The 2025 forced marriage figures should not be read as a routine annual update. They should be read as a test of whether the UK is protecting children and adults at risk early enough.
In 2025, the Forced Marriage Unit received 1,295 contacts relating to possible forced marriage or female genital mutilation. Those contacts included 406 cases where tailored assistance was provided and 889 enquiries. Of the 406 tailored-assistance cases, 40% involved victims aged 17 or under. The same figures show that 75 cases, 18%, involved victims whose mental capacity to consent to marriage was in doubt.
That should stop us.
Children are still being identified when fear, pressure or control has already reached the point where outside help is needed. Adults whose capacity may be in doubt are also appearing in the data. This is not only a child protection issue. It is also a question of consent, disability rights and safeguarding.
The UK now knows what forced marriage is. The law is clear. It has been for years.
Forced marriage is a criminal offence. Forced Marriage Protection Orders exist. Schools, police, social care, health professionals and local authorities all work within safeguarding frameworks that should recognise coercion, travel risk and family pressure.
I campaigned for forced marriage to become a criminal offence because victims needed the law to name the abuse clearly. But law was never meant to be the end point. It was meant to give professionals the confidence to act.
That confidence still fails too often.
The 2025 statistics need careful reading.
They show who reached the Forced Marriage Unit. They do not show everyone at risk. The Government’s user guide explains that the statistics cover contacts made to the FMU through its public helpline and email inbox, with categories recorded where information is volunteered.
They do not show the girl who stayed silent.
They do not show the child who was too frightened to speak.
They do not show the pupil who stopped attending school and slipped out of sight.
They show contact. Not prevalence.
That gap is where safeguarding either succeeds or fails.
Forty per cent.
That figure should change how this issue is understood.
This is not only an adult domestic abuse issue. It is not only a cultural issue. It is not only an overseas issue. It is a child safeguarding issue in the UK.
A child at risk will rarely use legal language. She may say she does not want to travel. She may say she is scared. She may say she will not come back.
Or she may say nothing at all.
That is where professional judgement matters.
The capacity figure deserves far more attention than it will probably receive.
In 2025, 75 FMU cases involved victims whose mental capacity to consent to marriage was in doubt. GOV.UK explains that these are cases involving a suspected or confirmed lack of capacity to consent to marriage under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
That goes to the heart of consent.
This is where forced marriage, disability rights and safeguarding meet.
I was determined that the law should recognise people who could not freely consent, including children and adults whose capacity to consent was in doubt. Forced marriage is not only about a young person being threatened into marriage. It can also involve adults with learning disabilities or other conditions affecting decision-making, where families may see marriage as a way to secure care, immigration advantage, status or family convenience.
None of that creates consent.
A marriage cannot be made lawful by calling it care. It cannot be justified by family convenience, immigration advantage, or the belief that relatives know best. If a person cannot freely understand, weigh and consent to marriage, the issue is not tradition. It is safeguarding.
This is where professionals need to be sharper.
A person may appear calm. They may appear compliant. They may be surrounded by relatives who speak confidently on their behalf.
That does not prove consent.
Someone who lacks capacity may not understand the nature of marriage, weigh the decision, understand sexual consent, understand legal consequences, or communicate a free choice without pressure.
That matters because some people are hidden in plain sight. Professionals may see family involvement and assume care. They may hear “we know what is best” and fail to ask whether the person has a real choice.
Capacity should increase the urgency of safeguarding. It should not soften it.
In practice, the barrier is rarely complete ignorance. It is hesitation.
Professionals worry about misreading a situation. They worry about cultural sensitivity. They worry about offending families. They wait for clearer evidence.
Safeguarding fails when professionals wait for certainty in situations where certainty may never arrive.
By the time a case reaches the Forced Marriage Unit, risk has often escalated. Intervention becomes reactive, not preventative.
We should not accept that as normal.
The term “honour-based abuse” remains in use. It sits in policy and guidance.
But it is not neutral.
There is no honour in forcing a child into marriage.
There is no honour in arranging a marriage for someone who cannot consent.
There is no honour in control, coercion or silence.
I call it dishonour abuse because the word “honour” belongs to the excuse, not the harm.
Language shapes response. When abuse is softened, action slows.
Call it what it is. It is abuse.
These figures have been published as schools approach the summer risk window.
Forced marriage can happen at any time. Yet school holidays create particular danger because a child or young person may be taken abroad and removed from teachers, friends and safeguarding leads.
The warning signs often appear beforehand.
A sudden trip. A wedding. A change in behaviour. A child who becomes quieter, more controlled, more anxious. A young person who asks whether someone can hide a passport.
None of these signs is dramatic. That is exactly why they are missed.
We do not need to restate what forced marriage is. That is already understood.
We need to change when we act.
Schools need to recognise patterns, not wait for perfect disclosures. Professionals need to trust their judgement earlier. Protection orders need to be used before travel, not after harm.
Capacity must also sit at the centre of safeguarding. If capacity to consent is in doubt, the question is not whether a family believes the marriage is suitable. The question is whether the person can make that decision freely, with understanding, and without pressure.
A child or adult at risk may only have one real opportunity to be protected.
The UK does not lack legislation.
It does not lack guidance.
It does not lack awareness.
What it lacks, too often, is timely intervention.
The 2025 forced marriage figures are not evidence that the system is working well enough. They are evidence that children and people whose capacity may be in doubt are still reaching help after risk has already escalated.
The law now exists. The guidance exists. The warning signs are known.
The next test is whether Britain can act before a child disappears from view, or before a person who cannot consent is pushed into a marriage they could never freely choose.
Children are still being missed. So are adults whose safety and freedom depend on others asking the right questions in time.
For all the figures please go to https://freedomcharity.org.uk/forced-marriage-figures-2025/
aneeta prem london 2026 5 May 2026
Capacity, Consent and Dishonour Abuse: Why “no capacity means no consent” is the safeguard the world is still failing to apply
Trigeminal neuralgia is the most painful condition in the world. So what is Trigeminal Neuralgia ?
A clear, UK-focused guide to how doctors have understood and treated trigeminal neuralgia over three centuries, and why that history still matters for patients, families and clinicians today.
AI abuse in schools is now a safeguarding issue. Pupil photographs can still celebrate achievement, confidence and school life, but the risk has changed. Images shared on websites, newsletters and social media can now be copied, altered, sexualised or used in blackmail attempts. The answer is not to erase children from public life. The answer is better consent, safer image use, regular review and stronger safeguarding judgment.
The Aneeta Prem A to Z Framework on Mental Health, Facial Pain and Quality of Life
What the 2025 forced marriage figures reveal about children, capacity and delayed intervention