Our international series has, perhaps most importantly, unsettled any lingering assumption that child-to-parent violence and abuse (CPVA) can be understood within a single cultural frame. Across contributions from practitioners and researchers working in diverse national contexts, a dual picture emerges: there are recognisable patterns in how CPVA manifests, yet these patterns are always mediated by local norms, policy infrastructures, and social expectations about family life.
One of the most striking through-lines is the shared difficulty of naming the problem. Whether in the UK, Europe, or beyond, families often encounter a conceptual vacuum. Behaviours that would, in other contexts, be labelled as domestic abuse are reframed as “challenging behaviour,” “adolescence,” or a failure of parenting. This ambiguity is not simply semantic—it has material consequences. When systems do not recognise CPVA as a form of harm, pathways to support remain fragmented or non-existent. Our international contributions consistently point to the same critical gap: recognition precedes intervention. At the same time, the series demonstrates how cultural context shapes the boundaries of that recognition. In some jurisdictions, strong norms around parental authority can obscure young people’s use of violence, rendering it unspeakable or minimised. In others, a more child-centred discourse risks shifting the lens away from parental victimisation altogether. Neither position fully captures the relational complexity of CPVA, which sits uncomfortably between established categories of “child protection” and “domestic abuse.” The international evidence suggests that progress lies not in choosing one lens over the other, but in holding both in tension.
Another key insight concerns the role of services, and their limits. Across case studies, families frequently experience a ‘threshold problem’: their circumstances fall between eligibility criteria for child protection, youth justice, and adult-focused domestic abuse provision. This structural gap is not unique to one country; it is a recurring feature of systems that remain siloed. Where promising practice does emerge, it tends to be characterised by integration—multi-agency approaches that recognise CPVA as both a safeguarding issue and a relational one. Importantly, these approaches move away from individualised blame and towards a more systemic understanding of family dynamics.
Our contributors also highlight the uneven development of evidence-based interventions. While some regions have begun to formalise responses—through specialist programmes or policy frameworks—others remain reliant on ad hoc or locally driven initiatives. This unevenness matters. It not only affects the consistency of support available to families, but also the extent to which CPVA is taken seriously as a policy issue. The absence of robust data in many contexts further compounds the problem, making it difficult to advocate for resources or to evaluate what works. Yet, amid these challenges, there is a cautious optimism. The very existence of an international conversation signals a shift: CPVA is moving from the margins towards greater visibility. By placing these perspectives in dialogue, the series does more than compare national approaches—it enables a form of collective learning. Patterns become clearer, assumptions are tested, and possibilities for innovation emerge.
For practitioners and policymakers, the implications are clear. First, recognition must be strengthened through language, training, and policy alignment. Second, services need to be configured in ways that reflect the relational nature of CPVA, rather than forcing families into ill-fitting categories. Finally, there is significant value in looking beyond national borders. While solutions cannot simply be transplanted, the comparative lens helps illuminate both shared challenges and untapped opportunities. In bringing these insights together, the series underscores a simple but powerful point: understanding CPVA requires us to think across contexts, disciplines, and systems. It is only through this kind of connected analysis that meaningful, sustainable responses can take shape.
Thank you so much for our contributors. The next series is a conference-based series, exploring the narratives we have seen and heard across several conferences Nikki, Jane, and Helen have attended the past few months.
HOLES IN THE WALL 