Parent-Carer Blame, Autism and the (UK) Family Court

Challenging (Parent-Carer) Blame in Autism Service Provision. March 2025.

Happy Spring! And thank you for continuing to subscribe, read and support my output around the use of blame within autism provisions…

I’m aware that many neurodivergent people and their families are increasingly worried by US and UK politics; how neurodivergent and autistic people are being spoken about and legislated for is causing concern for many. Lately, it has felt as if we have taken a step backwards in terms of accepting autistic people as equally valuable and valued human beings. Much political debate is framing the input we require for equity with non-autistic people, as economically burdensome.

I enjoyed listening to the Autistic Culture podcast - ‘Make America Neurotypical Again’.

Listen here: Make America Neurotypical Again (Episode 110)

And in the UK, if you are concerned about proposed changes to PIP eligibility, here are some useful resources:

Fightback - a service which can provide help for PIP claimants. They produce accurate information relating to proposed changes and are also collating responses to the proposals from disabled people.

Viv Dawes Autistic Advocate - here is a link to a passionate blog post written by Viv about WHY autistic people need access to PIP. Viv covers the many ways in which society makes it harder for autistic people to thrive. Viv is also doing a fantastic job with posting timely updates and links relating to PIP proposals.

Scope - an open letter to UK Government asking for reconsideration of proposals and signed by leading disability rights charities. There is an option to add your own name in support.

Cerebra - A response to Government proposals.

Disabled People Against Cuts - For grassroots activism against disability related welfare cuts.

Neurodivergent Labour - Affiliated with the Labour Party and taking an active stand against the government’s PIP proposals.

Parent-carer blame, autism and the (UK) Family Court

This is a first attempt to collate research, experience and information about autistic experiences within the family court system - please do not view this as comprehensive, my intentions are to group together some of the key pieces of information I have relating to the family courts, as I am aware there are many parents who (through no fault of their own) become involved with Family Court processes.

The Family Court presides over matters relating to child safeguarding (supervision orders, child removal) and private family arrangements such as child ‘custody’ (alongside other matters such as domestic violence, and where a child should be educated should parents be in dispute).

There are many ways in which autistic parents and parents of autistic children can be impacted by family court processes and decision making. Decision making within the family court is ultimately held by the presiding Judge, but the Judge is informed by related professionals. Key professionals given remit to make assessments (upon parents, children and the situation) and report back to the Judge are specialist court social workers (CAFCASS) and ‘independent’ court experts (such as psychologists, social workers). The voices of both child and parent are represented within the assessments prepared by expert and court professionals (and also via their own legal teams).

The questions I often consider are:

1. How far is the ‘accuracy’ of information given to the Judge reflective of professionals’ own understandings and biases in relation to autism?

2. Are court outcomes for autistic families dependent upon the competency and knowledge (relating to autism) held by the presiding Judge?

(This is an area I am particularly interested in. My own personal experience suggests that assessments prepared by court appointed professionals reflect only how the professionals themselves view autism - for example, as a medical, deficit requiring treatment or rendering a person as less capable than a non-autistic person.)

What is already known?

Disabled parents may be at more risk from having their parental rights terminated:

“Child welfare agencies may have policies and practices … that adversely affect parents with disabilities … institutional ableism may influence the overrepresentation of parents with disabilities, high rates of termination of parental rights, inadequate services and support, and denial of services and supports.” (Powell, R. M., Parish, S. L., Mitra, M., Waterstone, M., & Fournier, S. (2022). Child welfare system inequities experienced by disabled parents: towards a conceptual framework. Disability & Society, 39(2), 291–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2022.2071675)

Autistic families are overrepresented within children’s (safeguarding) services:

“There is a paucity of literature on social work with autistic people. This is surprising when autistic people may be overrepresented in the populations that social workers assess and support … social workers can produce inaccurate assessments of autistic peoples’ needs due to a lack of knowledge about autism.” (Philip Heslop, Matthew Bushell, Reporting Findings from an Exploratory Study of Social Workers’ Perceptions about autism Training, The British Journal of Social Work, Volume 53, Issue 6, September 2023, Pages 3218–3236, https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcad108)

“Safeguarding procedures are most prevalent amongst families headed by either a lone mother and / or neurodivergent parent (s).” (Parental_Blame_PDA_Research_Report_Running_JataHall.pdf)

Autistic mothers were found to have “often felt ‘parent-blamed’ … for their child’s difficulties or ‘treated as a problem parent’ … when advocating for their child’s needs …and for others it was experienced as not being believed, accused of ‘making stuff up’”. (Dugdale, A.-S., Thompson, A. R., Leedham, A., Beail, N., & Freeth, M. (2021). Intense connection and love: The experiences of autistic mothers. Autism, 25(7), 1973-1984. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613211005987)

