What a risk assessment is
A risk assessment is a structured, evidence-based assessment of identified risks of harm to a child. It is not the same as a general parenting assessment, and the distinction matters. A parenting assessment asks broad questions about a parent's overall capacity across multiple domains. A risk assessment is narrower and more forensic. It asks: what happened, why did it happen, what is the likelihood of it happening again, what protective factors exist, and whether the risks can be managed to a level the court considers acceptable.
I've completed over forty risk assessments for the Family Court across England and Wales, and every one of them has been different. The common thread is that the court has identified a specific concern about harm to a child and wants an independent professional analysis of that concern. Not a list of worries. Not a rehashing of what social services have already said. A proper forensic assessment that goes deeper than the surface, examines the evidence, and gives the court something it can use to make a decision.
Types of risk assessed
The risks I assess fall into several broad categories, though in practice they often overlap. Physical harm and non-accidental injury. Emotional harm and psychological abuse. Sexual harm. Neglect. Domestic abuse, including coercive control and its impact on children who live with it. Substance misuse and the way it affects a parent's capacity to keep a child safe. These categories are useful as a starting point, but real cases are rarely that tidy.
In many of the assessments I've completed, multiple categories of risk are present at the same time. A case might involve domestic abuse alongside substance misuse, or neglect intertwined with a parent's own unresolved trauma. The assessment has to untangle which risks are present, how they interact with each other, and what that combination of factors means for the specific child at the centre of the case. A child's vulnerability is not abstract. It depends on their age, their developmental stage, their own history, and the particular circumstances they are living in. Two children in similar situations can face very different levels of risk, and the assessment has to account for that.
When the court orders one
The court orders a risk assessment when there are specific allegations or evidence of harm to a child and the judge needs an independent forensic analysis of those risks. In most cases, the local authority will have already carried out its own assessment. The court may have concerns about the depth or independence of that work, or the parent may dispute the local authority's conclusions and the court wants a fresh pair of eyes.
Sometimes a risk assessment is ordered as a standalone piece of work. Other times it is combined with a broader parenting assessment, so the court gets both a detailed analysis of the specific risks and a wider picture of the parent's overall capacity. I use the ParentAssess framework for the parenting component and layer the risk analysis on top, which gives the court a comprehensive picture without duplicating work or losing focus.
Risk assessments are common in care proceedings where the local authority is seeking an order, but they also arise in private law cases where one parent raises serious allegations about the other. Whatever the context, the court is asking the same fundamental question: is this child safe, and if not, what needs to happen?
What it involves
A risk assessment starts with the evidence. I read everything. The court bundle, police disclosures, medical records, social work chronologies, previous assessments, and any other relevant documentation. Before I meet anyone, I need to understand what is alleged, what the evidence base is, and where the gaps are. This preparation stage is critical because it shapes the questions I need to ask and the areas I need to explore in interview.
The interviews themselves are detailed and focused. I need to understand the parent's account of the specific incidents that led to the assessment being ordered. What do they say happened? Do they accept responsibility, or do they minimise, deny, or blame others? What is their understanding of how those events affected, or could have affected, their child? These are not easy conversations, and I do not expect them to be comfortable. But the way a person engages with these questions tells me a great deal about where the risk sits now.
Beyond the interviews, I speak to professionals who know the family. Teachers, health visitors, GPs, substance misuse workers, probation officers, and anyone else who can give me information about the parent's current functioning and the child's wellbeing. I look at patterns. Is this a one-off incident that occurred in unusual circumstances, or is it part of a longer pattern of behaviour? What were the circumstances surrounding the events? What has changed since? What support has the parent accessed, and has it made a difference? All of this feeds into the analysis.
Risk analysis versus risk assessment
There is an important distinction between identifying risks and analysing them, and it is a distinction that gets lost more often than it should. A risk assessment is not simply a list of things that went wrong. Listing historical concerns is the easy part. The hard part, and the part the court actually needs, is the analysis.
Risk analysis means examining the likelihood of recurrence. It means considering the severity of the potential harm if the risk does materialise again. It means weighing the vulnerability of the specific child involved, because a six-month-old baby and a twelve-year-old face fundamentally different levels of vulnerability to the same risk factor. And it means identifying and evaluating the protective factors that exist. Are there family members who can provide a safety net? Has the parent engaged meaningfully with services? Have the circumstances that gave rise to the original risk actually changed, or have they just been papered over?
I use structured professional judgement rather than checklists. Checklists have their place, but they cannot capture the complexity of a real family. Professional judgement, grounded in evidence and experience, allows me to weigh all of the factors together and reach a conclusion that is nuanced enough to be useful to the court. The court does not just need to know what the risks are. It needs to know whether those risks can be managed, by whom, and under what conditions.
DVRIM: Domestic Violence Risk Identification Matrix
In cases where domestic abuse is the primary concern, I use the Domestic Violence Risk Identification Matrix, known as DVRIM. This is a structured assessment tool developed by Barnardo's specifically for analysing the nature, level, and trajectory of domestic violence risk. I am Barnardo's certified to use it, and I find it invaluable in cases where the court needs a detailed, structured analysis of domestic abuse rather than a more general risk assessment.
DVRIM looks at the pattern of abusive behaviour, the severity and frequency of incidents, the impact on the victim and on the children, and the risk of escalation. It provides a framework for distinguishing between different types and levels of domestic abuse, which matters because the court's response to a case involving situational conflict is very different from its response to a case involving systematic coercive control. If domestic abuse is the central issue in your case, it is worth asking for a DVRIM assessment specifically in the letter of instruction.
For families
If you are the person being assessed for risk, I want to say something clearly: a risk assessment is not a foregone conclusion. It is not a finding of guilt. I have completed risk assessments where the outcome was positive for the parent, where my conclusion was that the identified risks were low or had reduced significantly and could be managed with appropriate support in place.
What matters most in these assessments is honesty. I need to hear your account of what happened, and I need to understand how you make sense of it now. Have you accessed support? Have you engaged with services, whether that is a domestic abuse programme, substance misuse treatment, therapy, or parenting support? Do you understand what happened, why it was harmful, and what you would do differently? These are the questions that shape my analysis, and your willingness to engage with them openly makes a real difference to how the assessment reads.
I know this process is stressful. Having someone come into your life and ask difficult questions about the hardest things you have been through is not easy. But my job is not to judge you as a person. It is to give the court an honest, evidence-based analysis of whether a specific risk can be managed. That is a question with many possible answers, and your engagement with the process is a significant factor in the outcome.
For solicitors and professionals
If you are instructing for a risk assessment, please be specific in the letter of instruction about which risks the court wants assessed. "Assess the risks" is too vague to produce a focused piece of work. Name the incidents or concerns. Identify the categories of harm. If the primary concern is domestic abuse, say so and consider specifying a DVRIM assessment. If the concern is about physical harm, tell me what the allegations are and point me to the evidence.
Include all relevant disclosure material with the instruction. Police disclosures, medical records, and any previous risk assessments are essential. I cannot assess risk properly without access to the evidence base, and chasing missing disclosure adds weeks to the timeline that nobody can afford.
I am always happy to discuss scope before the letter of instruction is finalised. A short conversation at the outset about what the court really needs to know can sharpen the focus of the assessment and make the final report significantly more useful. If you are unsure whether a standalone risk assessment or a combined ParentAssess and risk assessment is more appropriate, get in touch and we can talk it through.