Family Justice System: Domestic Abuse and Safeguarding

Clive Jones Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Westminster Hall

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered domestic abuse and safeguarding within the family justice system.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. The family courts make some of the most important decisions that any institution can make. They determine where children will live, how they will maintain relationships with their parents, and how families rebuild their lives after separation. At their best, they provide protection, stability and justice, but far too many survivors of domestic abuse do not experience the family court as a place of safety. Instead, many describe it as a continuation of abuse through legal processes, repeated trauma and unsafe decision making.

Today’s debate is vital because there is now substantial evidence from survivors, frontline organisations, legal professionals and independent reviews that domestic abuse is too often minimised, misunderstood or inadequately recognised in family court proceedings. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s report “Everyday business”, published in 2025, found evidence of domestic abuse in around 87% of the family court cases that it examined. Yet the report concluded that abuse was frequently not treated as an active safeguarding issue. How can that be right? That finding should concern everyone in this House. If abuse is present in the overwhelming majority of cases but is not consistently recognised in decisions about children and contact arrangements, there is clearly a systemic problem that requires urgent attention.

It is important to understand the nature of domestic abuse in this context. Abuse is not always physical violence; it can involve coercive control, intimidation, economic abuse, emotional manipulation, stalking, harassment, and patterns of behaviour designed to dominate and undermine another person. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 rightly recognised coercive and controlling behaviour in law, yet many survivors continue to report that coercive control and post-separation abuse remain poorly understood in family court proceedings. For many perpetrators, separation does not end abuse. Instead, the family court can become another avenue of control through unnecessary litigation, manipulation of child contact arrangements and prolonged interaction with an abusive former partner.

[Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Member agree that perpetrators should not be rewarded through the court process with reduced sentences when they change their plea to guilty at the last minute? It is just a continuation of the coercive and controlling behaviour that they have already displayed.

[Clive Jones]

The hon. Member is absolutely right: somebody should not be rewarded when they have been difficult for months and months—probably years—and then at the last minute change their mind to get a reduced sentence. The judge probably sees them as being helpful, but they have not been helpful for a long time. The hon. Member makes a really good point.

Some have described the family courts process as very traumatising. We must recognise sophisticated tactics like DARVO—deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender—where perpetrators deny the abuse, attack the credibility of the survivor and then present themselves as the true victim. A survivor may therefore find themselves portrayed as hostile, manipulative or obstructive, and genuine attempts to protect children can be reframed by perpetrators as attempts to alienate a child from the other parent. That is one reason why specialist expertise in the courts is so important.

In a child custody case, a constituent of mine was told by a judge to stop making reports of domestic abuse against the ex-partner as it had no relevance to the case, despite their being presented with police reports. The ex-partner also used manipulative DARVO tactics and eventually gained custody of the child. Intimidated by the process, my constituent’s experience highlights the urgent need for stronger protection and specialist expertise in court.

I also want to address concerns surrounding the recent removal of the presumption of parental involvement in cases involving abuse. While many survivors and safeguarding organisations welcomed the reform, there is concern that some perpetrators may increasingly attempt to weaponise allegations against survivors by claiming that they themselves are the victims of abuse, or by claiming parental alienation in response to genuine safeguarding concerns. Domestic abuse specialists like Kaleidoscopic UK have long warned that allegations of so-called parental alienation can be used to discredit survivors and shift attention away from abuse allegations.

The charity Right to Equality undertook a survey on child removals and found that 81% of mothers who had their child removed were accused of parental alienation. It is a strategy routinely weaponised by abusers and often backed by unregulated experts who have no place in the courtroom. These bogus allegations can often lead to a child being removed from a safe parent and transferred to an abusive one. That is precisely why independent domestic violence advisers and the newly created children’s domestic abuse advocates are needed as experts. They can help courts to distinguish genuine safeguarding concerns from manipulative litigation tactics and identify patterns of coercive and post-separation abuse that might otherwise be missed.

