Tag Archives: children

Why Earlier Intervention Matters in Child-to-Parent Aggression 

Next up in our conference blogs is mine! It was an absolute privilege to be the first panel speaker of the Reframing Professional Practice conference, and Maria did a great job of creating a life course narrative thread through the planning of the day. My particular interests are the early indicators and how we can support families before harm escalates. Here’s a bit more about that:

When families experience Child-to-Parent Aggression (CPA), or child and adolescent-to-parent violence and abuse (CAPVA), the response often comes too late. Support frequently arrives when harm has escalated, relationships feel fractured, parents are exhausted, and children are already being viewed through a lens of risk. However, families do not suddenly arrive at crisis. There are usually moments, sometimes years earlier, where different questions could have been asked and different support could have been offered. 

One of the challenges within this field is that we have often tried to understand children’s harmful behaviours using frameworks developed for adults. Yet children are not adults. Their behaviour exists within the context of development, relationships, unmet needs, emotional regulation, neurodivergence, trauma, family systems, and wider social pressures. This distinction matters. 

When a child causes harm, we must hold two truths at the same time: parents can be experiencing very real fear, distress, and harm, and the child causing that harm may also be struggling. Recognising a child’s needs does not minimise a parent’s experience. Instead, it creates more accurate opportunities for support. Many younger children displaying aggressive or harmful behaviours are not necessarily acting from a place of deliberate intent, control, or a desire to cause fear. For some children, these behaviours may be better understood as explosive and harmful impulses; expressions of distress or maladaptive attempts to meet underlying needs. 

This requires us to move beyond asking only: “How do we stop this behaviour?” 

We also need to ask: 

  • “What need is this behaviour trying to meet?” 
  • “What is happening within this child, this relationship, this family, and this wider system?” 

Children communicate through behaviour, particularly when they do not yet have the emotional, cognitive, or relational tools to communicate in other ways. Harmful behaviour may reflect reactive responses to overwhelm, affective needs linked to emotional or sensory regulation, relational needs around belonging and connection, or attempts to regain a sense of safety. If we only respond to the visible behaviour, we risk missing the distress underneath. 

Too often, families seeking help describe feeling blamed. Parents may feel they are seen as failing to manage their child, while children may internalise messages that they are simply “bad” or “dangerous”. These narratives can increase shame and make families less likely to seek support until they reach breaking point. Earlier intervention means creating pathways where families can ask for help before they are in crisis. It means recognising that parents are often the most important people supporting their child — but they cannot do this without being supported themselves. Expecting families to absorb increasingly complex needs without appropriate help is not prevention. 

A meaningful response to CPA must therefore be relational and systemic. It must consider the whole family: parents, siblings, children, schools, communities, and the services surrounding them. No single explanation or intervention will fit every family, because families’ experiences are not all the same. This is why public health approaches are so important. We need to build systems that notice early signs, reduce stigma, provide accessible support, and respond to need rather than waiting for harm to escalate. 

Earlier intervention is not about excusing harmful behaviour. It is about understanding it well enough to change it. When we recognise children as children, listen to parents without blame, and respond to families with curiosity rather than judgement, we create opportunities for repair, connection, and safety. 

The future of CPA support should not be built around asking families to prove they are struggling enough… It should be built around ensuring they never have to reach that point in the first place. 

Whilst some of this may feel like ‘blue sky thinking’; will we ever have the resources and capacity to provide true early intervention again? I don’t know, but relational practice is at the heart of all of this, and with so many in the room with us at the conference who have the power to make change, I really believe it’s possible.

Nikki Rutter

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Post-Adoption Support in Crisis: Families Speak Out 

If you are at all interested in Adoption and LinkedIn, you will already be aware of Claire Agius, a PhD student from Manchester Metropolitan University, who has recently submitted her PhD and kindly created a post on her emotionally-aware research with adoptive parents for the final blog on our adoption series.

Adoption is one route to permanence for children who cannot remain with their birth families. Many have lived through neglect, abuse, or significant early adversity. Adoptive parents step forward to provide stability and care, but they cannot heal trauma alone. When systems delay, misdirect, or fragment support, families are left carrying unbearable burdens, and the stability adoption promises is put at risk. 

