Woman's Hour - Sarah Ferguson, Child free guilt, Actor Susan Wokoma, Understanding the courts

Episode Date: February 3, 2026

Sarah Ferguson's charity, Sarah's Trust, has announced it will close "for the foreseeable future" after new details emerged from documents released by the US Department of Justice about the former Duchess of York's friendship with the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. A spokesman for the foundation said the decision comes after "some months" of discussion. BBC News Correspondent Ellie Price and Dr Andrew Lownie, author of Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York, join Nuala McGovern.We hear from BAFTA Breakthrough British actress & comedian Susan Wokoma. Best known for playing Edith in the Enola Holmes films and her tv roles in Chewing Gum, and Cheaters, she’s just written a brand new 'baroque and roll' musical for the National Youth Theatre as part of their 70th anniversary celebrations. There are renewed calls for better public education on the UK’s complex legal system to help ensure potential victims, particularly women, have a clearer understanding of how it works. Family law barrister Samantha Singer joins Nuala to discuss her online platform designed to empower those facing legal challenges, alongside Jo Silver from the charity Safe Lives.We hear a lot about ‘mum guilt’, but what about the guilt that can come along with not becoming a mother? Writer Ellen C Scott is child-free by choice but has recently experienced guilt towards her parents because she won’t be providing them with grandchildren. She recently explored the topic for Stylist magazine and was surprised by how much it resonated with other women. Ellen and psychotherapist Professor Hannah Sherbersky discuss how to navigate these feelings.Presenter: Nuala McGovern Producer: Kirsty Starkey

Hello, this is Neula McGovern, and you're listening to The Woman's Hour podcast. Hello and welcome to the programme. Sarah Ferguson's charity, Sarah's Trust, has announced it will close for the foreseeable future after new details emerged from documents released by the US Department of Justice about the former Duchess of York's friendship with the late sex offender, Geoffrey Epstein. We're going to hear the details on what is known. Also, we welcome back the actor and writer Susan Wachoma to our studio to talk to talk about Handel and Hendricks. That's coming up. Also today, a new online initiative that

hopes to help people navigate the legal system. We're going to take time to explain some of the complexities that arise around domestic abuse injunctions. And if you don't have children and you don't expect to, have you ever felt guilt that your parents won't become grandparents? It's something Ellen Scott has been exploring and I'd love your thoughts on it. You can text the program 84844. I'm wondering, have you spoken openly with your parents about it? How was that? And whether you don't have children by choice or by circumstance, have you felt any pressure to make your parents grandparents? On social media, we're at BBC Women's Hour. You can email us through our website, or you can send a WhatsApp message or a voice note using the number 0-3-700-100-444. I look forward to reading your

messages. Now, you might know my next guest from the TV shows Cheaters, Chewing Gumb and Taskmaster, among others. Her films in Ola Holmes and The Beautiful Game, but now, Bafta Breakthrough British actress and comedian, Susan Wacoma, is with us for some baroque and roll. She has written a brand new musical with the National Youth Theatre. Welcome back to the Women's Hour studio. Thank you for having me. Good morning. So would you like to tell us what your new musical is called? Yes. So it's very imaginative. called Handel and Hendricks. But, you know, it does exactly what it says on the tin.

It's about the two great musical geniuses. And they used to live next door to each other. Not at the same time, obviously, hundreds of years apart. But yeah, on Brook Street in Mayfair, 25 Brook Street and 23 Brook Street, they live next door to each other. I found this so surprising. So when I saw a few days ago that you were coming on the programme, I started looking, putting in for your musical.

