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.
Issues with the current system
-
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.
-
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. TheFamily 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. Section 91(14) orders can provide safeguards, but their use in CSA contexts is not systematically monitored due to the data gap.
-
Where perpetrators retain parental responsibility and are able to make repeated applications, protective parents and children can be trapped in cycles of proceedings.
-
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.”
-
The Ministry of Justice’s Harm Panel work highlights recurring concerns: minimisation of abuse, children’s voices not being heard, and unsafe arrangements. A report from the University of Oxford showed that victims of CSA did not feel heard or believed when they disclosed abuse.
-
Without reliable data on allegations raised and findings made, it is impossible to properly assess whether the system is keeping children safe.
Our aims
-
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.
-
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
-
-
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.
-
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
-
-
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)
-