My doctoral study explores the impact of raising a child with trauma on adoptive parents’ mental health and examines how systemic structures help or hinder families. Conducted between 2022 and 2025, the research combined in-depth interviews with adoptive parents and post-adoption professionals with a participatory, film-based process that enabled parents to revisit and re-interpret their own stories. Parents co-edited emotional “touchpoints” from their filmed interviews, first for emotional processing, and later for collaborative meaning-making. This innovative two-stage process revealed not only what families said in the moment, but how they later understood their struggles, providing rare insight into why problems persist across time. 

Methods and Approach 

The study engaged adoptive parents and post-adoption professionals across England. A distinctive feature was the use of filmed narrative interviews, later revisited with parents through an adapted Experience-Based Co-Design (EBCD) process. Parents co-edited their most painful or telling moments, “emotional touchpoints”, which became the basis for deeper reflection and co-analysis. Importantly, emotions often shifted between the first and second viewing: what was raw distress initially was later reinterpreted with new perspective. This temporal dimension offered a richer understanding of how families live with and make sense of ongoing struggles. 

Key Findings: Five Causal Mechanisms 

The research identified five systemic mechanisms that help explain why adoptive families encounter the same challenges again and again: 

Crisis-Led Logic → Invisible Early Struggle 

Services are triggered by visible breakdown, not early distress. Parents described desperate pleas for help that went unanswered until crisis loomed. Professionals echoed this dynamic, explaining that thresholds and funding criteria meant they were often forced into reactive rather than preventative roles. 

Unsupported Care Work → Relational Burnout 

Parents’ own emotional needs are rarely recognised. The relentless labour of advocating, soothing, and managing daily crises falls heavily on them, with little formal or informal support. Professionals noted that while therapeutic resources might be offered for the child, parental wellbeing was considered a lesser priority in post-adoption support planning. 

Mistrust and Marginalisation → Silenced Insight 

When parents seek help, they are too often met with suspicion or blame. Instead of being recognised as experts on their children, they are treated as the problem. Several professionals reflected on how mistrust erodes open communication, acknowledging that risk-focused cultures can silence parents’ perspectives. 

Systemic Fragmentation → Constant Bureaucratic Burden 

Families must navigate siloed services, repeated assessments, and defensive institutions. Parents spoke of becoming “experts by necessity” in order to access what their children required. Professionals described a fragmented landscape that left them struggling to coordinate support or act decisively across organisational boundaries. 

Service-Defined Progress → Residual Struggle 

Support is often withdrawn once narrow service criteria are met, even if families continue to struggle behind closed doors. Services may focus on keeping placements intact while overlooking the wider toll. Professionals described similar frustrations, noting that time-limited interventions often forced them to close cases prematurely, even when they suspected families would continue to need help. 

Impacts and Implications 

Together, these mechanisms explain why adoptive families experience persistent strain. Parents’ mental health suffers, siblings carry secondary trauma, and placements teeter on the edge of breakdown. For government, the cost is twofold: the human suffering borne by families, and the financial burden of avoidable crises across social care, education, and health. 

The findings carry important implications at multiple levels: 

  • For families: parents’ mental health declines under unsupported care work, and siblings experience secondary trauma that remains invisible to services. 
  • For systems: a crisis-led, fragmented model means resources are mobilised late, at greater human and financial cost. The Adoption Support Fund, while valuable, is shaped by bureaucratic gatekeeping. Parents described decisions made by staff without sufficient trauma knowledge, leading to inappropriate or stop–start provision. Trauma-informed practice must extend from top to bottom of the system, including commissioners and fund-holders as well as frontline practitioners. 
  • For knowledge and practice: by marginalising adoptive parents’ perspectives, services lose access to vital expertise. This study shows that film-based, participatory methods can surface and revisit lived experience in ways that expose persistent problems and open space for collaborative solutions. 