Instead, a museum popped up. There is a museum. And Hendricks Museum. Yes, there is a house that you can go and visit. So they have recreated 25 Brook Street Handel's home. And this is where he lived. He died there at the age of, I think, 71, 72. He wrote, goodness me,

he wrote, I think maybe 600 pieces there, including Messiah. And then next door, the top floor in a tiny little flat, 23 Brook Street, Jimmy Hendricks lived there for I think three months but it was a crazy three months as you know his musical career spanned four years so it was a very short big large bright career and yeah he lived there and he had lots of jam sessions there's lots of interviews there there's lots of archival

footage of him in the flat so they've been able to recreate it up there and you can go you can go it's a place that you can go and visit but how unusual is that that small space, shall we say, how's these two greats? It is incredible. And I'm a born Londoner. I had no idea.

So Paul Roseby, who's the artistic director of the National Youth Theatre, which I used to be a member of when I was a kid, he approached me and said, would I be interested in writing the book? Him and our amazing composer and Naomi Hamilton have been developing it on an offer a few years, and they're sort of ready to sort of go full steam ahead. And so when he mentioned it to me, I had no idea. And I think that's one of the reasons why I said, yes, I'm a bit obsessed with London history and discovering, you know, things that are on my doorstep that had nothing, knew nothing about previously.

So it's been a real adventure and a real kind of reckoning for me. So what can we expect? Because there's these two guys that we're talking about. Yeah, yeah. But there's a young girl, really, in your story. Yes. So we follow a young girl called Melody, who basically ends up, I mean, no one do this. I'm not encouraging anyone to do this, but she ends up breaking into the museum. and it's basically a night in the museum with these two great ghosts basically.

So we've got ourselves a ghost story, which I love, and really fantastic music that Naomi's created. I didn't want to be part of anything that was a jukebox musical. So this is all original songs, all original music that's harking back to that classical era of the Baroque and gospel we have. Jimmy Hendrix is known as a rock star and rock music,

but he was a blues man, so we had those elements as well. Yeah, and it's, And we have an amazing cast of 10 National Youth Theatre members who are giving it all their got and it's amazing. I watched a little clip of it. Oh, you see it. I did. I did.

I saw a part of it from the rehearsal that was, they were really going for it. I get the idea of this energy that's there on stage and unusual pairing, perhaps. It is part of the National Youth Theatre's 70th anniversary celebrations. But you alluded to there that you were part of the National Youth Theatre. How impactful was it for you? It changed my life, to be perfectly honest with you. I was 13, a teacher at school just said, oh, I think you'd be good at this.

So I auditioned. I went in with the wrong piece. I think I had a classical piece, but I forgot. I didn't read in the letter that I had to do a modern piece, so I made it up. What do you mean? Like, just... I just forgot.

But no, I'm done. I totally understand how somebody can forget something over a moment of pressure. Believe you, me. But this thing of making it up on the spot, what story came to you? I don't. There's a certain amount of, you know,

gumption that you have as a 13 year old that I think you lose as you get older. And it's a real shame. And it's a real shame because I just thought, well, better make something up. So I just did. And I got in and, yeah, before, for a few years before I went to drama school, I did shows in the summer and Easter holidays.

And it was formative in just sort of knowing what acting was, knowing what an ensemble is. And having a really good time. I had a ball And of course that's the beauty if you managed to find a job where you're having a ball at times. So it was a teacher that had mentioned it to you.

Yeah. And back home, how did that go down? Oh, it was like a lead balloon. It was terrible. I mean, I think, you know, my parents came from Nigeria and they just wanted us kids to be all right and secure and stable

and all those sort of things in terms of work. And they knew nothing about the arts. So they couldn't protect me, they couldn't advise me, they didn't really know what I was going into. And so, yeah, they tried to discourage me, but I'm quite pick-headed and I went for it. And ultimately, like, it was the right thing. Well, obviously, for all of us to have you. You did get your first break while at the National Youth Theatre, is that correct? Yeah, I did.

So I got my first agent whilst it was there. And I did my first TV job, which was for the BBC, for CBBC. It was called That Summer Day. and it was a TV film about the London bombings but told through the perspective of schoolchildren, which was really interesting because I was at school when it happened. And, we won a BAFTA.

