In 2023, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, Reem Alsalem, presented a report to the Human Rights Council (A/HRC/53/36) examining the intersection of custody proceedings, violence against women, and violence against children across multiple jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom.

The report is not a standalone critique of UK law. It is an international human rights assessment identifying a documented pattern: in family court proceedings, mothers raising legitimate safeguarding concerns about domestic abuse or child safety are often disbelieved, labelled as “alienating parents,” and penalised for their advocacy.

The Special Rapporteur highlights that the concept of “parental alienation” — which lacks agreed diagnostic criteria and has been rejected by major medical, psychiatric, and psychological bodies as a pseudo-concept — is frequently invoked in ways that override evidence of abuse and breach internationally recognised standards for the protection of women and children.

The report notes that such practices can lead to unsafe contact or residence outcomes, revictimise protective parents, and silence children’s voices when their resistance is reframed as manipulation rather than a response to harm. It calls for urgent reforms to ensure safeguarding concerns are properly investigated first, rather than dismissed through contested psychological frameworks.

This finding sits alongside earlier UK-specific warnings. The Ministry of Justice’s 2020 Harm Report documented concerns that counter-allegations of alienation could create barriers for victims raising abuse. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s 2023 report echoed ongoing cultural and practical challenges in the family courts. Together, these institutional voices paint a consistent picture of systemic issues that have persisted for years.

For families like Kate and Gabriel, these international concerns are not abstract.

In 2019, a family court judge determined that Kate — a mother raising legitimate safeguarding concerns — was “emotionally unfit” without a formal clinical assessment by a qualified psychologist or psychiatrist. That judicial finding contributed to Gabriel’s separation from his mother.

When the United Nations raises human rights concerns about how a country handles protective parents in family courts, it is not a fringe opinion. It is a formal finding on the international record, grounded in human rights standards for the protection of women and children.

The report deserves serious attention. It underscores the need for robust fact-finding on abuse allegations, caution with contested psychological concepts, regulated expert input where emotional or psychological fitness is at issue, and genuine prioritisation of child safety over presumptions of contact.

Professional systems must do better. Fit, protective mothers like Kate should not have their concerns reframed as the problem. Children like Gabriel should not bear the cost of repeated systemic shortcomings.

The evidence is on the record — from the UN, the Ministry of Justice, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, and peer-reviewed research. The question is what it will take for acknowledgment to produce meaningful, lasting change.

Sources

• UN Human Rights Council (2023). Custody, violence against women and violence against children. Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, Reem Alsalem (A/HRC/53/36). https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/ahrc5336-custody-violence-against-women-and-violence-against-children
• Ministry of Justice (2020). Assessing risk of harm to children and parents in private law children cases.
• Domestic Abuse Commissioner (2023). The Family Court and Domestic Abuse: Achieving Cultural Change.