Recommendations 

Based on these findings, five preliminary priorities for reform are proposed: 

  1. Invest in early relational support – Commission services that intervene proactively, building resilience within the first year post-placement. 
  1. Support the whole family – Embed provision that includes parents’ mental health and siblings’ wellbeing alongside the child. 
  1. Reduce bureaucratic gatekeeping – Simplify and standardise access to the Adoption Support Fund so families can receive timely help. 
  1. Embed trauma-informed practice system-wide – Extend trauma awareness beyond frontline therapists to commissioners, fund-holders, and policymakers. 
  1. Value lived expertise through co-design – Involve adoptive parents directly in shaping provision, policy, and evaluation frameworks. 

Conclusion 

Adoptive families are willing partners in the work of healing trauma. But they cannot do it alone. By using filmed interviews and a co-interpretive process, this study demonstrates both the human and systemic costs of current approaches, and the potential of participatory, trauma-informed methods to generate change. Adoption will remain a sustainable route to permanence only if support is early, relational, and family-centred, and if adoptive parents’ lived expertise is recognised as central to system redesign. 

Claire’s ’emotional touchpoints’ will no doubt resonate with many families, and what we really like about her work is the relevance to practice. The recommendations may seem common sense, but they highlight the very real challenges experienced by adoptive families. Do connect with Claire if you are interested in learning more.

Leave a comment

Filed under Discussion, Family life

Is it conflict – or something more? Understanding couple relationship dynamics

As co-founder of We Are Amity CIC, I’m often asked the same question: “Is this parental conflict, or is it something more serious?” When tensions rise at home, it can be hard to distinguish between everyday disagreements and something more harmful. But understanding this difference is vital. It shapes the kind of support we offer, the risks we consider, and the safety we help families create, especially for children. In this article, I explore how to tell the difference between conflict and control and why naming the dynamic matters.

Is it conflict – or something more? Understanding couple relationship dynamics

When tensions between parents rise home, it can be challenging to understand what’s really going on, especially when strong emotions, parenting pressures, or past experiences cloud our judgement.

One of the most common questions families and professionals ask is this:

“Is this conflict between us or is it something more serious, like abuse?”

Understanding the difference isn’t just helpful; it’s essential. It shapes how support is offered, what risks might be present, and how children are protected.

What Is Parental Conflict?

The Department for Work & Pensions released official statistics on the number of children affected by parental conflict in families. The figures showed that 12% of children in couple-parent families had at least one parent who reported ‘relationship distress’ in the 2021 to 2022 survey period. Reducing Parental Conflict – GOV.UK

Parental conflict happens in many families. It often looks like:

  • Heated arguments about parenting, money or other stressors
  • Shouting, blaming or interrupting during disagreements
  • A sense of relationship frustration that builds over time
  • Struggling to resolve everyday arguments

In these relationships, both people usually feel able to voice their views, even if those views aren’t always heard kindly. There’s often mutual stress, shared responsibility, and an underlying desire to resolve things, even if that’s not always successful.

These dynamics can still affect children. Ongoing conflict, especially when it’s loud, unresolved, or frequent, can leave children feeling anxious, caught in the middle, or unsure how to express their emotions. We know this impacts their ability to sleep, do well at school and their emotional outcomes. But crucially, there is usually no ongoing fear or deliberate control in these situations.

Example: A separated couple frequently argue over contact arrangements or money. They both express anger, and communication often breaks down, but neither tries to control the other. Both want to find a way forward, even if they’re stuck on how.

What is domestic abuse?

Domestic abuse is different. It’s not about two people disagreeing. It’s a pattern where one person holds power over the other, using fear, control, and manipulation to maintain that imbalance.

It can show up as:

  • One person constantly feeling afraid to speak or act freely
  • Monitoring phone use, whereabouts, or who someone sees
  • Using finances or children to control or punish
  • Belittling, gaslighting, or turning others against a partner
  • Physical or sexual intimidation, threats, or harm

Unlike parental conflict, abuse often means one person changes their behaviour to keep the peace, while the other’s behaviour goes unchecked. Children in these families may hide their feelings, act as ‘protectors’, or mimic controlling behaviours.

Example: A parent hesitates to speak during meetings because they fear the repercussions at home. They avoid seeking support, knowing their partner reads all messages and accuses them of betrayal. The children speak in whispers, describing the atmosphere as “walking on eggshells.”

Why the lines feel blurry

It feels blurry because there are behaviours in relationships featuring parental conflict as well as abusive ones. Examples of behaviours in both types of relationships can include shouting, swearing, disagreeing, blaming, silence and withdrawal, non-physical and aggression. What matters is the context and intention.

