Kate Kniveton is the MP for Burton
Kate's website can be found here
I am a survivor of domestic abuse. Abuse that included rape, coercive control and domestic violence, all of which were proved during an emotionally draining 4-day Fact Finding Hearing in the Family Court back in November 2020. I didn’t realise at that time that the legal proceedings were far from over, I believed I’d succeeded in protecting my child from an abusive parent. I was wrong.
Despite the horrific findings that had been made, I was repeatedly dragged back to court by my ex-husband who submitted appeal after appeal. The court ordered that supervised contact should continue at a family contact centre and that I should pay 50% of the costs for this. How could that be right? I appealed this decision and won. It was a landmark ruling, setting a precedent that a victim of rape and domestic abuse should not have to subsidise their perpetrator’s contact costs.
Just before Christmas 2021 two journalists applied to the court wanting to publish the judgement from the Fact Finding. I cried when my solicitor called to tell me this. I didn’t want it to be public knowledge that I was the victim of
rape and domestic abuse. I felt a sense of shame. And then I read the journalists’ applications. They were fighting for reform to the Family Court, and transparency in family proceedings, to make it an easier journey for domestic abuse victims. I realised that the shame should be my abuser’s, not mine, and that in my role as an MP, I would be failing all other victims of domestic abuse if I didn’t support the journalists’ applications. I am therefore in the unique position of being able to speak out and campaign to improve outcomes for others who don’t have a voice. Publication of the judgement from my family court case gave me that platform.
Any misgivings that I had about going public disappeared when my inbox was flooded with victims and survivors telling me their own stories and thanking me for lifting the lid on the Family Courts. I knew I’d made the right decision when I heard from one survivor who had been able to use the judgement in my case to support her own family court case and help protect her children.
My journey through the family court concluded in January of this year. It took five years in total. Five years of emotional and financial hell. Two weeks after the Final Hearing I received the ruling that my ex-husband, a former Government Minister, had been stopped from having direct contact with our child, and barred for three years from making further court applications to challenge this. Contact is now only by letter, four times a year plus birthday and Christmas. My child is safe for now.
I really hope that my case will set a precedent for other survivors who have escaped abusive relationships and are now fighting through the courts to protect their children. The Children’s Act 1989 states that it is in a child’s best
interests to have a relationship with both parents, and where there is no risk to the child I agree. But I don’t agree that the starting point, in cases of domestic abuse and rape, should be the automatic presumption of parental involvement. The Family Court is meant to protect children and survivors, and yet time and time again I hear horror stories of children being forced into contact with an abusive parent and, in some cases, being removed from the safe parent and transferred to live with the abuser. This belief in “contact at all costs” puts children and survivors at risk and, as we see all too often, can have truly tragic consequences.
I am now an Ambassador for Right2Equality and together we are advocating for change and campaigning tirelessly to end the harmful presumption of contact with abusive parents. The Government is currently reviewing the operation of the Family Courts, including the presumption of parental involvement in a child’s life and how it impacts on child safety. I will continue to use the platform I have to speak out and urge the Government to change the law surrounding parental involvement by supporting a presumption of no contact between an abusive parent and their children, and to bring forward the review without further delay to create a safer environment for children and survivors.
This pro-contact culture at all costs is dangerous and needs overturning urgently.