Re-thinking domestic abuse in child protection: A call for change
Domestic abuse (DA) remains one of the most pressing issues within child protection systems. A recent meeting of the Quality Circle, chaired by Gemma Taylor KC and featuring Professor Brid Featherstone, gathered over 160 participants to examine how current approaches could be improved. This session, part of an ongoing conversation, was prompted by a Nuffield-funded research project exploring how to respond differently to domestic abuse.
Key findings from research
Professor Featherstone highlighted three major areas of concern based on the research findings:
- Inadequate knowledge base - Service providers rely on a knowledge base that is not sufficiently robust. Without solid evidence, services risk adopting ineffective strategies.
- Intersectionality and the need for tailored services - Domestic abuse responses have historically taken a "one size fits all" approach, failing to account for the complex ways gender, race, class, and other social factors intersect. Services should understand and reflect the nuances of how men's and women’s lives are shaped by these dynamics.
- Lack of curiosity about the nature of domestic abuse - There have been some practice innovations but there is still resistance to critically examining what constitutes domestic abuse and how different communities perceive safety. A shift toward co-producing practice frameworks that involve both practitioners and families was called for.
Lessons from safeguarding reviews
Professor Featherstone referred to the reviews into the deaths of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes and Star Hobson, which highlighted how wider families can be important sources of safety and that the policy emphasis on multi-agency working may be a little unbalanced. The emphasis on professionals who are not always available or know the family and potential risks should be accompanied by a thorough appreciation of the possibilities within wider families and communities for ensuring safety. The research found that child protection plans often did not adequately address social issues such as housing or intergenerational trauma. Moreover, boys who experienced domestic abuse were frequently left unsupported, perpetuating cycles of harm.
The language used in child protection services also came under scrutiny. Women were often shown relatively more compassion when making "unhealthy relationship choices," whereas men were viewed as rational actors exercising power without acknowledgment of their own trauma, mental health issues, or substance abuse struggles. Such framing limits the development of effective interventions for men.
Another discussion point related to the number of child deaths that happen during contact with parents (usually men) who are known to pose a risk of domestic abuse.
International perspectives
Looking beyond the UK, different countries have approached domestic abuse responses in varied ways:
- South Africa has faced significant challenges due to historical trauma and forced migration, demonstrating that one country’s framework cannot simply be applied to another without adaptation.
- The United States has largely approached domestic abuse as a criminal justice issue, a model that originated during the Clinton administration. However, Black feminist scholars in the U.S. have long argued for a more intersectional understanding of domestic abuse.
- Australia, through scholars like Michael Flood, has explored the role of cultural norms in shaping domestic abuse and the importance of preventative measures.
Challenges and issues
Key themes from the discussion:
- Persistent practice orthodoxies - Many child protection services operate under a model that places the burden of protecting children solely on women, rather than addressing the role of men in the family dynamic. There is also significant resistance to moving beyond an individual casework approach to consider broader community-based (public health style) solutions.
- Flaws in multi-agency approaches - While multi-agency collaboration is often championed, it can be problematic, particularly in minoritised communities. A reliance on statutory agencies can overlook the strengths and resources within these communities, limiting effective intervention strategies.
- A narrow understanding of domestic abuse - Domestic abuse is often treated as a homogenous issue, with limited recognition of different types of violence such as situational couple violence and intimate terrorism. Additionally, there is a notable gap in engaging with men beyond placing them in generic intervention programmes, which may not address their specific needs or risks.
- Role of families and communities - The role of wider family networks was considered. Too often, failure to report abuse is seen as collusion rather than being examined in the context of family relationships, financial constraints, or fear of losing access to children. This lack of nuance can prevent meaningful engagement with community-based solutions. Family Group Conferences (FGCs) have been gaining traction as a restorative tool that widens support networks for survivors and children while breaking the secrecy that allows domestic abuse to persist. However, there remains anxiety around their use, particularly regarding risks when the perpetrator is involved. Experienced practitioners emphasised the importance of managing safety concerns while recognising the benefits of community engagement.
- The impact of poverty - Poverty may not be a direct cause of domestic abuse but it shapes a family’s ability to escape and navigate safety. Child protection practices often fail to address broader social and economic circumstances, such as housing instability and financial dependency, that affect survivors’ choices and options.
Moving forward: what needs to change?
To create a more effective child protection system that responds appropriately to domestic abuse, the research suggested several key actions:
1. Strengthening evidence-based approaches
- Moving beyond the current Children in Need (CIN) census to develop independent, robust measures for understanding domestic abuse cases.
- Ensuring that data collection includes information on gender, family context, and other relevant dimensions.
2. Reframing multi-agency working
- Moving away from a top-down, expert-led approach and toward models that engage communities as active partners.
- Considering a public health approach to domestic abuse that recognises broader social determinants of safety and harm.
3. Training and policy development
- Local authorities should provide more comprehensive training on domestic abuse for professionals across sectors (with input from those with experience of domestic abuse/survivors).
- Policymakers must incorporate findings from past public inquiries into current legislation and child protection frameworks.
4. Listening to children’s voices
- Ensuring that children’s perspectives are central to child protection plans.
- Engaging family members to better understand the child's experience and needs.
Domestic abuse is both a child protection issue and a broader social problem that requires a more thoughtful, intersectional, and community-oriented response. Professor Featherstone’s research challenges policymakers and practitioners to move beyond outdated models and towards a more holistic, evidence-informed approach. The time for change is now—only by rethinking our frameworks and engaging with families and communities can we create safer environments for children and survivors.
Clare Seth, Kinship Consultant, CoramBAAF.
Additional references
About the Safe & Together™ Model | Safe & Together Institute
National review into child sexual abuse within the family environment - GOV.UK
Child Protection in England - May 2022
Understanding and addressing violence against women - WHO, 2012