Thank you to the women who spoke with me for this project.
Family courts in England and Wales have long faced criticism for dismissing abuse allegations, prioritising parental contact over safety, and perpetuating victim-blaming. Despite the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 recognising the relevance of domestic abuse on children, courts have been shown to overlook abuse, particularly following the 2014 amendment to the Children Act 1989, which emphasises parental involvement. Studies show courts dismiss mothers’ abuse claims in favour of abusers’ allegations of so-called ‘parental alienation.’ Some judges have questioned victims’ credibility based on education or their physical resistance to rape. Some judges have considered abuse as “highly situational” rather than recognising abuse for what it is—a power imbalance. Further legal inconsistencies persist, with courts acknowledging abusive behaviour, yet failing to define rape and consent, leaving survivors vulnerable to systemic disbelief and re-traumatisation.
The Project
I interviewed 15 participants using the Court and Perpetrator Induced Trauma (CPIT) framework to help understand my findings. When I called for participants on social media, which was then widely shared, only women responded. They answered the same core questions: Are you a self-identified survivor of sexual abuse who has experienced family court proceedings? Did you disclose the abuse in court?
Follow-up conversations explored their specific experiences. Twelve participants permitted quotes; two (AA and BB) did not confirm, and one (CC) agreed to data use but not story sharing. All disclosed rape or sexual violence; one also reported domestic and childhood abuse. Except for one case (where the second court experience was ‘not negative’), all had a negative family court experience. Eleven had children involved; four didn’t specify. Anonymity and confidentiality were strictly maintained. All identifying data was deleted on February 28, 2024, leaving only pseudonyms and approved quotes. (See the participant chart here.)
Five recurring themes quickly emerged:
- Victim-blaming: Not just from the alleged abuser but also from judges and court professionals.
- Separation of abuse from child arrangements: Judges dismissed abuse as irrelevant to custody decisions.
- Counter-allegations: Fathers accused of abuse frequently responded with claims of ‘parental alienation.’
- Child safety concerns: Mothers feared continued physical and sexual abuse against their children.
- Litigation as abuse: Courts enabled abusers to weaponise the process, reinforcing CPIT.
Victim-Blaming
Participants in family court reported experiencing multiple forms of victim-blaming: Disbelief and reframing of sexual assault allegations; DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender); Mischaracterising trauma responses as mental illness. In addition to victim-blaming, there are preconceived notions of rape that serve as barriers due to myth acceptance. Victims may internalise the same blaming language that legal professionals use. Lydia shared, “I am [British] and very well-educated. And had a fantastic career in [field]. How could I not know that I was being abused? It didn’t make sense to anyone.” Examples of each are set out below.
Disbelief and Reframing of Sexual Assault Allegations
Participants described how their abuse was reframed or trivialised. Saoirse shared how the judge dismissed her allegations in favour of the father’s evidence:
the Judge stated in the judgment that the allegation of sexual assault was an allegation of [sexual advances which were not wanted]. In making their decision (using the reframed allegations), the Judge referred to the mother as an ‘unreliable historian of events’ and said they ‘preferred the father’s evidence for all allegations’. [Quote summarised to avoid identification.]
Mary recalled how professionals reinforced this reframing: “In the course of a child protection meeting, [a social worker] said, ‘You call it rape; he says that’s just what you’re into.’” This minimisation erodes justice, giving perpetrators impunity, all while invalidating survivors’ experiences.
DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender)
DARVO is a tactic used by abusers to deny actions, discredit victims, and portray themselves as victims. Allegations of ‘parental alienation’ can function as DARVO. In Saoirse’s experience, she was painted as a liar (by virtue of misrepresenting ‘innocent’ advances as assault), and her testimony was not deemed reliable.
Survivors faced scrutiny for their emotional responses. Naomi shared how a judge, who continued to question her about her rape (which wasn’t the focus of the fact-find), critiqued her behaviour:
The judge described me as ‘flat and emotionless’ because the father constantly cried during the fact-find, and I didn’t. I was raped by my abuser; the judge and my abuser’s barrister questioned me for 3 hours just about that. It wasn’t even the focus of the fact-finding [hearing], but he still wanted to know more about it. Also, my abuser’s barrister asked my witnesses (my brother and my best friend) about the rape. They were shocked because they didn’t know about it. I kept telling them that no one apart from one colleague knew about it. It was horrible.
These narratives reinforce harmful expectations, shifting responsibility onto survivors instead of holding perpetrators accountable.
Mischaracterising Trauma Responses as Mental Illness
Some participants had their medical health used against them in court, a tactic seen in existing research. Emily explained that “Family Court believes his claims that I am making it [the abuse] up rather than my evidence that I am not mentally ill and have a trauma response when he is threatening towards me.” Labelling survivors as mentally ill invalidates their experiences and shifts focus away from abuse. One participant, Naomi, shared, “My medical records were disclosed—his weren’t,” drawing attention to the problematic handling of both medical disclosures in the presence of an alleged abuser and the lack of careful handling of health records. The label of ‘mentally ill’ as applied to survivors of abuse excuses perpetrators by diverting attention away from the substantive issues of harm and accountability, both blaming the victim, not the abuser, for their abuse and further harming the survivor.