And yeah, it was my first job. And then after that, I went to drama school because I just wanted to know more. I wanted to have the space to learn and grow, not on the job. To Rada? I went to Rada. How was that?

It was interesting. I think a lot of people have very mixed experience. Yeah, I interviewed you on a page, Edelon, from Kavana and Stacey. And hers is pretty brutal, actually, is the way she described it to me. I think that, I mean, my, I think your experience really depends on your acting teacher. So when you arrive, you're split into three, your whole year spent into three, and you're given an acting tutor. And depending on who that person is, you're either nurtured or it can be really brutal. I had an amazing acting teacher called Alex Clifton, who I owe a lot to, because I think he really saw a

as students. We were there to learn as opposed to, why don't you know this about Shakespeare? Why don't you know how to do that? There was such a growth. But it was brutal at times. Yes, yeah. And I'm wondering then how you decide,

because actually Joanna said she went in very much expecting to be a Shakespearean actor, for example, you know, and obviously she's so well known for some of her comedic roles. Did you have something in your head about what area you wanted to go into? No, really. I mean, because I had an agent before,

which I got via National New Theatre, I knew that I would be playing very young for a while because I looked super, super young. And when I left drama school, I did have about four or five years where I just played children on stage. And then my agent said, we should probably stop doing that

because you've got to grow up. So aside from kind of that and how I looked, I didn't really know and I was very, very open. The thing that I will say is that before drama school, I was really confident in Shakespeare. I was super confident. I did it at youth theatre, did it at Saturday drama classes, which were free.

These were all free things at the time. And then I went to drama school and then I was told, this is how you should do it. This is the kind of voice that you need to have. And I lost my confidence. I completely lost my confidence with Shakespeare. and it is something that I still grapple with to this day. But then I leave and then the most amazing actors

are the ones who are using their accents, their regional voices. One of my classmates James McArdle, who is Glaswegian, I think he's one of the best Shakespearean actors that we have. And so there's a lot of kind of unpicking of what is true and what isn't because sometimes school is not real life. And that's the kind of difficulty when you come out the other side

is going, oh, I was told that I need all of that, but actually it's my voice and my essence and me, that's why I get a job over somebody else. And that voice, of course, you've put into so many projects now. You know, last year you made your directorial debut with the short film Dark Skin Bruises differently. I mean, even the title, Susan. Yeah. I know.

We workshop different titles. And I was like, oh, that's the one, even though it's quite long. But, yeah, no. And I always tell us a little. Yeah, I could tell you a little bit about it. It's still doing festival rounds. I'm very, very proud of it. It's not, I mean, I do a lot of comedy, which I love.

I think comedy is the hardest thing to do hands down. But this story was something that was really important to me. I'd had some contact with social services as a child, and I was really deeply affected by the horrific murder of Victoria Columbia as a child. And I just wanted, I knew that, not even I knew, but I assumed there would be a TV drama, like there are with a lot of real life tragedies. I assumed there would be and there hasn't.

And so when it came to directing a story, I wanted to write a story about a young girl and who do we give innocence to? Who do we see as innocent? Who do we not? Who do we believe? You know, children have a journey with their relationship with the truth. And I feel like that has to be nuts.

and looked after and we have to realise that children don't come out the womb knowing exactly right from wrong and I wanted to discuss that complexity and so when I got the opportunity to direct a short film I thought well it has to be the story because I've been thinking about making it since I was a child and so I did with an incredible team and yeah we were at London Film Festival last year and we've travelled the world where we've just screened in Berlin we're about to be in Toronto and yeah very proud of it I have a lot more I want to ask you. I know, just both on that, but I will say dark skin bruises differently as the name

if you are intrigued by what Susan is saying. Comedy is the hardest you say, but some people can be snooty about comedy. Massively. I think in theatre they can be very snooty. I think that people just, you know, even with budgets of shows, you look at the budget for a drama and the schedules for a drama when you're shooting them,

they're longer and there's a bigger budget than there is for comedy. For whatever reason, people think that it's easier to do and cheaper to do. I think it's so hard. And I've seen so many actors think they can do it and fail. It's about your timing, your sensibility. There is a magic to it. Like, you can't really pinpoint what makes Matt Berry brilliant.

