Written evidence from Mothers Against Coercive Control and Violence (CFA0113)

 

HOUSE OF LORDS CHILDREN AND FAMILIES ACT 2014 SELECT COMMITTEE INQURY

 

Mothers Against Coercive Control and Violence

Response to Call for Evidence on the Children and Families Act 2014

 

  1.              Mothers Against Coercive Control and Violence (MACCAV) is a grass roots community organisation which is based in the North West of England but has almost 4000 members around the world. The membership is mainly but not exclusive to, mothers and adult children affected by domestic and/or child abuse, domestic abuse sector workers; and campaigners. MACCAV has a facebook group and website, and shares relevant news and opportunities for members to engage in Media and democratic processes. MACCAV also hosts workshops  to help to facilitate members to use their experiences to effect change.

 

  1.              Our interest in this call for evidence is as a collective of victims of domestic abuse and parents of children who are subjected to domestic and / or child abuse.

 

  1.              This evidence is submitted by the administrators of MACCAV and is compiled based the many experiences we hear on a daily basis, and from testimony we have received in response to consultation on the issues raised below.

 

  1.              We have consistently found that the application of Section 11 Welfare of the child: parental involvement, has caused the most harm to children and victims of domestic abuse as it has become a policy of ‘contact at all costs. Despite the wording with reard to child welfare, it is cited as the grounds for enforcing contact between children who have been victims of domestic or child abuse, and their abusers.

 

  1.              We echo the issues raised by the Ministry of Justice’s Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Children Cases published July 2020.

 

  1.              Whilst the wording of section 11 implies welfare is considered; In a significant proportion of cases we still see that PD12J is not being applied and fact findings denied, despite clear evidence of domestic abuse. Where findings are made, they have usually been given little bearing on the child arrangement, with presumption of contact being cited, and abuse being minimised and given no weight.

 

  1.              Similarly, the laws on coercive control and the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 have made an impact on a small number of cases, but the overwhelming policy is still “contact at all costs”.

 

  1.              Judges and legal professionals do not have an adequate understanding of domestic abuse. Victims are frequently told to ‘get along’ with their abuser. It is also common for courts to instruct victims to put up pictures of their abuser/rapist in their new homes or refuges. 

 

  1.              In a country in which sexual assault and domestic abuse are illegal, it is evident that the Children and Families Act is needs updating, as it is being used as the basis for propagating further abuse of victims of convicted or found violent crimes

 

  1.         In one case, there were children’s services reports, Child in Need plan and MARAC report as well as testimony of healthcare professionals and social workers who had witnessed abuse, but the Mother was told that it was not domestic abuse, just ‘a good man trapped in an unhappy situation’, and Mother was advised to write a letter to him to apologise for raising allegations of abuse.

 

  1.         In one case with findings of abuse perpetrated against mother and baby, CAFCASS recommended father attend a Domestic Abuse Perpetrator Programme, but spent several paragraphs stating that statistically the now two year old girl was at risk of underachieving, mental health issues, substance abuse, underage sex and pregnancy due to not having a relationship with her father; and did not balance this with the impact and lasting effects of being abused. In this case the father refused to engage in any programmes and despite issues of neglect was given shared care.

 

  1.         We find commonly that under section 11, men who have been convicted of serious offences against the mother or even against the children themselves are still given unsupervised contact with their children.

 

  1.         In one case, the father had multiple convictions for offences against the mother including stalking, harassment, assault, breach of non-molestation order and sexual offences against a minor-the victim’s sister. Despite his threats to kill the victim and her family and pattern of immediately returning to abuse the mother upon his release form various custodial sentences for this, spanning many years; the father was still granted video calls with their young child, to be facilitated by the Mother. The Mother had to continue facilitating these calls and endure his abuse when he was on the run from police with a warrant for his arrest issued.

 

  1.         In another case, the Father, 20 years senior, had accepted a caution for raping a 14 year old girl who gave birth to a child as a result. He was eventually given residence of the child, and the mother was given two hours per week supervised contact. The Judge ruled his sexual offence was irrelevant as it involved the mother of the child and not a third party. The mother had no findings or convictions against her, no substance abuse and no mental health diagnoses but it was considered that the trauma of being raped meant that she was less capable of parenting.

 

  1.         Another convicted sex offender was granted contact supervised by his own family, despite having raped the children’s mother from the age of 16-him being 19 years her senior, and having convictions for sexual offences involving unrelated primary school aged children.

 

  1.         There is a common theme of children being removed from the safe parent and residence given to the abuser, solely on the grounds that the victim has PTSD stemming from the domestic abuse.

 

  1.         Mothers fear being accused of parental alienation. In a poll of members, 93% of survivors of domestic abuse had been accused of parental alienation by their abuser. Where children were resisting contact with a parent who was abusing them, Mothers were expected to force the children into contact. A judge told one mother to punish her four year old son by sending him to bed with no dinner if he refused to go to the house of the father who had abused them.

 

  1.         Conversely, the presumption of contact does not appear to be applied equally in favour of mothers. Mothers who have lost residence to the abuser solely result of the abuse-either cited mental health/PTSD or seen as failing to promote contact with the abuser, are often given no contact at all, or very limited contact, sometimes even at the discretion of the abuser. We have been unable to find any example of a father being told to display photographs pf the mother in the house.

 

  1.         Some mothers of children who are resistant to contact with the abusive parent have been told that this is a result of them being “too close” to the children. In these cases, Mothers have been told to stop hugging their young children, to make them sleep in a separate room, to stop comforting them when they cry etc.

 

  1.         From the experience of thousands of Mothers who have been through the court system, we know that the Parental involvement clauses are causing irreversible harm to children on a massive scale, as outlined in the Harm Report June 2020, to the extent that some children have lost their lives. Nor is it ensuring children maintain contact with ‘safe’ parents with no safeguarding concerns. This is a matter which will require very careful consideration but we believe an amendment of this clause to protect children who have experienced domestic abuse or child abuse, as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. It should also ensure hat victims are not further victimised by court orders.

 

  1.         In the event a new Children’s Act were to be considered, we also believe there should be specific protection of breastfed infants.

 

  1.         The benefits of being breastfed are well documented as specific antibodies for the child will be produced and it lowers the incidence of SIDS. The WHO recommends breastfeeding until at least the age of two.

 

  1.         We are aware of a significant number of cases where comments have been made to breastfeeding Mothers that they may be using breastfeeding to create a barrier for fathers to have contact. There are many cases where judges have told Mothers to express milk instead, to enable the father to have prolonged periods with the baby. In some cases, mothers reported Judges taking breastfeeding into consideration when making the order, but in most, they reported orders being made which made it impossible to continue breastfeeding.

 

  1.         In one case, the mother of a six-week old baby was told to combi feed or express to enable the abusive father to have contact for four hours at a time. When the mother explained that baby would not take a bottle and it would affect her supply, the Judge told her that if she died, the baby would have no choice and would have to learn to take a bottle.

 

  1.         Some women have reported being affected emotionally or physically by being forced to stop breastfeeding due to court orders.

 

  1.         The ‘secrecy’ of the Family Courts also means victims can be gagged from relaying their experiences. Enabling reporting of cases whilst protecting identities should be explored.

Mothers Against Coercive Control and Violence

25.4.2022

 

May 2022