Separation of Abuse and Child Arrangement Decisions
Ignoring abuse allegations in child custody cases endangers survivors and their children. Despite high rates of domestic abuse findings in private law proceedings, courts reportedly often separate abuse from child arrangements, prioritising contact over safety. There is a lack of a consistent definition of rape and consent in family court; however, even with guidance, participants shared that allegations and risks were dismissed. Faith shared that “despite a section 47 stating the father was a dangerous risk, the judge said there was no safeguarding risk,” and the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) and judges dismissed both Caitlyn and Alice despite their allegations of abuse. Alice and Caitlyn described similar experiences. Alice said, “When I disclosed this rape to CAFCASS, it was dismissed out of hand and not recorded in their report. I felt absolutely invisible,” she continued, “I endured so many court hearings where the Judge wrongly dismissed my allegations and ordered my child to have contact with my rapist.”
Caitlyn shared she had written proof of her abuse but was met with indifference: “Had one great judge who saw through it in the middle of proceedings, but everyone else just shouted at us for not focusing on [child] . . . He [abuser] raped me when he knew he’d stopped controlling me because I had a baby to stand up for.” Like Alice, Caitlyn shared that she had proof of her abuse, but it was ignored by the court in child arrangement proceedings. Alice counts herself as “one of the lucky ones,” despite the judge’s behaviour, as “findings of rape and abuse were made, and no contact was ordered.” These women considered safety and belief to only be experienced by a ‘lucky’ few.
Madison, who was still in court proceedings at the time, shared, “I’m going through family court with my ex and the father of my child, who is being investigated by police for rape, sexual assault, coercive control, and abuse.” She continued, “The family court do not care. In fact, they originally allowed him to have visits in my own home. They have said they are ignoring the police investigation as it’s ‘taking too long’ . . . It’s been the hardest thing I’ve gone through all to protect my little [child].” Despite studies showing forced contact can lead to child harm, courts continue prioritising fathers’ rights over child safety. This pro-contact culture dangerously reinforces cycles of harm.
Counter-Allegations from Fathers
For Caitlin, disclosing abuse to protect her child led to the father accusing her of child abuse: “He accused me of [a form of child abuse].” Shifting focus to the perpetrator’s narrative by allowing counter-allegations invalidates survivors’ experiences and reinforces patterns of abuse and control. In this quote from Emily, she describes two strategies that her perpetrator used to undermine her credibility, making counter-allegations and implying that she suffered from mental illness:
My ex is claiming Parental Alienation and that I am mentally ill (I have a diagnosed ‘disorder’ which is actually a Trauma Response to his abuse). Our daughters [ages] made disclosures, which were played down by social services as [inappropriate], and the Family Court allowed contact, but he could no longer [do the inappropriate activity with them]. We are back in court [time period] later as he wants full residency. [income details shared].
The concept of ‘parental alienation’ remains widely used in family courts despite being pseudoscientific and linked to harmful outcomes. Research indicates it is primarily weaponised against mothers. Parental alienation is often used by abusers to shift focus away from their actions and frame mothers as perpetrators of ‘alienating behaviour.’ In a legal culture that prioritises contact over investigating abuse, such allegations are extremely harmful.
Alice shares her experience of being accused of alienation while trying to protect her child:
I was raped by my child’s father in [year]. This was following an escalation of coercive control and abuse for many years. It took me years to speak about what had happened to me, in my home when my child was downstairs. When I disclosed this rape to CAFCASS, it was dismissed out of hand and not recorded in their report. I felt absolutely invisible. I endured so many court hearings where the Judge wrongly dismissed my allegations and ordered my child to have contact with my rapist. I was investigated for trying to protect my child from a rapist.
Research shows allegations of alienation by perpetrators often outweigh survivors’ allegations of violence, leading some mothers to lose residency, even in cases involving child sexual abuse. Many mothers are forced into unsafe contact arrangements or mediation, where their concerns about welfare and abuse are ignored. The fear for children’s safety deters many mothers from reporting abuse. Some judges have even berated mothers for making allegations, threatening to remove their children if they persist. This creates a deterrent to disclosures which heightens the risk of future harm.
Fear for Children’s Safety
Mothers who have suffered abuse, including rape and sexual violence, endure severe hardship in family courts, fearing for their children’s safety. These mothers describe a legal system fraught with barriers and re-traumatisation, forcing them to confront their abusers while their credibility is routinely questioned. Many endure further abuse while seeking to protect their children. The emotional toll is immense as mothers struggle against a system that prioritises parental contact over safety. Rachael shared her experience with her ex sexualising her non-consensually and how she went to court hoping to keep her child safe:
I’m going to court for my [child’s] safety…He took non-consensual photos of me naked while pregnant and lied about it, after saying, ‘I should make Only Fans to make money as he wouldn’t support me’, and I’d refused. He watched a lot of porn and followed a sex worker on social media who dresses and acts like a toddler for sex/money. She’s a ‘gamer girl,’ and he said he can’t wait for my [child] to be a gamer girl. I left while pregnant, and he refused to visit safely; now he’s in court demanding her overnight away from me as a baby. They’ve granted him legal aid but refused mine for protection from him. He also revealed while I was heavily pregnant that his [family member] is an incest-rapist paedophile who lives near him.
