Fathers accused of child sexual abuse given legal access to their alleged victims
Content warning* - please note there is distressing content in this press release.
Nine fathers were given legal access by private family court law proceedings (PLP) to the children they were accused of sexually abusing, according to a qualitative study.
The groundbreaking UKRI funded , published in the Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, was carried out by University of 野狼社区 researchers in partnership with members of and The Survivor Family Network.
It is based on the experience of 45 women from across England in PLP who along with some of their children accused the men of abuse, including child sexual abuse (CSA) in nine cases.
A tenth father, a convicted paedophile, had groomed the mother as a child and been convicted of child sex offences but hadn鈥檛 yet harmed the child sexually. Other fathers convicted of child sex offences were also given direct access to their children.
Of the 45 studied, fathers were given access in 43 cases.
PLP cases occur when two or more private individuals try to resolve a dispute, usually around child arrangements or financial disputes.
All ten cases involving CSA resulted in some form of direct child contact with the alleged perpetrator father, sometimes giving unsupervised overnight stays or 50% shared residency.
Some of the 10 fathers were either convicted child sex offenders or had admitted to CSA. In some of the cases digital evidence was submitted to the court.
Only fathers who had criminal convictions for CSA were considered to meet the threshold for concern for risk or harm, though they were still given overnight contact with the children, supervised by paternal family members.
Four of the mothers, accused of coaching their child to falsify abuse claims 鈥� so called parental alienation - lost residency of their children to the alleged perpetrator father.
The researchers applied a feminist-informed framework to understand the experience of 10 women from within the larger sample of 45, who were also interviewed.
The analysis identified 5 themes:
- Minimisation by the courts of the harm to the child and mother from CSA by the father, overemphasising the rights of fathers.
- The courts rely on whether a father was 鈥榞ratified鈥� by the abuse to determine whether harm has occurred and a 鈥榮orry鈥� from the father was enough to reassure the court that their children will now be safe from future harm.
- The family courts at times intervened to close down active CSA criminal investigations into the fathers.
- Mothers who persisted in their attempts to resist the court and advocate for their children were those who lost their children.
- The court actors were frequently reported as bound by a pro-father narrative in their regard to each other.
Lead author Dr Elizabeth Dalgarno said: 鈥淲e found disturbing evidence that private family courts are letting down some mothers and their children who accuse the fathers of child sex abuse and or rape.
鈥淢any of the fathers had a history of abusing others. All had allegedly abused the mothers and children, yet this was deemed 鈥榓lienation鈥�, 鈥榟istoric鈥� or 鈥榠rrelevant鈥� by the court, with one child repeatedly raped for several years after her mother was erroneously dubbed an 鈥榓lienator鈥�.
鈥淔athers鈥� actions and behaviours were repeatedly minimised and made invisible if harmful. For mothers, there was no such grace shown in the court, who sometimes had their children removed.鈥�
We found disturbing evidence that private family courts are letting down some mothers and their children who accuse the fathers of child sex abuse and or rape. Many of the fathers had a history of abusing others. All had allegedly abused the mothers and children, yet this was deemed 鈥榓lienation鈥�, 鈥榟istoric鈥� or 鈥榠rrelevant鈥� by the court, with one child repeatedly raped for several years after her mother was erroneously dubbed an 鈥榓lienator鈥�
The researchers argue CSA findings should not be determined within existing PLP, where prevailing bias against mothers and children leaves room for abuse to continue.
Use of 鈥榩arental alienation鈥� or 鈥榓lienating behaviours鈥� as a defence, they say, should be prohibited and that the Sexual Offences Act 2003 must re-consider the notion of perpetrator gratification to define harm and also review the use of a child鈥檚 personal and private space in defining criminality.
She added: 鈥淔alse allegations of CSA are extremely rare at around 0.01%- 2% and there is little evidence that children can be coerced into making false CSA claims.
鈥淪o we contend that this treatment of vulnerable women and their children is effectively an act of state sanctioned abuse, and state gaslighting.鈥�
Support resources available:
The paper has been double blind peer reviewed and has been published in the journal of social welfare and family law.
The DOI of the paper, called 鈥楲et鈥檚 excuse abusive men from abusing and enable sexual abuse鈥�: Child Sexual Abuse Investigations in England鈥檚 Private Family Courts鈥� is: 10.1080/09649069.2024.2382501. and it is published in the Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law
Anonymous quotes from some of the mothers:
鈥溾�樷�here鈥檇 been sexual videos made of my son. My son had come home with bruises. My son had specifically said he didn't want to go to his dad's. [son] disclosed a lot of things鈥� but because [father] said, 鈥淚'm sorry鈥e were only messing around and there wasn't actually any penetration鈥�, he got away with it鈥� And I've got to live with those videos in my head and they even upset the police officers鈥� There was no empathy [from the family court]. There was nothing鈥� Just 鈥渇athers have rights鈥�, very, very, pro, pro, pro father鈥欌��
鈥榌police] didn't really do anything, they kind of left it up to social care鈥he social worker came and said, 鈥渨e'll come and make sure you've got food in the fridge and a roof over your head鈥�, saw [son]鈥hen they went and saw him鈥ith his father and wrote a report and said there was nothing wrong鈥� she completely and utterly blamed me, said I 鈥渨as emotionally abusing [son]鈥濃�y this time, we'd had one [family] court case [with] a district judge [who] said 鈥渟ocial care couldn't find any issues鈥�, and awarded my ex overnight contact every other weekend and holidays鈥�
鈥楤ut this same social worker went out again, and again, and just had a word, all the time, while pushing it as parental alienation. Because I was 鈥渕aking [child] over-anxious鈥�. And because [father] said 鈥渋t was accidental鈥�, and social services actually said that 鈥渢hey would not consider it as sexual abuse because they didn鈥檛 believe it was sexually gratifying for him鈥�
鈥楽o, my ex-husband had the biggest collection of pornography that I had ever seen, and a lot of the titles were 鈥楾een鈥�, and he had used sex as a controlling mechanism within the relationship鈥� This was mentioned鈥n court, and it was as if I was just being vindictive and trying to find something else wrong with him, to pin something else on him [and] there clearly 鈥渨asn鈥檛 a problem鈥濃��.
My children had accused their father of sexual abuse and he came back with parental alienation after a number of years of not mentioning it鈥hey're not allowed to use any form of disclosing tool or not allowed to buy them any diaries鈥鈥檝e been told if I report further allegations then basically my ex has got a fast-track back to court for immediate change of residence鈥o they threatened me and gagged the girls effectively.鈥�
鈥楨ven the psychologist said, 鈥渢here is no parental alienation鈥�. He wrote it specifically and he contradicted Cafcass, he overruled Cafcass, and guess who the judge went with? Cafcass鈥