Families don’t always use the word “abuse.” Instead, they say:

  • “We’re just not good at communicating.”
  • “We both have a temper.”
  • “It’s been like this for so long… I don’t even know what’s normal anymore.”

There are reasons people struggle to name what’s happening:

  • It’s become ‘normal’: When someone grows up around control or shouting, they might not see it as unusual.
  • Fear and shame: Admitting abuse can feel like admitting failure, or risking further harm.
  • Control isn’t always obvious: It can be silent, slow-building, and invisible to outsiders.
  • People fight back: Sometimes a non-abusive person may shout or react, leading to confusion about who’s to blame.’

But the key question is this…Does one person consistently feel unsafe, unheard, or unable to live freely?

That’s the difference between conflict and control.

Spotting the signs

Here are some signs that point to unhealthy and potentially abusive dynamics:

  • One person walks on eggshells; the other dominates.
  • Someone changes their behaviour out of fear, not respect.
  • Arguments end when one person gives in, not because a compromise is reached.
  • There’s constant emotional pressure, threats, or manipulation.
  • Children take on adult roles, become anxious, or withdraw.

In contrast, conflict, though uncomfortable, usually allows for mutual input, personal freedom, and emotional repair.

What families and practitioners can do

It’s important not to rush and ‘label’ but not dismiss concerns.

Ask:

  • Does each person feel emotionally and physically safe?
  • Can both people express themselves without fear?
  • Are children thriving or treading carefully?
  • Is there a pattern of control, isolation, or fear?

Whether you’re a family member, friend, or professional, your role isn’t to judge but to listen, notice patterns, and create space for change. That might mean conflict resolution support, therapeutic intervention, or, in some cases, safety planning and protective action.

Final thoughts

Conflict and abuse are not the same, but both affect families deeply, especially children. Understanding differences allows for better support, clearer choices, and safer outcomes.

When we stop asking “Who started it?” and start asking “Who has the power?” we begin to see the dynamics more clearly. For some couples, a relationship breakdown is inevitable, and the conflict is often part of that breakdown. For others who want help and stay together, the right support can be transformative.  But for those who are experiencing abuse, understanding the early recognition of abusive dynamics can be lifesaving.

Emily Nickson Williams is the co-founder of We Are Amity CIC www.weareamity.co.uk

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Norfolk PCC : Pilot to help vulnerable young people will provide a lasting legacy

A pilot to provide specialist support to families affected by child to parent abuse has been celebrating its positive outcomes.

The pilot has already offered support to 81 children and young people and their families.

Over 70 practitioners across Norfolk Children’s Services, Norfolk Youth Justice, NIDAS and some Norfolk schools have been trained to deliver Respect’s accredited intervention ‘The Respect Young Peoples Programme’ also known as the RYPP. The intervention is for families where children or young people aged 8-18 are displaying repeated abusive and harmful behaviour towards their parent or caregivers (including stepparents, adoptive parents, foster carers and kinship carers). This abuse can be physical, verbal, emotional, psychological, sexual, financial, damage to property, coercive and controlling.

Norfolk’s Police and Crime Commissioner, Sarah Taylor, said: “Thanks to funding from the Home Office’s Perpetrator Fund, this pilot has given us a rare opportunity to work closely with families experiencing child- and adolescent-to-parent violence and abuse. Some families experiencing this type of violence or abuse have said that they feel stuck between a rock and a hard place as they don’t necessarily know how to best cope with the situation but don’t want to get the police involved. By working with other organisations including NCC’s Children’s Services, Youth Justice and NIDAS, this project has worked with families to help transform the support available, which in turn has helped them navigate these difficulties.

“Early findings show this work had had a profoundly positive effect on families involved, with a reduction in the need to involve the police or other services in interventions.”

“This joined up approach represents true partnership working. The Child and Adolescent to Parent Violence and Abuse (CAPVA) project has been overseen by my office and delivered in partnership with Respect, Norfolk Constabulary, Norfolk Integrated Domestic Abuse Service (NIDAS), Youth Justice, Norfolk Children’s Services and Brave Futures. 

