When “Contact at All Costs” becomes a death sentence and why this matters

Short on time? Take a moment to give the audio recording of this blog post a quick listen.

 

What the murder of Claire Throssell’s two sons, Jack and Paul, by their father Jack teach us about anger, power and the family courts.

In October 2014, two brothers, Paul (9) and Jack (12), were lured into the attic of their home with sweets and a new train set. Their father then barricaded the house, set 14 separate fires, locked the doors and used bike locks and furniture to slow down the firefighters trying desperately to reach them. He killed his sons and himself.

Ten years later, their mother, Claire Throssell, is still asking one agonising question:

Why did the family courts give him contact when everyone knew he was dangerous?

This is not just a story about one “monster”. Neither is this simply an isolated case.

NSPCC reveal that in the last five years, there was an average of 56 child deaths by assault or undetermined intent per year in the UK, with child homicides most commonly caused by a parent or step-parent.

A 2025 Women’s Aid report identified 19 children killed over a nine-year period (2015–2024) specifically by perpetrators of domestic abuse who had access to them through child contact arrangements.

That is a staggering statistic and at the root of this behaviour is unresolved anger, coercive control, and systems that minimise danger until it is too late.

If you are a parent going through a divorce with even the slightest accusation of domestic violence, coercive control or emotional/financial abuse against you – and you need to be granted access to your children – this is what you are up against. It would be prudent to be aware that these systems have been put in place to protect children. That’s what we want them for and yet, they still get it wrong.

At BAAM, and any professional working with children, the review of Claire Throssell’s case forces us to ask:

• How do courts, professionals – and sometimes we ourselves – misunderstand anger?
• Why do we keep prioritising “contact” over safety?
• What does healthy anger look like – compared with the kind of rage that ends in tragedy?

A father with a known history of abuse

For Claire, this was not a “sudden snap”. According to court documents and subsequent reviews, she had already told professionals that her ex-husband, Darren Sykes, had:

• Hit both her and the boys
• Forced the children to eat until they were sick
• Intimidated, mocked and belittled them (calling them “mummy’s boys”)
• Talked about killing himself – and said he could understand fathers who killed their children

Paul had already disclosed to a Cafcass officer that he did not feel safe with his father. The Cafcass worker’s own notes later recorded that Sykes became so agitated in their meeting that he blocked the door and prevented her leaving – a clear indication of intimidation and poor emotional control.

Yet despite all this, the court granted him contact with his sons. A later serious case review found missed opportunities, minimised risk and a system skewed towards maintaining paternal contact – even where there were multiple red flags.

This is one of the clearest examples of weaponised anger you will ever see:

• Anger fused with entitlement
• Rage used as a tool of control and punishment
• Violence framed as “a father’s right” to see his children

This is not an “anger issue” that a short course can fix.

It is coercive control, sadism and deep-rooted abuse.

The pro-contact culture: when systems ignore fear.

When a case reaches the family courts, most involve allegations of domestic abuse, yet the system remains largely “pro-contact” first, safety second.

• Research by the Shera group examined 10 family court cases where fathers were accused – and in some cases convicted – of child sexual abuse, including digital and video evidence. In all of those cases, the father ultimately retained some contact, including overnight stays or shared residency.
• Women’s Aid’s Child First campaign documented 19 children killed by fathers in circumstances involving unsafe child contact, and helped prompt a Ministry of Justice expert panel review.
• That review (published in 2020) made 72 recommendations designed to shift culture from “pro-contact” to “safety and protection”. Four years later, only a handful have been properly implemented. Progress remains “incredibly slow”, according to Women’s Aid.

 

For survivors, the family court is frequently described as:

• Re-traumatising – forcing them to sit near their abuser, re-live events and be cross-examined
• Minimising – treating patterns of abuse as “relationship conflict”
• Punitive – implying that mothers trying to protect their children are “alienating” the father.

In other words, the very system that should be containing dangerous anger often ends up enabling it.

What this has to do with anger management.

At BAAM and in anger work more broadly, we often see people at very different ends of the spectrum:

1. People who are terrified of their own anger – they raise their voice, slam a door, shout at their kids, and feel huge remorse afterwards. They want tools, insight, accountability.
2. People who use anger as a weapon – to dominate, silence, humiliate or terrorise. They rarely take ownership and often blame everyone else.

The first group can do excellent work in anger management.

The second group – like Sykes – are often not safe without much deeper, longer-term intervention, and sometimes not safe at all.

Here’s the crucial distinction:

Healthy anger says: “Something is not OK. I need to protect myself or assert a boundary – without harming you.”

Abusive anger says: “You are mine to control. If you don’t obey, I will make you pay.”

