‘It's like going through the abuse again’: domestic violence and women and children's (un)safety in private law contact proceedings
Abstract
Domestic violence is the most common welfare issue raised in private law contact proceedings. A wide range of studies has shown that judicial decisions about contact which fail to take safety into account endanger women and children physically and emotionally. Yet a presumption that contact is in the best interests of the child, combined with an increasing focus on fathers' rights, casts long shadows over legal judgments, policy frameworks and individual cases. This article presents research which examined child contact proceedings as a legal process to identify if, how and when domestic violence was factored into judicial decision making. Drawing on in-depth interviews with 34 women who had recently completed, or were currently undergoing, proceedings, the article highlights how two aspects of private law Children Act proceedings diminished women's safety: the absence of special facilities in family courts and gaps in legal representation for both victim-survivors and perpetrators.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Survivor-mothers of IPV have reported legal abuse and its consequences to journalists and qualitative researchers for decades.
“Protective mothers who have survived IPV have been disclosing experiences of legal abuse and its devastating consequences for themselves and their children to journalists and qualitative researchers for decades (Coy et al., 2015; Douglas, 2018a; Elizabeth, 2017; Miller & Smolter, 2011; Rivera et al., 2018; Watson & Ancis, 2013).”
From Coercive Control in the Courtroom: the Legal Abuse Scale (LAS) (2023) · cites this paper as Coy et al., 2015
Cites
Coercive Control: The Entrapment Of Women In Personal Life
Stark, E. (2007) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195154276.001.0001 · Cited by 1,502 · see citing works
Hester, M. (2011) · British Journal of Social Work · doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcr095 · Cited by 295 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Coercive Control in the Courtroom: the Legal Abuse Scale (LAS)
Gutowski, E. R., & Goodman, L. A. (2023) · Journal of Family Violence · doi:10.1007/s10896-022-00408-3 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
“Protective mothers who have survived IPV have been disclosing experiences of legal abuse and its devastating consequences for themselves and their children to journalists and qualitative researchers for decades (Coy et al., 2015; Douglas, 2018a; Elizabeth, 2017; Miller & Smolter, 2011; Rivera et al., 2018; Watson & An…”
Background
- Authors
- Coy, M., Scott, E., Tweedale, R., & Perks, K.
- Affiliations
- London Metropolitan University (GB)
- Rights of Women, London, UK
- Corresponding author
- Coy, Maddy
- ORCID
- Coy, Maddy
- Venue
- Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2015-01-02
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 53-69
- ISSN
- 0964-9069 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-9621
- OpenAlex
- W1975038408
- Cited by
- 51
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 2.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Health › Intimate Partner and Family Violence
- Social Sciences › Law › Family and Matrimonial Law
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal and Social Justice Studies
- Keywords
- domestic violence, child contact, women's safety, child safety, judicial decision-making, best interests of the child, fathers' rights, family court, legal representation, victim-survivors, perpetrators, Children Act
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review