But he knows how to do what he can do. Whereas with dramas, I feel like there's a lot of actors who can do lots of roles for me. And having done dramas before, yeah, I definitely just, the same thing. sensation of doing it is easier. Yeah, that's what I really, really respect and love comedy. We've been speaking about children, you being a child actor, for example, and of course your debut of your short film as well. But I was reading something that you said about becoming a parent.

And you said, I think it's really dangerous to just assume that everyone should become a parent. Some interrogation of that is healthy. Yeah. Yes. Do you want to expand? A little bit. Yeah, we're going to be.

We'll be talking about grandparents later and about children who don't have children so the parents don't become grandparents. I'm not going to ask you specifically about that. I know both of your parents have passed. But I'd be curious about your thoughts on parenthood. Yeah, sure. I mean, I, from a very young age knew I didn't want to be a parent. There's all sorts of reasons why that would be the case that I've discussed with various therapists. But I think that's good.

I think that interrogation is good. I just, I never believed that it was a given. And culturally, I was surrounded by a lot of people who did believe it was a given. You had a Nigerian background. Yeah, absolutely. You have children. You get married. You have children.

But I just, from, when I say early, I mean, I remember the first time I uttered it, I was eight. I didn't want to have children. And then as I've gotten older, it just, it's how I felt. And, you know, I think that there's certain things that I would need to be a mother. It would have to be, like, unlimited money, especially in this day and age. But also the village. I feel like we need a village. We need villages.

And right now people, because of money and what they can afford, they're so separate and they're so nuclear. And I don't believe that's how it should be. And so me as a child free person, a child free person who's, you know, very much intentionally, I'm part of that village because I'm there to help my friends. I think the aunties, as we call ourselves, the aunties, we serve a really, really important function, which I take super seriously.

So, yeah, I just think that it's not a given. It isn't the only thing that... It's not the thing that gives women your value completely. For some people it does, but for a lot of people it doesn't. And I'm one of those people. Wouldn't it be great to have Susan McComa as your auntie? I'll be an auntie. Come on, then.

Thank you for coming in to us. I need to let people know that you can see the National Youth Theatre perform Handel and Hendricks at St James Church, Piccadilly, just down the road from here, in London from tomorrow, so February 4th, until Saturday, the 7th of February. Enjoy it all. Thank you very much, Susan.

Lots of you getting in touch about grandparents. Let me see. Being a grandparent is a joy of 11 grandchildren. Some have very successful lives and some not so. There are those that struggle, and as a grandparent, I feel their pain. It hurts so much. That is the other side of grandparenting.

But what I am asking is for, if you have decided not to have children, or you cannot have children, do you feel guilt about the fact that your parents will not become grandparents? We've Ellen, who has written a piece on it, Ellen Scott, a little bit later to speak to us. So 8444-844, if you would like to get in touch.

Now, I want to move on to Sarah Ferguson. Her charity service trust has announced it will close for the foreseeable future after new details emerged from documents released by the US Department of Justice about the former Dutch. of York's friendship with the late sex offender, Geoffrey Epstein. A spokesperson for the foundation said the decision comes after some months of discussion.

More than three million documents were released by the US Department of Justice last week, and that includes emails appearing to show that Ferguson was in contact with Epstein while he was in prison for soliciting sex from a minor. Joining me now is BBC News correspondent Ellie Price, and we'll also be talking to Dr. Andrew Launey, who wrote entitled The Rise and Fall of the House of York, Welcome to you both. Ellie, let me begin with you.

