Children involved in private family law proceedings in England can experience serious harm to their mental and physical health because their voices are too often ignored or dismissed, according to new research led by the University of Manchester in partnership with SHERA Research Group members and The Survivor Family Network.
The study argues that children are frequently treated as passive participants in family court proceedings, with their accounts of abuse, distress and fear often minimised or interpreted through adult assumptions rather than being given meaningful weight in decisions that affect their lives.
Researchers analysed the experiences of 77 children involved in private family law cases, based on interviews with 45 mothers. Using the concept of “childism” – prejudice and discrimination that devalues children’s perspectives and how to challenge these prejudices – they found evidence of systemic failures that can leave children feeling unheard and exposed to further harm.
The study found children experienced a wide range of psychological, emotional and physical impacts during family law proceedings.
These included anxiety, depression, trauma responses, suicidal thoughts, eating disorders, social withdrawal, disrupted schooling, developmental regression and other health problems.
Researchers found many children who expressed fear or reluctance to have contact with an abusive parent were viewed as unreliable or as having been influenced by their mother. Meanwhile, children who appeared outwardly compliant were often assumed to be safe, even though silence may itself have reflected fear or trauma.
The research also found some children became “aged” by the court process, taking on inappropriate caring responsibilities or feeling responsible for the consequences of court decisions, with some facing threats that their mothers would go to prison if they did not comply.
The study identified examples of what researchers describe as “institutional silencing”, where children’s wishes were reportedly summarised in some cases without professionals speaking to them directly, or where children’s views carried little influence over final court decisions.
The researchers argue that children’s rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child are not consistently reflected in current family court practice and that children’s participation is often more symbolic than meaningful.
The study also raises concerns that coercive control can continue after parental separation through the misuse of technology. Some participants described abusive fathers allegedly using access to children’s medical information to monitor or intimidate them, which the authors describe as a form of technology-facilitated abuse that requires recognition by both legal and healthcare professionals.
Despite the challenges identified, the research also found examples of good practice.
Trauma-informed counselling, play therapy and healthcare professionals who prioritised children’s privacy and wellbeing were all reported to help children recover, build resilience and regain confidence.
The researchers say these examples demonstrate that child-led approaches can improve both children’s wellbeing and their ability to participate meaningfully in decisions affecting them.
“Our findings suggest that children are often the least powerful people in proceedings that determine the course of their lives,” said Dr Elizabeth Dalgarno from The University of Manchester. “Too often, their experiences of abuse, fear and trauma are filtered through adult assumptions rather than being heard on their own terms.”
“Children should not simply be the subject of family court decisions – they should be recognised as rights holders whose voices shape those decisions.”
She added: “While I welcome the child-focused courts that the government has introduced, the family justice system has an opportunity to move from seeing children as passive recipients of adult decisions to recognising them as active participants. If children’s voices are consistently heard, respected and acted upon, family courts will be better protect their safety, wellbeing and long-term health.”