“In one third (34%) of the 200 most recently concluded care proceedings cases examined for the study, there was reliable – mostly expert – evidence that one or more of the parents involved had learning disabilities or learning difficulties.” - (This includes ADHD parents but excludes autistic parents). (Babies in care proceedings: What do we know about parents with learning disabilities or difficulties? - Nuffield Family Justice Observatory)

Parenting capability assessment tools may be inappropriate for neurodivergent parents:

“An important determinant of care proceedings’ outcomes was parenting capacity. Standardised assessment tools were often applied, such as parent assessment manual (PAMS) or ParentAssess. An important limitation of the more frequently used tool, PAMS, included that it was not used in practice as it had been intended – this is, to assess, tailor learning, and reassess, rather than as a standalone assessment. This meant that parents with learning disabilities or learning difficulties had a limited chance to prove themselves with the support of targeted learning.” (Babies in care proceedings: What do we know about parents with learning disabilities or difficulties? - Nuffield Family Justice Observatory)

Parent-carer advocacy can be misidentified as ‘fabricated and induced illness’, thus erroneously directing parents through safeguarding procedures:

“Parents acting as advocates for their children and as experts in their child’s behaviour when not in a formal situation can unfortunately create tension between parents and professionals. In some cases, this knowledge can be viewed with suspicion, and even interpreted as an indicator of FII.” (autism-and-parental-blame-literature-review-final-version-feb-2024.pdf)

Research into the experiences of autistic people in the family court arena “showed significant misunderstandings about autism, and a system which struggled to make appropriate adjustments which would allow autistic court users to have access to justice on an equivalent basis to non-autistic litigants”. (George, R., Crane, L., & Remington, A. (2020). ‘Our normal is different’: autistic adults’ experiences of the family courts. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 42(2), 204–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2020.1751928)

Family Court processes can be seen as particularly problematic for women (mothers).

Neustein and Lesher (2005, p 27) write that “the antimother bias that thrives in the family courts has accommodated extreme psychological theories”, pointing to the controversial use of concepts such as ‘Parental Alienation Syndrome’, ‘Malicious Mother Syndrome’ and ‘Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy’ to both discredit the testimony of mothers within the Family Court and provide an evidential basis for allegations of harm caused by mothering. (From Madness to Mutiny: Why Mothers are Running from the Family Courts and ... By Amy Neustein, Michael Lesher)

Where are the expert witnesses with an affirming autism knowledge base?

Part of the difficulties I encountered with family court assigned experts was the lens through which an understanding of autism was considered. My self-advocacy attempts at portraying affirming lived-experience conflicted with professional expertise gained from a medicalised / clinical approach to understanding autism.

Although experts instructed by the family courts are considered ‘independent’ and are agreed upon by all parties involved, it is court social workers who lead instructions. The pool of experts available to the family court is (in my limited and personal experience) seemingly sparse with affirming expertise operating from the neurodiversity paradigm.

Further, those experts with a competent understanding of autistic people note how the court system is not always conducive to creating the best outcomes for the families involved:

“My stance in Court is always to try and educate about autism, about the ways in which bi-directional communication differences between autistic and non-autistic people might lead to misunderstandings, about the ways in which different cognitive processing will make different things important to autistic and non-autistic people, but that both are equally as valid, about the fact that autistic parenting is different not disordered. And sometimes I am faced with a Barrister who will then do anything possible to distort this or to shred me as an expert … Surely our role as professionals is to work together to understand and support families, not to destroy them? And yet, that is what it can feel like in Court for FII. Destruction. The system needs an overhaul, and it is long overdue.” (Dr Gullen-Scott - FII CASES - My Personal Experience in the Family Courts - Sunshine Support)

Child arrangements and family court proceedings.

Matters can become further complicated for autistic families when parents are separated and child arrangements (including who the child should live with) require family court oversight.

For example, in private family court proceedings (proceedings brought by a parent rather than a local authority) matters relating to best-care of an autistic child may become relevant. Legal arguments in this context may position around differing parenting styles and the appropriateness for an autistic child.

Dr Judy Eaton writes:

“Often this involves the non-resident parent claiming that they ‘do not see any difficulties’ when the child or young person is spending time with them, and attributing any challenges experienced to ‘poor parenting’ on the part of the parent who spends most time with the child. There is a great variation in understanding of Autism amongst expert witnesses and this is further complicated if the child is ‘masking’ or holding things together at either school, the non-resident parent’s home, or both. Very often in these situations, the child is only sufficiently comfortable to be their true self in the place where they feel safest … In some cases, this can lead to accusations of Fabricated or Induced Illness, where one parent is accused of effectively making up the difficulties that have been reported. Once a case has progressed this far, each ‘side’ in the dispute (whether this is about support, education, custody, or access arrangements) will have their own legal representation, and each side will employ their own expert witnesses to present their case. In this situation, it is often the side whose expert presents the most convincing evidence (as far as the judge is concerned) who will effectively win. The problem is that in this situation no one really wins. This can, and does, lead to children and young people failing to access an appropriate assessment and/or diagnosis. There is a growing awareness of the potential difficulties in terms of support, mental health problems, and long term outcomes for those children and young people who are undiagnosed or misdiagnosed. The collateral damage and trauma caused for the parent who has effectively ‘lost’ their fight, for an assessment and, most probably had their parenting scrutinised in a less than complimentary manner, will last for years.” (When parents disagree over the need for an assessment - Help for Psychology) (Note, I have added BOLD)

Domestic violence and perpetrator use of parent-blame (in relation to parenting autistic children).