At the centre of all of this is children. Children are not passive witnesses to domestic abuse. We know from extensive evidence that exposure to abuse and an environment of fear and instability can have profound, lifelong effects on emotional wellbeing, mental health, educational attainment and future relationships. The consequences of unsafe decisions in the family courts can be devastating. Women’s Aid has documented 67 child deaths over the last 30 years linked to abusive contact arrangements. We are not talking about abstract statistics, but children whose safety should have been paramount and families left with unimaginable grief.

Every one of those cases demands that we ask difficult questions about whether the system is adequately equipped to identify risk and respond appropriately. We must also acknowledge the wider human cost of domestic abuse. Home Office data recorded 98 suspected suicides following domestic abuse in the year to March 2024. Behind each figure is a life lost and a family devastated. The statistics remind us that domestic abuse is not a private matter; it is a serious public protection issue.

I pay tribute to the work of survivor-led organisations such as Kaleidoscopic UK, whose representatives are in the Gallery. Its members have campaigned tirelessly for reform in this area, and support adults and children affected by domestic abuse. Many of those involved with Kaleidoscopic are themselves survivors of abuse and have first-hand experience of navigating the family court system. Policymakers and justice institutions should listen carefully to those experiences when considering how the family court system can better protect vulnerable families.

I want to be clear that there are many dedicated professionals within the family justice system who are committed to safeguarding children and supporting families under immense pressure. This debate is not about criticising individuals; it is about asking whether the system as a whole is sufficiently equipped to deal with the complex realities of domestic abuse. I believe there is a strong case for the mandatory involvement of independent domestic violence advisers as specialist domestic abuse experts within the family court process. IDVAs understand patterns of coercive control, risk escalation, post-separation abuse, and the barriers that victims and children face in disclosing abuse. They possess specialist expertise that can help to identify risks that might otherwise be overlooked.

At present, however, access to specialist domestic abuse expertise within the family courts is very inconsistent. That inconsistency can lead to inconsistent outcomes and an unacceptable postcode lottery for survivors and children. Independent domestic abuse experts could help courts to identify patterns of abuse that are not immediately visible; strengthen safeguarding assessments by ensuring that risk assessments fully account for the realities of post-separation abuse; and improve consistency across the system and survivors’ confidence in the family justice process.

Importantly, this is not about undermining judicial independence. Judges must of course remain the ultimate decision makers, but they should have access to the best expertise available when dealing with complex safeguarding matters involving domestic abuse and child welfare. Sadly, several of my constituents have experienced being undermined and ignored in court by a judge who has had complaints made against them for overlooking their allegations of abuse and refusing to recognise abusive tactics in court. Having an expert present in this setting would provide my constituents, and all victims, with much more protection and understanding.

This House has already recognised the seriousness of domestic abuse through landmark legislation and policy reforms. The Domestic Abuse Act was a significant step forward. The recent removal of the presumption of parental involvement in cases involving abuse was also welcome and necessary, but legislation alone is not enough if implementation within systems and institutions does not reflect the realities that survivors face. In most cases, relationships between children and parents are important and beneficial, but where abuse is present, safety must always come first. The welfare of a child must remain the court’s paramount consideration, not simply the continuation of contact in principle.

There is also the broader issue of the culture in the family justice system. Survivors and advocacy organisations have raised concerns about myths and misconceptions surrounding domestic abuse, including assumptions about why victims remain in abusive relationships, expectations around perfect victim behaviour, and misunderstandings about post-separation abuse. Specialist domestic abuse expertise can help challenge those misconceptions and ensure that decisions are grounded in evidence and understanding.

I acknowledge the important work carried out by organisations supporting survivors every day: Women’s Aid, Refuge, Rights of Women, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Kaleidoscopic UK and many others have consistently highlighted these issues and advocated for reform. Their work has brought forward evidence that this House cannot ignore. Members across the House will know from their constituency casework that these concerns are not isolated incidents, and will have heard from constituents who feel failed by a system that was supposed to protect them and their children. Those experiences deserve to be heard.

