Cited by 51Intimate Partner and Family ViolenceFamily and Matrimonial LawLegal and Social Justice Studies

‘It's like going through the abuse again’: domestic violence and women and children's (un)safety in private law contact proceedings

Coy, Maddy, Scott, Emma, Tweedale, Ruth, Perks, Katherine·2015·Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law

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

Crossref · 10.1080/09649069.2015.1004863

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Coy, M., Scott, E., Tweedale, R., & Perks, K.
Affiliations
  • London Metropolitan University (GB)
  • Rights of Women, London, UK
Corresponding author
Coy, Maddy
Venue
Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law
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