The Charity Service Trust. Tell us a little bit more about what it has said in the recent announcement. Yeah, it feels a little bit like Groundhog Day actually, because you'll remember back in September when the sort of first tranche of Epstein files came out and the links with the Duchess of York with Epstein, she was forced to, well, she was taken off as patron for a number of charities. And Sarah's Trust was a charity that was set up in 2020. And it was established to dedicate supporting frontline and grassroots works

to address the humanitarian and environmental crisis, the hunger crisis and issues perpetuating cycles of extreme poverty. That's from its website. And today we hear that along with the chair, Sarah Ferguson, and the board of trustees, it's been agreed with regret that the charity should shortly close for the foreseeable future. Now, the statement says that these discussions have been going on for a while.

We can assume probably since September. would imagine. But obviously now would seem like a good time, given that we have this constant publicity over the last couple of days, of it would seem Sarah Ferguson's links with Geoffrey Epstein that seemed to be deeper than perhaps we had realised. So perhaps not a surprise for money? No, I don't think so. And as I say, there were a number of charities back in September that she removed her as a patron. So I guess not much of a charity, but you know, just a sort of another sad development in this whole saga. So let us get into, Ellie then, a little more about the documents relating to Sarah Ferguson from this latest release of Epstein files.

Can you give us a flavour of the email conversations? Well, I think the most important thing, and you alluded to it at the beginning, is the timing of all of this. So keep in your mind that Epstein was convicted in June 2008 of soliciting sex from a 14-year-old. He was then sentenced to a controversial sort of house arrest sentence at the time from which he was released on the 22nd of July in 2009, so 13 months. of a 18-month sentence. Now, we've come across emails in which Sarah Ferguson

has clearly been communicating with Jeffrey Epstein while he was still serving that sentence, asking him for business advice, for something she called the Mother's Army company that she was trying to set up, that she was trying to continue,

and he gave her advice on all of that. There's then another email on the 27th of July in 2009, five days then after Epstein finished his sentence, or at least came out of jail, in which she was organising a lunch with Eugenie and Beatrice to go and visit him in his Palm Beach residence there.

As I say, that's just five days after he finished the sort of incarceration bit of his sentence. There's other documents that have come out over the weekend demonstrating a closeness. So in early 2010, there was an email from Sarah to Epstein in which she said, You are a legend. I really don't have the words to describe you, my love. Gratitude for your generosity and kindness. Kiss, kiss, kiss. I am at your service, just marry me.

And then there's other emails in October 2009, so forgive me for dancing around all the different dates here. But they're important. They're really important because she appears to ask for money. So, for example, she writes to him, I urgently need £20,000 for rent today. The landlord has threatened to go to the newspapers if I don't pay any brainwaves.

Now, I should say I've gone through a number of these documents. They're quite hard to get through. Often there's no context, no date. And we have contacted Sarah Ferguson for comment. she hasn't come back to us yet. But obviously, as I say, just the very mention and the very dates of all of this is at best just very embarrassing.

And being named, we should say, among the Epstein files, is not an indication of wrongdoing. But is it possible from some of the details in those emails, for example, to draw any conclusions on how close the friendship was between Sarah Ferguson and Jeffrey Epstein?

Well, I think pretty clear. I mean, in one email she talks about him, being the brother I never had. There are other emails that Eps seem to sent to other people in which he seems to sort of slightly make a bit of a joke of Sarah Ferguson and some of the issues that she faces. There's another email actually in July 2009, so again, keep that in mind.

It's just finished his sentence, where he talks to a billionaire American hedge fund manager and he appears to suggest that Sarah Ferguson, or Fergus, he calls her in the email, could organise tea in the Buckingham Palace Apartments or Windsor Castle. Now again, we don't know whether that happened. There's no context to all of this. But as I say, the timing's embarrassing, and it implies a closeness

that Epstein felt he could talk about her and about access that she might be able to offer to other people. But as you say, we haven't heard back from her, we haven't heard entirely her side of the story. But as I say, there is definitely this closeness. Well, stay with us, