Imagine a child's behaviour at school dismissed as mere 'high conflict' divorce fallout. This isn't a hypothetical; it's the reality for too many families. The power wielded by professionals, particularly social workers in one specific case, based on shockingly superficial assessments, has had devastating and enduring consequences. A single, brief visit with a parent who had the courage to speak out about domestic abuse, with evidence of physical violence on the property, and subsequent coercive control, resulted in the dismissive label: 'high conflict divorce.' 

 This simplistic categorisation wasn't just a misjudgement; it was a dereliction of duty. It allowed social care to passively turn their back on continuing harm to the child. The social worker, by starting with a convenient conclusion, bypassed the fundamental requirement of evidence; anyone reading this initial assessment would be dangerously misled into assuming equal blame. 

 Research by Howarth et al. (2016), Dodaj (2020), and Doroudchi et al. (2023) consistently demonstrates that children exposed to domestic abuse experience higher rates of negative outcomes. This underscores the importance of moving beyond simplistic 'high conflict' categorisations, which, as Archer-Kuhn (2018) argues, often fail to adequately address power imbalances.  These concerns are before any other vulnerabilities the children may have, including disability, adoption, or other considered needs that the impact of domestic violence and coercive control may layer onto their coping skills, or lack thereof. 

In the label 'high conflict', the devastating impact on vulnerable children is callously relegated to the realm of "parents who can't put their differences aside", a blatant disregard for the potential ongoing trauma they were experiencing.  When social care and other authorities truly takes responsibility, high conflict and domestic abuse are treated very differently, especially when children are also deemed victims in their own right in domestic abuse. This example from Bedford Borough Council illustrates the range of support and professionals who should be involved. 

But what if the truth was a stark imbalance of power, and one person was driving the conflict? What if one parent lived in genuine fear? Years later, when the children's behaviours finally reveal the truth, the initial lie of "50/50 conflict" crumbles, exposing the validity of the targeted parent's desperate pleas. At this point, precious years of secure attachment bonding may be irreparably damaged, because a professional chose the 'high conflict' label and neglected the potential presence of domestic violence. Remember, when you quickly jump to the conclusion, you are choosing to ignore all the other hypotheses and possible contributors.

The urgent need for social workers to receive better training in spotting coercive control has been highlighted recently. This demand for improved training must also extend to cultural sensitivity. For instance, I have witnessed social workers dismiss threats made with weapons by Deaf parents, misinterpreting them as mere 'expressiveness' within Sign Language. This reflects a dangerous prejudice and a damagingly low expectation of Deaf people's understanding of the implications of weapon use. 

The consequences of such failures are profound. The opportunity for secure attachments with a nurturing parent can be implicitly and coercively undermined over years. Tragically, the aggressor, skilled at manipulation and controlling the narrative, may then turn their aggression towards social care precisely because their abuse is finally under scrutiny and impacting their children. By this point, the children have endured years of witnessing the aggressor's impunity, their development has been shaped by this toxic environment, and their attachments to healthy adults compromised. 

This demands a critical reckoning: What if, from the outset, the targeted parent's desperate reports of domestic abuse had been treated with the fair assessment they deserved? What if the convenient "high conflict" label had been rejected in favour of rigorous, evidence-based investigation that truly addressed individual needs? Imagine a system where case files reflected a clear understanding of the dynamics at play over time from all services, guiding robust decisions that prioritised the children's needs above all else. Accurate documentation and consistent notes over time can lead to concrete decision making, many social workers and professionals down the line, when patterns start to reveal themselves.

The time for social workers to grab the damaging crutch of "high conflict" is over. We must dismantle this oversimplification and confront the critical question: is anyone wielding dominant power in this conflict, and why? And are professionals enabling it? Professionals must confront their own biases and assumptions that can inadvertently perpetuate harm. A parent's fear or resistance is not necessarily evidence of mutual conflict. 

Only through unflinching assessment, an unwavering commitment to evidence, and a profound willingness to truly listen to the silenced voices can we even begin to fulfill our duty to safeguard children and families. Professionals must be empowered and supported to deliver this level of critical and compassionate practice.

What could be done?

The well-being of countless children and families hangs in the balance. We can no longer afford to prioritise convenience over compassion. It's time for a fundamental shift, a commitment to truth, accountability, and unwavering protection for the vulnerable.