This debate is about recognising the complexities of domestic abuse and that improving safeguarding within the family courts is both necessary and achievable. Family court decisions shape lives for years—sometimes generations—so I urge the Government to embed domestic abuse experts more effectively within the family justice system, to ensure that survivors and children are truly protected throughout court proceedings and beyond. Above all, we must build a family justice system that survivors can trust, that properly understands domestic abuse and that places the safety and welfare of children at the heart of every decision.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Jones]

I start by apologising to the Minister for not welcoming her to her new position. I am pleased that she reiterated the Government’s commitment to halving domestic abuse in 10 years, which I am sure we all want to see.

I have a couple of questions that came up in the debate. The hon. Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) spoke about the lack of expertise in working with children with special needs. Will the Minister write to all of us who have contributed to the debate on what the Government might be able to do about that specifically? The hon. Member for Wokingham—

[Mr Forster]

That’s you!

[Clive Jones]

It is so easy to make that mistake. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) spoke about the good work of lots of local organisations, but he has real concerns that council changes over the next few years will put the funding for the work of those organisations in jeopardy. Could the Minister tell us what she may be able to do about that? My hon. Friend also spoke about the need for IDVAs, as I and several others did. Is that something the Minister could support over the next year or so?

The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) said that children’s voices are not heard in the family court system. How can we, as MPs, and the Minister make sure they are heard over the next few years? My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) spoke about domestic abuse training for everybody in the family courts. Is that something the Minister will champion over the next few years? The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) talked about how important it is to get it right and about the need for a cultural shift. I am sure the Minister has lots of ideas, and I know her predecessor did. It would be nice to hear about them.

Finally, I thank the Minister for coming, and for confirming that the welfare of children must always be paramount.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered domestic abuse and safeguarding within the family justice system.

Prison Officers: Mandatory Body Armour

Clive Jones Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I thank the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) for securing this very important debate.

Our prison system has been pushed into a deep crisis by years of neglect and mismanagement under previous Governments. Prisons are overcrowded, understaffed and unable to properly rehabilitate offenders. Attacks on prison officers, including on three officers at HMP Frankland last April, shine a light on the consequences of a prison system left overstretched and under-resourced by previous Governments.

I know at first hand the impact that the stressful environment can have: my dad was a prison officer for nearly 20 years, following his 22 years of service in the Army, which included serving in the second world war. My dad worked as a prison officer at Maidstone, and then at the infamous Dartmoor prison in Devon where there were notorious criminals including Frank Mitchell, who was involved with the Kray twins. My dad then moved to Albany prison on the Isle of Wight, which became a maximum security prison. He was looking after many IRA criminals, which made the job particularly stressful as they regularly rioted and caused problems. He then moved to Reading prison, which is how I came to live in the Wokingham area.

During his career, my dad was under immense stress and pressure, often working very long hours with others to look after notorious, violent criminals on a daily basis. From my dad’s experience, I know that stress and safety fears were constant concerns that wore him and many others down.

Violence is unacceptably high in prisons. There is an average of 28 assaults on staff every day in the prison system. In the 12 months to March 2025, the rate of assaults was 7% higher than in the 12 months to March 2024—a new peak of 10,568 assaults on staff. The crisis of severe overcrowding in the prison system is clearly taking its toll on staff. In 2024, England’s prisons lost almost 150,000 working days due to mental health related sickness—a 44% increase since 2019.

What support do prison officers get? According to the Ministry of Justice, all prison officers have access to mental health support, including a 24-hour helpline, but the Prison Officers Association has said that it has consistently called on the service to fund specialist on-site mental health support. It is clear that prison officers do not feel properly supported at the time when they need it most: when they are actually at work.

