Professor Shazia Choudhry of the University of Oxford delivered a compelling lecture at UCL on a cold November evening, addressing how constructions of motherhood and fatherhood shape responses to domestic abuse within family law systems. The central issue examined was the systematic disbelief of mothers’ domestic abuse claims and the ways in which victims’ safety is compromised across jurisdictions.
The event (full title: The ‘Ideal Mother’: Constructions of Motherhood and Fatherhood within the Family Justice Response to Domestic Abuse) began by identifying the foundation of many gender-based societal problems, the patriarchy. Professor Choudhry highlighted the undeniable fact that courts rely on narrow, normative assumptions about motherhood.
Mothers are expected to be endlessly accommodating and patient even when subjected to violence, and this judicial lens inferred by courts often diminishes or reframes abuse. We looked at comparative legal analysis of five countries to compare the common patterns of different courts. The emphasis was on the internationality of this issue; these failures are not confined to England but are part of an international, borderless problem.
The presentation included statements from domestic abuse survivors from diverse backgrounds, and reading the voices of women who felt ignored, disbelieved, and silenced in court makes one realise the reality of the situation. Professor Choudhry then said perhaps the most striking sentence of the night:
“Family court experience replicates the core features of abuse: silencing and gaslighting.”
The emotional suffering of mothers, she argued, does not end during litigation but intensifies due to the judiciary’s limited understanding of how domestic abuse operates.
The lecture also examined the concept of “parental alienation”, noting that it is often used as a mechanism of mother-blame. We considered whether parental alienation should even function as a counter-allegation to domestic abuse, given that its deployment often leads to the humiliation and secondary victimisation of mothers. In discussing this, Professor Choudhry emphasised that family courts tend to see themselves as problem-solvers, prioritising the child’s welfare, yet this framing can obscure or minimise patterns of abuse rather than address them.
Overall, the event was highly effective in exposing the shortcomings of family courts and the patriarchal logic that continues to shape them. Importantly, the discussion extended beyond critique to potential reform.
Professor Choudhry proposed procedural and structural changes that centre children’s rights and voices, ensuring that the system protects rather than harms those most at risk. Law must follow the logic of abuse rather than rely on labels, and it must listen rather than merely hear. Ultimately, the law should function as a space where the most vulnerable can seek justice, safety, and recognition.
Erda Otursun Erda is a second-year LLB Law student at City, who came from Istanbul to London to study Law. She is working towards a career in medical and criminal law while also being highly interested in how law fundamentally affects society. If she can find time in between exam weeks, she likes to travel and see new places (that have better weather than London does).