Riverlight has launched a new campaign called: ‘In the Judge's Words', which has been running since February 2024.
This campaign exposed the dehumanising language and attitudes that victims and survivors of abuse have endured from judges and magistrates in family court proceedings. Riverlight conducted research through collecting first-hand accounts from survivors who recount appalling statements made by those intended to uphold justice and protect the vulnerable. The findings from this campaign are deeply disturbing. Examples include judges minimising or dismissing abuse as not being "that bad," insinuating that domestic violence is a "50/50 thing," and even stating that a victim had “goaded” the perpetrator into strangling her.
Many of the judges' statements displayed an alarming tendency to cast doubt on survivors' experiences, question their credibility, and shift blame onto them for the abuse they suffered. Survivors were admonished for actions like being in a shelter to escape abuse, accused of being spiteful towards the dad for breastfeeding, and even for exhibiting symptoms of trauma like PTSD. These kinds of victim-blaming attitudes from the very authorities tasked with ensuring justice and protecting the vulnerable enable a perpetuation of abuse and a culture where survivors' experiences are systematically dismissed or minimised.
This campaign resonated deeply and so far has reached a large audience of nearly half a million people, with thousands of comments, across all our social media platforms. Each sharing their own horrifying and similar ordeal. It highlighted just how pervasive and common place this treatment of survivors was within the family courts.
Violation of article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights
The treatment of abuse survivors documented in this campaign represents a violation of their fundamental rights to a fair hearing as guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 6 has direct legal force in the UK through the Human Rights Act 1998, which applies its fair trial protections to all civil proceedings, including family law cases.
Please read our FULL letter here: In the Judge’s Words Letter
(Below is the list which will continue to be updated):
“I accept the dad strangled you, but I also accept you goaded him into it.”
“Domestic violence is a 50/50 thing.” To a mother who has a restraining order against the father.
“Not the worst case of abuse I’ve ever seen. It’s not as if you’ve been raped.”
“If your PTSD makes you vulnerable, perhaps you shouldn’t have the child at all.” Implying the perpetrator should have the child despite acknowledging the perpetrator being the cause of the PTSD.
“If I were to stop every person who uses drugs in this city from seeing their children, I’d be stopping two thirds of the city.” In response to a survivor wanting to safeguard her children.
“No child should live in a refuge.” Blaming the mother for being in a refuge, whilst completely overlooking the fact that the fathers abuse is why they are in a refuge in the first place.
“You’re a very silly girl. I know he was abusive, it has no bearing on him as a father.” This was said after the mother asked for a fact finding.
“We are not interested in things that happened two years ago.” In response to audio evidence of the father abusing the child.
“Whilst I acknowledge a prolonged period of abuse, coercion and gaslighting (rolls eyes) it’s not like you were beaten, it wasn’t that bad.”
“Just because he was violent towards you does not mean he will hate your children the way he hates you.”
“Grow up and get over it.” In response to a survivor sharing the abuse she suffered.
“You are doing it to spite the father, can’t you squirt it into a cup or something?” In response to a survivor who breastfeeds.
“If you are so afraid of him and we are to believe what you’ve said, how can you sit near him in court?”
“It is better to have a bad dad, than no dad.”
“The CAFCASS officer might have lied but what do you want me to do, call her to court?”
“I cannot understand for the life of me why you have brought this here.” In response to a victim seeking a non-molestation order. Then proceeded to snort, laugh and sneer at her application despite the fact that she was under active threat from the perpetrator.
“Shut up and be quiet! Otherwise I’ll have social services investigate you.”
“It is a matter of opinion whether a rapist can also be a good father.”
“You could not have been raped because you were married to him (perpetrator) at the time.” Perpetuating the dangerous view that marital rape is not rape.
“Too good to be true.” In regards to the domestic abuse evidence.
“It is more likely you have caused these injuries to yourself in order to get the father in trouble.”
“Maybe one day you’ll be able to forget what happened (the abuse), move on and talk to him!”
“I accept the father has masturbated in front of the child, but this is not a welfare concern.” Then went on to give the father unsupervised overnight contact.
“Capacity to feel victimised.” To a mother who was recounting the abuse she had experienced.
“It’s important to note that the mother even admits she was earning double what the father was earning at that point in time.” In regards to the father slashing objects around him with a knife - suggesting it provides reasoning for this violent and dangerous behaviour.
“Your child would be better off if you die than if you separate from the father.” This was said by a Family Court Judge in Portugal, highlighting the global issue of this system, extending beyond Britain. The rest of the quotes are from Britain.
“Coercive control! What’s that? I don’t know what that is.”
"What possible harm could he do in one hour?"
"I don't have time to consider evidence and if I do, it may make it harder to make the ruling I need to make."
“I know what domestic abuse victims look like and you are not one of those.” A preconceived biased notion in the face of significant evidence provided in the form of pictures of injuries sustained, recordings of assault etc
“So he's breached the order twice, is it really that bad? This is nonsense.” Less than 3 months later, the father breached the order again - refused to return child after contact prompting further proceedings. Child never returned to mother.
"Even if true, just because he raped one child doesn't mean he'll rape the other. If he does you can always call the police but before you do remember I don't appreciate mothers bad mouthing fathers."
“You don’t agree to drop the non-molestation order?” Mother states no. “Well if I was the judge who gave it, I wouldn’t have allowed it. I suspect the mention of guns and threats tipped the balance”
If you have had a similar experience with a Judge in the family courts and you wish to share this with us, please email: haveyoursay@riverlight.org.uk