“As part of the project, NIDAS recruited two full time CAPVA advocates, a UK first, and Brave Futures provided therapeutic support for young people who require extra support prior to engaging in the RYPP. I am delighted that this project has trained 72 practitioners to deliver the RYPP directly to families and the work by these practitioners will provide a lasting legacy.”

Justine Dodds, Head of Respect Young People’s Service, said: “The Respect Young People’s Service (RYPS) has been delighted to work with the Norfolk Police and Crime Commissioner this year and last. The programme has two dedicated Children and Adolescent to Parent Violence and Abuse (CAPVA) workers whose only role is to work with families on this specific type of abuse.

“This is the first time the Respect Young Peoples Service has trained staff in schools. This has been very exciting, with the potential to reach families before they hit crisis point and are forced to contact statutory services.

“The awareness raising work that we have delivered across children’s services and police is helping to improve understanding and empathy, and to identify what is often a ‘hidden harm’. 

“We want to champion our partners and the people that we have trained so far. This programme has the potential to be truly transformational and preventative by stopping CAPVA, before it starts.”

The Respect Young People’s Programme – how does it work?

The Respect Young People’s Programme (RYPP) is voluntary, and both the young person and their parent/guardian must consent to take part and be willing to engage. The programme avoids blame and works together with both the parents/carers and young person, seeing them all as part of the solution. The programme is designed to enable families to identify negative behaviour patterns and work towards positive outcomes.

RYPP practitioners provide support, insight, and simple solutions to help to improve family relationships via weekly structured sessions and takes approximately three or more months to complete. Sessions are varied and use a variety of creative tools and techniques, underpinned by theoretical models – primarily social learning theory, cognitive behavioural approaches, restorative justice, and conflict resolution.

One RYPP practitioner supporting their client said:

“The family engaged well throughout and really took on board everything within the sessions. I feel very proud of how far they’ve come and the improvement in their relationship and conflict resolution.

“The positive change in behaviour and reduction in aggressive, violent and or abusive behaviour has been wonderful to witness and reinforces my belief in the programme.”

Therapeutic support for children and young people

As part of the CAPVA Project, therapeutic support is provided to children and young people via a new service known as Changing Futures. Delivered by Brave Futures, a spokesperson explained the benefits: “Changing Futures provides a safe environment where children and young people can explore their emotions, gain deeper insight into their behaviours, and minimise their impact on others. Our support encourages self-regulation and equips them with healthy coping strategies to better manage their future. We are already witnessing the positive effects of this therapeutic approach, as children and young people are building trust, applying strategies learned in sessions, and showing improved engagement with education and employment.”

Families have their say

One young person after taking part in the Respect Young People’s Programme said: “It’s 100% helped me and mum and we have conversations every day.  It’s not just helped me but it’s helped my whole family.  We’re much happier now.” 

Parents have fed back on how the programme has improved family life. One parent said: “It has been really helpful. My child has taken some tips from it and has been taking some things in and has been thinking a little bit before they act.”

Another parent said: “It is the first time in four years I have felt we have a worker who understands the issues, listens and affirms, and is able to come up with effective and positive interventions and it has been a completely invaluable experience which we will continue to benefit from. We’ve loved working with our RYPP worker.

Early findings from the pilot have shown that all RYPP practitioners have reported a reduction in violence and abuse for the families that have completed the programme.

*After completing the programme, 93% of parent/carers surveyed said it had helped to improve their relationship with their child. A resounding 100% of their children said that it had helped to improve their relationship with their parent/caregiver.

For more information about The CAPVA project

In March 2024, partners, practitioners, and academic experts came together to discuss best practice and to share academic research at The Nest in Norwich.  The day’s conference provided an opportunity for services across Norfolk to raise awareness of CAPVA, to network and to shine a light on the great work already achieved.

*Data collated as of 8 November 2024.

Leave a comment

Filed under projects

International Child To Parent Abuse Conference

On October 14th, 2024, Parental Education Growth Support (PEGS) hosted an International Child to Parent Abuse (CPA*) conference online.  The conference was well attended, provided British Sign Language Interpreters for every presentation, and there were a range of speakers from around the globe with the goal of fostering “a collaborative environment where stakeholders can share knowledge and strategies to better support those impacted by CPA” (PEGSupport.co.uk).

