'Why recognising parents as victims is essential to tackling child to parent abuse'

Child to parent abuse (CPA) is one of the most hidden forms of domestic abuse in the United Kingdom.

It refers to patterns of behaviour where children and adolescents use violence, coercion, intimidation or controlling tactics against their parents or carers.

Unlike ordinary conflict between parents and teenagers, CPA involves sustained behaviours that instil fear, undermine authority and destabilise family life.

The reality of child to parent abuse

Parents experiencing CPA endure the full spectrum of domestic abuse (source: PEGS). Physical assaults - hitting, pushing, or the use of weapons - are reported alongside verbal abuse, humiliation and psychological intimidation. Property damage, financial manipulation, and the coercion of siblings are also common features of this abuse.

It rarely begins with violence: many cases start around puberty, sometimes as early as age eight, with verbal aggression that escalates into threats and physical harm as the child grows older.

The abuse rarely stops with the parent. Siblings are at risk of direct harm or suffer secondary trauma from witnessing the violence.

Shame and stigma

The consequences are devastating. Parents often describe walking on eggshells in their own homes, afraid of provoking violent outbursts.

Shame and stigma are pervasive: many feel they cannot disclose the abuse for fear of being judged as poor parents or blamed for their child’s behaviour. Others fear that reporting will criminalise their child or lead to removal by social services.

This isolation means the majority of incidents remain hidden; studies suggest at least 40% of CPA is never reported to authorities (source: Mayor of London).

Unchecked, CPA contributes to intergenerational cycles of abuse: today’s child perpetrator may become tomorrow’s abusive partner, embedding patterns of coercion into adulthood.

Exclusion from domestic abuse law

Despite the severity of CPA, the current legal framework in the UK leaves parents largely unprotected.

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 defines domestic abuse broadly, recognising physical, emotional and coercive behaviours, but explicitly excludes perpetrators under the age of sixteen.

Parents abused by children, therefore, fall outside the act’s protections - they cannot access domestic abuse protection notices or orders, or the full range of victim support services.

The limits of youth justice and child protection responses

Instead, cases of CPA are addressed through a patchwork of other laws:

• Youth justice measures. Children aged 10 and over in England and Wales can be prosecuted for assault, criminal damage or threats to kill. Courts may impose referral orders, youth rehabilitation orders or custodial sentences. Yet parents are often reluctant to involve the police, fearing the criminalisation of their child.
• Child welfare provisions. Under the Children Act 1989, local authorities can intervene to provide services if the child is deemed to be in need, through section 17, or carry out investigations if they suspect the child is suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm (section 47). These interventions, however, are focused on the welfare of the child, not the protection of the parent.
• Anti-social behaviour tools. Historically, the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 allowed local authorities to impose parenting orders requiring parents to attend programmes to address problems with their children’s behaviours. These have been functionally replaced by voluntary parenting interventions, through early help or youth offending services, however, they also do little to recognise the parent as victim.

The result is a legal blind spot: CPA is either criminalised within the youth justice system or reframed as a child welfare issue. In neither scenario is the parent recognised in law as a victim of domestic abuse.

'Systemic neglect that leaves parents silenced'

When parents seek help, responses from statutory agencies often mirror these legal limitations. Children's services, bound by child welfare duties, tend to treat CPA as evidence of parenting difficulties rather than as abuse.

Parents report being told they are “too soft” or “unable to set boundaries", reinforcing stigma and discouraging disclosure. Fear of child removal further deters engagement with services.

Although criminal offences technically apply, police officers are often reluctant to criminalise children, instead advising parents to “manage the situation at home". While this discretion avoids unnecessary prosecution, it leaves parents without recognition as victims of crime.

The combined effect is systemic neglect: parents are silenced, children are unchallenged, and abuse persists.

Digital influences on CPA

Blaming parents for CPA ignores the wider external influences shaping children’s behaviour. Contemporary childhood is marked by exposure to powerful and often harmful environments beyond parental control.

Digital influences play a central role. Violent video games normalise conflict resolution through aggression, while social media platforms amplify harmful role models, with figures such as Andrew Tate promoting misogyny and hyper-masculinity.

At the same time, the accessibility of violent online pornography distorts children’s perceptions of relationships and sexuality.

The role of socio-economic pressures

Socio-economic pressures compound these influences. Dual-income households and insecure work leave many children unsupervised for long periods, exposed to gangs or harmful online spaces.

Families relying on benefits are stigmatised, while poverty and housing insecurity increase vulnerability to CPA.

Recognising these external drivers is critical. Without addressing them, policy continues to unfairly locate blame solely within the family home, perpetuating parental stigma.

How CPA can be rooted in adverse early experiences

CPA among children who have experienced trauma, including many adopted children, is not simply the product of “bad behaviour” but is rooted in the long-term impact of adverse early experiences.

Early exposure to neglect or abuse frequently necessitates control-oriented survival strategies, which can later manifest as coercion or violence toward adoptive parents.

Moreover, unresolved feelings of abandonment, loss and identity confusion can fuel anger that is directed at parental figures who symbolise both safety and a painful reminder of early disruption.

Neurological research underscores that chronic stress impairs the development of impulse control and emotional regulation, exacerbating the risk of aggressive outbursts.

For many, abusive behaviour also functions as a way of “testing” relationships, pushing parents to the point of rejection to confirm expectations of abandonment.

The recognition of trauma-based CPA in care experienced children

This underscores the need for trauma-informed interventions. However, local authority responses to child-to-parent abuse are inconsistent and often shaped by whether the child falls under their statutory remit.

Where adopted or fostered children are concerned, CPA is frequently anticipated as a by-product of trauma, attachment disruption or loss.

Authorities are more likely to respond with therapeutic or support-based measures, through mechanisms such as the Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund or adoption support duties under the Adoption and Children Act 2002.

These children are recognised as carrying complex needs, and their aggression is framed within a trauma-informed discourse, prompting (at least in principle) more specialised management strategies.

How trauma-related CPA can occur in birth families

By contrast, families outside the local authority’s scope - where children remain with biological parents - rarely encounter the same level of understanding.

This is despite the fact that trauma-related CPA can also occur within biological families, for examples, due to abandonment, bereavement, bullying, social exclusion or emerging neurodevelopmental and sensory trauma.

In such cases, referrals made by schools or GPs are frequently diverted to early help or family support teams rather than triggering section 47 or section 17 assessments under the Children Act 1989.

The rationale is that the child is perceived as the cause rather than the victim of harm, leaving professionals without clear statutory authority to intervene on behalf of the parent.

A two-tier system

This inconsistency contributes to fragmented responses and the absence of a uniform safeguarding framework for parents experiencing CPA.

This divergence means that adoptive and foster families, while not always adequately supported, at least encounter a system that expects and plans for CPA, whereas biological parents facing the same dynamics are frequently left without recognition or tailored assistance.

The result is a two-tier system, where trauma-related aggression is legitimised in one context but pathologised or minimised in another, leaving many families effectively abandoned. 

Closing the legal and policy gap

Reform is urgently needed to close the legal and policy gap. I would suggest the following measures:

1. Amend the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. CPA should be explicitly recognised as a form of domestic abuse, ensuring parents have access to protection orders, victim services and recognition as victims.
2. Develop specialist services. Tailored interventions - therapeutic programmes, respite care and confidential support for parents - are necessary to break the cycle of abuse without defaulting to child criminalisation.
3. Strengthen professional training. Social workers, police officers and educators require training to identify CPA as abuse, not simply poor parenting, and to respond in ways that support both parent and child.
4. Address external harms. The government must strengthen regulation of online harms, fund diversionary youth programmes and mitigate socio-economic stressors that fuel CPA.
5. Enable safe disclosure. Parents should be able to report CPA without fear of ridicule, child removal or stigma. Statutory guidance could ensure disclosures trigger supportive, not punitive, interventions.

Recognising parents as legitimate victims is 'essential'

Taken together, the current legal, social, and policy framework leaves CPA dangerously unaddressed. Parents suffer in silence, children remain unsupported in their trauma and intergenerational cycles of abuse risk being perpetuated.

Without statutory reform, specialist services and consistent trauma-informed responses across all family contexts, CPA will continue to sit in the shadows of domestic abuse policy.

The recognition of parents as legitimate victims, alongside the development of safe pathways for disclosure and intervention, is essential if this hidden form of abuse is to be tackled with the seriousness it demands.

Sharon Davis is a PhD researcher in law at the University of Derby