The crisis in the prison system is also linked to serious staffing issues. The Justice Committee found that the prison operational workforce has struggled with recruitment, retention and sickness in recent years. As of 30 June 2025, there were 22,702 band 3 to band 5 prison officers in post, with a leaving rate of 11.6%. Despite the recruitment of new officers, the number of prison officers decreased by 4% on the previous year. Those are signs of a workforce seriously struggling to cope in a crumbling prison system.

On top of that strain, in September 2025 it was reported that hundreds of prison officers recruited from abroad may lose their jobs and be forced to return to their homelands due to changes to the Labour Government’s immigration policy. That shift came after the Prison Service began sponsoring skilled worker visas for overseas applicants to address staff shortages. To put that in numbers, according to the Prison Governors Association, more than 1,000 prison officers—nearly 5% of the workforce—have a limited right to work in the UK and are reliant on a skilled worker visa to continue. If that solution to the staffing crisis is in danger, the Government need to do more to protect prison officers and provide the support they need so that they do not leave the service.

Ministers have said that they will make new protective vests mandatory in close supervision centres and separation centres, which hold the most dangerous offenders. They then said that more evidence was needed before rolling out the vests to prison officers. It is a welcome step forward that the Lord Chancellor recently announced a big increase in protective body armour for frontline officers, but more needs to be done to ensure that all prison officers have the protection they need to do their job safely and effectively. Having the relevant protective vest will help to improve prison officers’ mental health.

No one should feel unsafe when fulfilling their professional duties, working in a prison, and of course, any changes must always be made in consultation with the officers themselves. Finally, I thank all prison officers, past and present, who have worked tirelessly to protect their colleagues and the public, and who have supported the rehabilitation of prisoners and offenders into our society.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

As the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the report is incredibly detailed and contains a whole host of recommendations. It is important that we go through that very carefully. We have all seen the uncertainty created by the Supreme Court judgment in the PACCAR case. We are looking at what the appropriate response would be. If we are going to effectively reverse the effect of that judgment, then we want to build back better and get the reforms right so that we can achieve the access to justice and the economic benefit that he so rightly says he is committed to.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)]

Since the last Justice oral questions, I am proud to have taken the next steps towards putting a landmark Hillsborough law on to the statute book, with the Second Reading of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill. There has also, understandably, been widespread interest in the number of releases in error from prisons. I can tell the House that in the year to March 2025, there were 262 releases in error and my Department has today published data showing that from April to the end of October this year, there were a further 91 mistaken releases. I am clear that we must bear down on these numbers, and I look forward to updating the House in my oral statement later today on the steps that the Government are taking to reverse this trend.

[Clive Jones]

The Conservative Thames Valley police and crime commissioner has said that the public should be doing more to stop shoplifting. This week, my constituent Sarah described being “smacked into” during a shoplifting incident and the fear that she felt at that moment. Does the Minister agree with the police and crime commissioner that Sarah is part of the problem, or does he think the bigger problem is that shoplifters know that more than 80% of these offences result in no charge at all?

[Mr Lammy]

This issue does require more neighbourhood policing and bobbies on the beat—as the hon. Gentleman knows, numbers were cut under the last Government. I also think that the intensive supervision courts, provided for in the Sentencing Bill, will be able to make a huge difference. A lot of shoplifters need a judge checking in with them regularly, and sometimes dealing with their addiction issue, to get them to change course.

ADHD: Impact on Prison Rehabilitation and Reoffending

Clive Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tessa Munt]

Indeed, there is no consistent data collection. That is a problem not only in Northern Ireland, but in England and Wales, which the debate is primarily about. If someone is identified and diagnosed, it can be hard for them to access the right care and support due to fragmented care pathways. That is compounded by limited awareness and understanding of ADHD in the prison services.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

I think all Members present will have heard from desperate parents whose children cannot get the ADHD medication that they need. Does my hon. Friend agree that the scandalous failure to provide care sets those children up to fail and that, tragically, the consequences are that some end up as the offenders we are discussing, instead of fulfilling their full potential?