Threats of separation from children and fears of child harm due to abuser contact are barriers to survivors reporting abuse. While dealing with those threats, financial barriers further impact survivors seeking legal recourse. Rachael struggled to protect her child while legal aid was granted to her alleged abuser. She received no legal aid for her protection from him, trapping her in an extremely stressful situation.
Blythe, who was told that her experience of rape was irrelevant to child arrangement proceedings, had shared that following forced contact, her child was sexually assaulted, and the CPS is now involved:
I was told by a judge that [X] raping me for [X] years, including the conception of my [X] children, was irrelevant to the children’s care proceedings…The judge ordered CAFCASS to ignore the rapes within their safeguarding recommendations. Within [X] weeks of our final hearing, my [child] was sexually assaulted within his care…
She described how she told the Judge she knew something would happen to the children but was simply labelled as ‘anxious.’ She recounted, ‘It was hard when I sat at our final hearing and said it would be weeks before something detrimental happened to the children and was told I was being too anxious. I was told that even if he’s charged and on bail, I have to stick to the [private family law child arrangements] court order.’ She left court traumatised.
Contact between children and abusive fathers has led to the deaths of at least 19 children in the UK. Yet, mothers’ own analysis of perpetrator risk can be undermined or ignored. Mothers who bring allegations of abuse are being compelled to interact with alleged abusers to ensure the safety of their children during contact, which is exacerbating their traumas and impeding their ability to advocate effectively for both their needs and their children’s. Mothers also spoke of the impact on their parenting capacity and their grief at losing so much time from their child’s young life to court proceedings: “The process of being ignored almost broke me, I am not the mother I was [X] years ago,” Alice shared. “I have lost all confidence in myself, and I have lost so much time trying to keep my child safe, time I will never recover to spend with [child].”
Post-Separation Abuse and Litigation Abuse
Post-separation abuse is a criminal offence. Litigation abuse is a method used by abusers in family courts when they intentionally draw out processes and file excessive applications in order to maintain control over their partner. Research indicates it is predominantly used by men. Mothers report being discredited, financially drained, and emotionally exhausted by prolonged litigation. Family courts have become a hostile environment in which survivors are re-traumatised and further victimised.
Indeed, many mothers find the court system as traumatising as the abuse itself, often believing the courts will protect them and their children, only to have their abuse minimised or dismissed. Alice shared, “The impact of dealing with systems I believed would protect people has left me with PTSD symptoms.” Mary described her experiences with the justice system: “The whole thing was beyond distressing, reporting just piled harm upon harm upon harm.” Naomi recounts how a judge dismissed her ex-partner’s post-separation abuse:
The judge [in the private law family court] also dismissed the post-separation abuse, although my ex confirmed that he was coming to my door and looking out for me at special places with the hope of seeing me. The CPS [case] is ongoing.
By allowing litigation abuse to continue unchecked, family courts become a state-sanctioned vehicle for post-separation abuse. Ignoring and dismissing abuse allegations perpetuates harm, making justice inaccessible for survivors seeking protection.
Conclusion
Given that 49-62% of private law proceedings are estimated to include domestic abuse allegations, family courts should be equipped to handle sexual abuse allegations with a trauma-informed approach, free from gendered biases and myths. However, these testimonies suggest that systemic failures persist, leaving survivors and their children vulnerable. Family court judges and lawyers must undergo continual training (which should be transparent and publicly made known) to recognise the impact of rape myths, victim-blaming, and the complexities of sexual abuse. Survivors enter the family court system seeking justice and protection, yet institutional biases often silence them. Jennifer stated, “Living with the trauma from SA is indescribable. There needs to be more support.” Their experiences should be central to any reforms.
The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 offered an opportunity for change, but key amendments—such as protections against wrongful ‘parental alienation’ claims and automatic removal of parental rights in child sexual abuse cases—were not supported. As a result, many survivors remain trapped in cycles of legal trauma, forced to fight for their children’s safety against abusers wielding the system as a tool of control. While this study was only a small sample of participants, it’s clear from existing literature, including the Government’s own Harm Panel Report from 2020, that these aren’t isolated experiences. The study also indicates that there can be harmful real-world impacts on adult and child victims of sexual violence when abuse is disclosed as part of private law proceedings, including further abuse. However, there is minimal dedicated research on sexual violence and private law proceedings, and so little is known about long-term outcomes for victims and/or their children. Research, as referenced throughout this work, would, however, suggest that outcomes can be devastating. This project also suggests that survivors are seeking urgent reforms and are willing to share their experiences to effect change—if they can be heard safely and with compassion.
Blog by Allison Quinlan, and edited and contributed to by Lucy Hayton.
First published in the Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law:
Quinlan, A. R. (2025). Sexual violence and family courts in England and Wales. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 1—26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2025.2454109