By Aneeta Prem
Children cannot wait for systems to become comfortable. They need protection when it matters.
Across the United Kingdom, children are being forced into marriages they do not want, removed from education, confined within their own homes, subjected to surveillance, threats and violence, and punished for asserting basic autonomy. These harms are often discussed cautiously, framed as sensitive or complex. The evidence is neither ambiguous nor new. What remains unresolved is why safeguarding systems continue to hesitate when the indicators are already visible.
This paper sets out what the UK evidence actually shows, explains how official figures should be read, and examines why children continue to be failed. It is written to support action rather than debate. Precision matters. Language matters. Delay has consequences.
In UK law and safeguarding practice, the following are all recognised forms of child abuse:
These harms are often grouped in official datasets under the term “honour-based abuse”. This paper uses the term dishonour abuse because the language used to describe harm influences how seriously it is taken. There is no honour in the abuse of a child. Responsibility lies with the perpetrator and with systems that fail to intervene.
In the year ending March 2024, police in England and Wales recorded 2,755 dishonour-abuse-related offences, using the official classification applied to so-called honour-based abuse. The figure is published by the Home Office.
The number is real. It is also partial.
Police-recorded crime data measures what reaches the criminal justice system, not the full scale of harm. A single victim may be linked to multiple recorded offences. Many victims, particularly children, never reach the police at all. Others are identified only after irreversible decisions have already been taken on their behalf.
Children living under family coercion are among the least likely to appear in police data. They are dependent on adults, isolated from peers, and frequently prevented from disclosing abuse. The absence of a police record should never be mistaken for the absence of risk.
Dishonour abuse is systematically undercounted for well-established reasons:
The Crown Prosecution Service has repeatedly identified the same obstacles to prosecution: victim withdrawal under coercion, lack of corroborative evidence, fear of reprisals and complex family involvement. None of these are anomalies. They are features of abuse that operates through control rather than isolated violence.
Official statistics regularly show higher numbers of recorded offences in areas such as Leicestershire, Greater Manchester and the West Midlands. This is often misread.
In practice, higher recording frequently reflects:
Areas with lower figures may simply be identifying less effectively. Geography tells us where abuse is being recognised, not where it exists.
UK data over many years, including casework trends from the Forced Marriage Unit, shows that forced marriage and related forms of child abuse disproportionately affect children from Pakistani and Bangladeshi heritage families, followed by Indian heritage families. The majority of victims are British nationals.
This pattern has been consistent for more than a decade.
Naming this is not a judgement on communities. It is a safeguarding necessity. Patterns support early identification. They do not assign collective blame. Abuse is perpetrated by individuals and families, not by ethnic groups.
The evidence does not show that faith causes abuse. It points to specific forms of extended family enforcement, transnational marriage practices and gendered coercion. Avoiding these facts does not protect communities. It leaves children exposed.
Public debate often collapses ethnicity and religion into a single explanation. This is inaccurate and unhelpful.
In relation to organised child sexual exploitation and grooming gang cases, serious case reviews and criminal investigations have repeatedly identified Pakistani heritage men operating within networks. The evidence does not support framing these crimes as religious in origin.
Precision matters. Religion must never be used as a shield for child abuse. Equally, faith should not be used as a proxy explanation when the underlying issue is coercive control, entitlement and exploitation.
Dishonour abuse persists not because professionals do not care, but because systems hesitate.
In practice, this often looks like a series of small decisions that feel cautious in isolation and catastrophic in combination: a school absence explained away, a concern downgraded pending “more information”, a referral delayed to avoid escalation. By the time certainty is reached, choice has already been removed.
The same failures recur across cases:
Under the Children Act 1989, professionals have a clear duty to protect children from significant harm. Forced marriage, confinement and family coercion meet that threshold. Delay is not neutrality. It is a decision with consequences.
Language directs response.
The term “honour” sanitises harm and centres the perpetrator’s justification rather than the child’s experience. Dishonour abuse places responsibility where it belongs and removes ambiguity. Clear language supports decisive intervention.
This is not about rhetoric. It is about whether abuse is recognised quickly enough to stop it.
If children are to be protected, the following are essential:
Safeguarding is not a matter of cultural comfort. It is a legal and moral duty.
Dishonour abuse is child abuse. It thrives on hesitation, silence and misplaced caution.
The evidence is long-established. What is missing is consistent action. When child abuse is treated as a cultural controversy, systems retreat, professionals hesitate and children are left managing risks the law already recognises as unacceptable.
Children cannot wait for systems to become comfortable. They need protection when it matters.
The Gambia’s Supreme Court is hearing a case that could weaken the ban on FGM. This clear explainer shows why it matters for child protection worldwide.
When families watch, follow and report: the hidden stalking dynamic behind forced marriage and dishonour abuse
How AI nudification is turning everyday photos into a new form of sexual abuse against children Two strong alternatives, depending on outlet tone: How AI nudification apps are normalising sexual abuse and putting children at risk
Capacity, Consent and Dishonour Abuse: Why “no capacity means no consent” is the safeguard the world is still failing to apply
Female genital mutilation in the UK: what we don’t say out loud. Female genital mutilation is not “a problem elsewhere”. It is child abuse happening in the UK and worldwide, and girls need us to name it.
Balochistan Child Marriages Restraint Act 2025 Provincial law: minimum marriage age 18. Cognisable, non-bailable, non-compoundable offences. Forced marriage is child abuse. The shame lies with the perpetrator, not the child.