When professionals or courts blur that difference, they:

• Label domestic abuse as “high conflict”
• Treat clear patterns of coercive control as “miscommunication”
• Tell traumatised children to “give Dad another chance”

Anger management should never be used as a tick-box exercise to give dangerous people access to those they have harmed.

The red flags we must stop ignoring

Cases like Paul and Jack’s show us that there are recurring warning signs. If you work in courts, social work, mediation, therapy – or if you are in a relationship affected by anger – these are some of the patterns to treat as high risk, not just a “bad temper”:

• History of violence or coercive control – especially where children are terrified or hyper-vigilant
• Threats of self-harm or murder  – suicide framed as love (“If you ever leave, I’ll kill myself / I can’t live without you / we’ll all go together”)
• Using children as weapons – threatening to keep them, undermine the other parent, or turn them against their mother/father
• Blocking exits, trapping people in rooms, locking doors – physical control over movement
• Obsessed entitlement – “I have a right to see my kids, you can’t stop me,” with no genuine empathy for the children’s fear or experience.

These are not “anger blips”.

They are patterns of domination.

Listening to children’s fear

One of the most haunting details in this case is Paul’s Cafcass interview. He told the officer he did not want to see his father and described how unsafe he felt. The worker later noted that she herself felt intimidated enough to want extra support when alone with Sykes. Yet contact continued.

On the day of the fire, after being carried unconscious from the house, Jack told the firefighter, the police and the hospital consultant;

“My dad did this and he did it on purpose.”

Those were the only times his voice was truly heard.

If we are serious about preventing tragedies like this, children’s voices cannot be treated as “emotional loyalty issues” or “coaching by Mum”.

Fear is data.

When a child consistently says:

• “I don’t want to go.”
• “I’m scared of Dad/Mum.”
• “Please don’t make me see them.”

…we have to stop, listen and investigate thoroughly – not push them back into contact to preserve an adult’s image of “a good father”.

UK Parliament research revealed that, “There is no evidence to show that contact with a violent parent is good for the child.” Rather, it emphasises that the quality and safety of parenting — not mere contact — is what matters.

Research from Together – Scottish Alliance for Children’s Rights (which has similar child welfare principles to the rest of the UK) found that more than half of children in domestic abuse contact disputes did not want any contact with the non-resident parent because of fear, sadness, and past abuse experiences.

What needs to change

From an anger-management and safeguarding perspective, cases like this point to several urgent shifts:

1. Safety before contact

Child contact should never be an automatic right. Where there is a history of domestic abuse, coercive control or sexual violence, the starting point must be safety and protection, not “how do we preserve contact?”

2. Better anger literacy in the system

Judges, Cafcass officers, social workers and lawyers need much deeper training in:

• Coercive control
• Trauma responses in children and adults
• The difference between conflict and abuse
• The way abusive anger looks calm in public but lethal in private

3. Real accountability for professionals and decisions

When serious case reviews repeatedly show the same mistakes, we need transparent consequences and culture change – not quiet reports that gather dust.

4. Specialist interventions – not generic anger courses

Abusive, controlling behaviour requires specialist perpetrator programmes and multi-agency risk management. Sending someone like Sykes on a short anger course and then assuming he’s “done the work” would be dangerously naïve.

If you’re living with someone’s frightening anger

Reading about cases like Paul and Jack can be deeply triggering, especially if you’re living with – or recovering from – someone else’s rage and control.

 

A few important reminders:

• If you’re walking on eggshells, changing your behaviour to avoid explosions, that is not a normal relationship.
• If your partner or ex has threatened to hurt you, the children or themselves if you leave, take that seriously and seek specialist support.
• If you are terrified of your own anger hurting the people you love, that’s a sign of conscience – and with the right support, you can change.

Anger itself is not the enemy.

But when anger is fused with entitlement, misogyny, revenge and control – and when systems ignore the warning signs – the results can be catastrophic.

Paul and Jack should be alive today.

The fact that they are not must continue to challenge all of us who work in anger, mental health, law and child protection.

If you’re affected by any of this – whether you’re struggling with your own anger or living with someone else’s – please reach out for support. No child should have to choose between their safety and a parent’s rage, and no adult should have to do this work alone.

Anger Test

ACE Test

Sources:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/oct/01/paul-and-jack-were-murdered-by-their-abusive-father-why-had-the-family-courts-granted-him-contact
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09649069.2024.2382501#abstract
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmjust/518/518we03.htm
https://www.togetherscotland.org.uk/news-and-events/news/2013/12/research-reveals-children-s-views-on-contact-with-parents-in-domestic-abuse-cases/
https://womensaid.org.uk/
https://refuge.org.uk/
https://respectphoneline.org.uk/help-for-perpetrators/