respond to CSA allegations using contemporary evidence, robust safeguarding, and clear legal protections.
Why this matters
-
CSA is common and under-reported.
-
There is a lack of transparency and usable data in private law cases. Without reliable data on allegations raised and findings made, it is impossible to properly assess whether the system is keeping children safe.
-
A pro-contact culture can eclipse safeguarding. The Ministry of Justice’s Harm Panel work highlights recurring concerns: minimisation of abuse, children’s voices not being heard, and unsafe arrangements.
-
Protective parents can face “parental alienation” counter-allegations. Concerns have been raised that CSA disclosures are reframed as manipulation by the non-abusing parent, creating a chilling effect on reporting and safety planning.
What’s going wrong in the current system
- Outdated assumptions about children’s disclosures: Our analysis highlights concerns that some case law and guidance relied on in family proceedings can reflect scepticism about children’s accounts, rather than contemporary understanding of how children disclose abuse.
- “Parental alienation” being used to neutralise safeguarding: The Family Law article explains how “parental alienation” originated in discredited theories tied to dismissing CSA allegations in contact disputes, and how the concept still appears in modern litigation despite serious professional concerns.
- Repeat litigation can prolong trauma: Where perpetrators retain parental responsibility and are able to make repeated applications, protective parents and children can be trapped in cycles of proceedings. Section 91(14) orders can provide safeguards, but their use in CSA contexts is not systematically monitored due to the data gap.
- Therapy and support can be disrupted: Submissions referenced in the Harm Panel material raise concerns about practices such as pausing therapeutic support after disclosure, despite CPS guidance stating there is no substantive evidence that therapy generates “false memories.”
Our campaign goals
1) A safer legal framework for parental responsibility and contact
We support legal reform so that child sexual offenders’ parental responsibility and ability to pursue contact is properly restricted, preventing children and protective parents from being forced into costly, repeated applications to secure safety. The article notes parliamentary momentum on restricting parental responsibility for sex offenders and public concern about current gaps.
2) Evidence-based CSA practice in private law proceedings
We are calling for mandatory, consistent training for family justice professionals (judiciary, Cafcass, legal representatives, and experts) on:
-
how CSA is most commonly disclosed
-
grooming and intra-familial dynamics
-
rape myths and credibility errors
-
trauma-informed approaches for children and protective parents
3) End the misuse of “parental alienation” in CSA cases
We are campaigning to ensure that pseudo-scientific and discriminatory framings do not override safeguarding, and that allegations of manipulation are treated with rigor, context, and proper evidential standards, without stereotyping protective parents.
4) Transparency and data that makes safeguarding measurable
We are calling for government and justice system leaders to:
-
collect and publish standardised data on CSA allegations and outcomes in private law cases
-
track findings, contact outcomes, expert evidence, and re-litigation patterns
-
extend transparency initiatives so the public can have confidence that children are being protected
5) Human rights compliance in family court decision-making
We are urging decision-makers to apply the UK’s obligations under:
-
the European Convention on Human Rights, including the State’s positive obligations to protect children from inhuman or degrading treatment by private individuals (Article 3)
-
the Istanbul Convention, including the requirement to ensure custody and visitation decisions do not jeopardise the safety of victims or children (Article 31)
Our evidence base
Our campaigning is grounded in:
-
contemporary research on CSA prevalence, disclosure patterns, and intra-familial dynamics
-
public reporting and parliamentary attention on sex offenders retaining parental responsibility
-
analysis of family court case law trends and the risks of relying on outdated frameworks
-
survivor and protective parent experiences, including the chilling effect of “parental alienation” allegations
What we’re doing
-
Building the public evidence base on how CSA allegations are handled in private law proceedings
-
Engaging with parliamentarians, lawyers, journalists, and researchers to support reform
-
Campaigning for clear restrictions on parental responsibility/contact rights for child sex offenders
-
Pushing for mandatory training and safer expert evidence standards
-
Advocating for transparency, data, and accountability mechanisms that prioritise child safety