[Tessa Munt]

I could not agree with my hon. Friend more. His point is similar to the one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance): the earlier we screen, the better we will be able to understand how people learn. In the long run, if life is not education, I do not know what it is—I am sure the Minister will have some sympathy with that point, because he and I both served on the Education Committee between 2010 and 2015. We need to make sure we have far better screening so that people can understand how both young and older people learn. We should never finish learning.

The report observed that only 24% of prison staff had received some level of training about neurodiversity. I accept that that was back in 2021, but I doubt it is much different now. A basic level of awareness of neurodiversity and the needs of neurodiverse people was lacking among frontline staff. The lack of training, combined with staff shortages in prisons, can impact the management of neurodiverse prisoners. Those working in prisons must be able to recognise that the behaviour of some prisoners may be linked to ADHD, and a lack of training for those in mental health teams can result in misdiagnoses or suboptimal treatment. There is an ongoing need to better embed training for prison officers and extend the establishment of neurodiversity support managers across prisons in England and Wales, as mentioned earlier.

The structural changes that are taking place in NHS England, which has commissioning responsibility for offender health services, might provide an important opportunity to consider some of the challenges, and to develop new models for supporting people with health and care needs to access the right care and treatment in the community. That is particularly important where an unmet need has the potential to have a direct impact on an ex-offender’s likelihood of reoffending. Will the Minister outline the measures that are currently in place, and what he plans to offer, in the way of support and continuity of care for neurodiverse prisoners after their release, particularly in healthcare settings?

The Ministry of Justice’s cross-Government neurodiversity action plan, published in 2022 in response to the independent review, was a step forward in the official recognition of the unmet need around neurodiversity in the criminal justice system. Some promising steps were taken to advance the commitments in the plan, such as the recruitment of more than 100 neurodiversity support managers in prisons and the roll-out of neurodiversity training in some settings. But data remains insufficient and fragmented, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) said, and that poses challenges to the effective assessment of the impact of interventions. Will the Minister outline what steps the Government are taking to monitor the number and availability of neurodiversity support managers in prisons across the country, and what measurements are being used to assess the impact of their work?

It is important to keep up the momentum behind the neurodiversity action plan. However, the 18-month review and update committed to under the action plan, which was due in early 2024, has not been published. I would be grateful for further details from the Minister on his plans to continue the implementation of the neurodiversity action plan. Will he outline what steps were taken last year and will be taken to implement the plan? When will the 18-month review, which was due in early 2024, be published?

The ADHD taskforce was established in 2024 and recently published an interim report on the state of play in ADHD care, with its final report due this summer. The taskforce has taken a cross-Government approach, rightly recognising criminal justice as a key focus. The taskforce interim report highlights a number of important and pressing issues, particularly the need for better data to understand where and how people with ADHD are interacting with public services; the relationship between education, health and wider support in relation to outcomes for people with ADHD, including contact with the criminal justice system; and the value of earlier intervention.

What steps have the Government taken and will they take to engage with the ADHD taskforce and wider stakeholders to address the barriers and implement the recommendations highlighted in its interim report and forthcoming final report? Many reports show us that people with ADHD are more likely to struggle with impulse control, emotional regulation and memory recall. We understand that those behaviours can lead to early school expulsions, unstable employment and contact with the criminal justice system.

Once someone is in the system, ADHD can affect how they interact with the police, legal advisers, the judiciary, court staff and probation officers. That can increase exponentially the risks around unreliable statements, misunderstood behaviours and disproportionate sentences. Responses to their environment can lead neurodiverse people to exhibit challenging behaviour that could result in their being disciplined or sanctioned, and affect their engagement or consideration for rehabilitation programmes.

Other reports, such as that published in December 2024 by Takeda, on reforming justice and tackling the unseen challenge of neurodiversity in the criminal justice system, have concluded that there is a need to reassess our approach to managing offenders and consider more innovative ways to interrupt the cycle of reoffending. That includes better approaches to addressing the unmet needs of neurodiverse individuals, where conditions such as ADHD may have a direct impact on offending. Does the Minister agree that, in the light of the challenges, criminal justice services should adjust the way people with ADHD are managed, to improve rehabilitation and reoffending outcomes?