Stories and experiences shared by parent-carers of autistic-PDA children in 2022 (Parental Blame and the PDA Profile of Autism: The Experiences of Domestic Abuse Survivors) suggest that for some mothers, abusive ex-partners utilised autism provision services to continue their abusive behaviour through the use of mother-blame.

“Several parent-carers shared how their ex-partners harnessed the systems of assessment and / or support to continue perpetrating abusive behaviour towards them … Disability-specific professionals should recognise the specific vulnerabilities of parent-carers who have been subjected to domestic abuse and ensure that SEND systems provide safe and accessible routes to accessing support for their children.” (Alice Running)

The terrifying consequences of misunderstanding autism in the Family Court arena.

Historically, Family Court hearings have been closed to public scrutiny. However, with the recently introduced ‘right to report scheme’, outcomes in relation to autistic families are being reported by journalists.

As one such report demonstrates, a lack of autism competency can lead to the misappropriation of mental health labels, resulting in care orders being made:

“An autistic mother and daughter are suing Birmingham City Council for separating them during child protection proceedings claiming that the council was negligent in pursuing a care order, did not understand neurodiversity, and had breached their human right to family life … Local authority staff claimed the mother was mentally unwell and had a borderline personality disorder, and applied for a care order.” (Neurodiverse Mother and Daughter Sue Birmingham Council for ‘Wrongful’ Separation – Byline Times)

An emerging legal understanding in relation to the blaming of autistic families?

One UK legal firm (and I cannot make a personal recommendation as I have not worked with this firm) has identified key aspects of support they offer autistic families. Information taken directly from their website states that support includes:

• Understanding the deep rooted trauma that families from neurodivergent and special needs communities may experience as a result of being misunderstood, and providing trauma informed representation in response;

• Identifying and addressing misplaced ‘parental blame’, intersectional bias and discriminatory practices where welfare concerns stem from an individual’s hidden disability/special needs;

• Raising awareness amongst professionals in relation to neurodivergence and hidden disabilities; and

• Advocating for reform of the family justice system in relation to neurodivergence and hidden disabilities. (Family Law Solicitors Specialising in Autism & ADHD | Duncan Lewis)

“Many cases come to court where local authorities are issuing proceedings in respect of children with hidden disabilities such as autism and ADHD. Quite often in these cases, the children are beyond parental control because they are not receiving the support and services they need from the wider system, yet the cases brought to court place the blame on the parents.” (Duncan Lewis Solicitor looks at Autism in Family Justice Law)

New guidance relating to neurodivergence and family court accessibility:

Guidance issued to UK family court practitioners (January 2025) points to a potential compromise in Human Rights law should neurodivergence not be recognised and accommodated for involved parties:

“Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division and Chair of the Family Justice Council, acknowledged that failure to recognise and accommodate neurodivergence within the Family Justice System leads to parties, witnesses, and children not being able to participate fully, and that equal access to justice is fundamental to a functioning and fair system.” (Overcoming the barriers: neurodiversity guidance from the Family Justice Council | Resolution)

“This guidance is primarily intended for legal practitioners working within the Family Justice System. Separate guidance will be prepared for the Judiciary. The evidence available suggests that neurodivergence is overrepresented among court users and the fact that it is often underdiagnosed is likely to further mask its prevalence in those accessing family justice. Failure to recognise and take into account neurodivergence impacts children and families within the Family Justice System in two key, and intertwined, ways: (a) Assessments undertaken before, during and after proceedings, or as part of dispute resolution; and (b) Barriers to participation in proceedings, which in turn restricts access to justice and to a fair trial. Failure to recognise and accommodate neurodivergence within the Family Justice System leads to parties, witnesses and children not being able to fully participate in proceedings and dispute resolution, potentially compromising their Article 6 and Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR)4 and/or Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on Rights of the Child.” (Family Justice Council Guidance on Neurodiversity in the Family Justice System for Practitioners) (Note, I have added BOLD)

And finally! If you have read through this lengthy newsletter - thank you! This edition has been less of a newsletter and more of a curation of information relating to autism and the family court arena. My purpose is to provide useful and evidentially-based information to support both empowerment for autistic families and system change.

Moving forwards, my ‘Challenging Blame in Autism Provision’ newsletters will be produced bimonthly to accommodate my increased workload in other areas :)

Many thanks again for reading,

Alice X