A clear thread which ran through the day was the way in which different professionals, practitioners, and researchers were using a public health approach to understand CPA. 

The first speaker, His Honor Judge James Burbidge, highlighted that substance misuse is often found in cases that are seen in the Crown Court, providing two case examples of adult children, one was initially charged with attempted murder of her mother, the second was an adult child who had sexually assaulted his mother and planned to physically harm her. Julie Mackay provided case examples of patricide in her afternoon presentation. Substance misuse and serious mental health issues of the adult children were considered a prominent feature in every presentation. Amanda Warburton Wynn’s case study of a grandson who murdered his grandmother also referred to significant mental health issues and the pressures of mutual caring responsibilities. The lack of support for those supporting children or grandchildren with mental health challenges is a clear issue which has led to terrible outcomes for whole families.

More positively, PEGS have been working with Brightstar for many years, and they provide sessions for young people at risk of causing harm through a needs-based understanding (i.e. if a person has their needs met, they are less likely to cause harm). With a Believe, Belong, Become throughline, Brightstar begin each session with boxing, helping young people to meet their affective needs and regulate their emotions, they then continue to a behavioural session talking through thoughts and feelings (affective needs, relational needs). The importance of recognising unmet needs was also outlined by Jeremy Todd (Family Lives) through a violence-reduction programme of work in which parents are supported to understand and not normalise of minimise the harm, which includes supporting children with their neurodivergent, mental or emotional health needs.

Other, specific, CPA intervention programmes were outlined by Dr Andy Newman. A particular challenge in ‘what works’ for CPA is the lack of consistency, lack of long term data, and whilst many of the interventions mentioned have shown promising outcomes, it is clear that there is no one-size fits all, with some interventions being applied on populations they were not designed for (i.e. positive behavioural support for autistic children when it was designed for children with learning disability). What is clear is that there are many excellent services available, so much so that responses may be positive because of the good working practices, rather than the usefulness of a particular intervention.

NHS Safeguarding reported similar challenges, particularly regarding the relevance of neurodivergence and poor mental health in this area; that diagnoses are not labels, but a useful lens in which to understand a child’s experiences in the world. This concurred with Amanda Holt’s findings, who also found that parents would focus on the wellbeing of their child over their own safety. Both presenters, as well as Dr Silke Meyer in the afternoon session highlighted that a whole family approach, one which recognises that they have individual needs, as well as family needs, is important. Furthermore, recognise the wider family or systems, as many children live outside the family or with others in a parenting role.

A more systematic approach to tackling CPA was identified by Sarah Townsend who shared findings from her Winston Churchill Memorial Trust Travel Fellowship, exploring how New Zealand could learn from the UK and Australia when implementing policy guidance. How policy can stay ahead of progress is a challenge through, as highlighted by Emma Pickering, tech-facilitated abuse is evolving faster than policy-makers can keep up, and this has resulted in harmful artificial-intelligence generated imagery. Furthermore, just parents increasingly monitor their children’s locations using technology, children are doing the same for their parents.

How to help families through the lens of public health was clear throughout, with an emphasis on looking at how certain features of a person’s identity creating additional barriers to accessing support. Kate Fejfer spoke to how those from Eastern Europe have specific challenges when accessing support for domestic abuse more broadly, whereas Polly Harrar (CEO The Sharan Project) talked through the challenges South Asian families, and particular mothers, have when navigating CPA. Vulnerabilities of older adults was discussed by Rebecca Zirk, with Richard Robinson (Hourglass service) advocating for an older person’s commissioner, as Northern Ireland and Wales have one, but England and Scotland do not. 

PEGS is continuing to engage in a myriad of awareness raising activities of CPA, led by their founder Michelle John. Comments relating to the conference can be found on social media via #StandWithPEGS, and employers are encouraged to sign their CPA covenant to support any employees living with CPA.

Find out more about the event, and future PEGS events:  https://www.pegsevents.co.uk/

Nikki Rutter

*CPA is the preferred terminology of PEGS and the parents involved with them, and so is the language used throughout this blog.

Leave a comment

Filed under conference report