Will the Minister address the matter of women who meet the criteria for ADHD in prisons? ADHD in women is often misdiagnosed or missed altogether. Women are more likely to mask symptoms, presenting as anxious, depressed, having eating disorders or as emotionally distressed. That means that for many women and girls their ADHD is often diagnosed late or not at all. More work is needed to understand the experience of women in the criminal justice system who have ADHD. They are likely to experience multiple barriers and may be impacted by co-occurring mental health issues or other disadvantages. For example, one in three women in prison self-harms—the rate is eight times higher than that on the men’s estate—and there is a strong correlation between ADHD in women and self-harming.

These issues are directly relevant to the Government’s wider ambition to reform the way female offenders are managed in England and Wales, including the intention to close one women’s prison and increase the management of female offenders in the community. That in part recognises that many women are imprisoned for lower-level offences. For example, in 2023, theft from shops was cited as the most frequent offence committed by female offenders, accounting for 40% of women’s prison sentences shorter than six months.

Evidence also demonstrates that the incarceration of women can have a broader impact on families and children. Many women are primary carers, and their imprisonment can result in children being displaced, amplifying cycles of trauma and disadvantage over the generations.

The establishment of the Women’s Justice Board presents an opportunity to address these issues, so will the Minister outline whether the board is currently considering neurodiversity and the impact of ADHD on women in prison within its remit? Will the Minister commit to ensuring that ADHD is meaningfully embedded and accounted for in the work of the board in order to ensure that the experiences of women with ADHD in the criminal justice system are a priority? The Government have stated an ambition to address the challenges of prison capacity and to shift the approach taken to women offenders. It is important to recognise that ADHD screening, a coherent care pathway and improved awareness and training in prisons could play a part in achieving that ambition.

In summary, my current membership of the Justice Committee and my membership of the Education Committee during my service here between 2010 and 2015, along with my meeting experts in ADHD and criminal justice more recently, has emphasised to me the need to take a different approach to identifying and supporting neurodiverse prisoners to help those individuals to make new lives and thereby to help the Government to make sure that prison is effective and efficient at turning prisoners’ lives around.

A new campaign focusing on the unique experience of neurodiverse individuals with ADHD in the criminal justice system explores evidence-based opportunities to improve support and outcomes. Will the Minister meet me and representatives of that campaign to discuss the challenges facing individuals with ADHD in the criminal justice system and the steps that might be taken to meet people’s needs and improve outcomes in relation to rehabilitation and reoffending? I have asked a number of questions, which I provided to the Minister and his team. I recognise that he will not necessarily be able to answer eight questions right now, but would he possibly give me the honour, first, of a meeting and, secondly, of a response to my questions?

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I apologise for the horrific circumstances that the hon. Gentleman’s constituent found herself in; that is intolerable, and no victim in our country—no woman or girl—should ever feel that way. If he wants to write to me with the specifics of the case, I will gladly look into it more closely. This Government are determined to restore faith and justice in the criminal justice system as a whole: in policing, our courts, our probation service—every element of it, from the bottom up and the top down. I look forward to hearing more from the hon. Gentleman on that case.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

The impact of Crown court delays on victims, victims’ services and the wider criminal justice system is troubling to many. One of many affected Wokingham residents is a survivor of domestic violence and sexual assault that began three decades ago. She has had numerous court hearings adjourned. Will the Minister tell my constituents how these injustices will be ended?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

This Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with record Crown court caseloads that continue to rise. That has had an impact on far too many victims, including the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. Since July, we have put more funding into Crown courts, so that they will have their greatest capacity ever, and we have doubled magistrates’ sentencing powers, so that Crown courts can focus specifically on serious crimes. We are committed to bearing down on that caseload and bringing waiting times down, while also protecting victims’ funding and introducing domestic abuse protection orders to protect victims in pilot areas.