08/07/2026
One of the things I've heard from parents time and time again is this, they're told by professionals that contact should stop, be limited or be supervised because there are safeguarding concerns.
They follow that advice because they believe they're doing what's right to protect their child.
Then the case reaches family court.
Suddenly, the focus shifts. Instead of asking why those concerns existed in the first place, the parent can find themselves being criticised for limiting contact.
The same decision that was once presented as protective can later be described as unreasonable, obstructive or even alienating.
If professionals believe a child needs protection, that advice shouldn't simply disappear when the case reaches court.
Parents shouldn't be left carrying the consequences of following safeguarding advice while the professionals who gave it are no longer there to explain why it was given.
Children deserve consistency. Families deserve consistency. And safeguarding decisions should be judged in the full context in which they were made.
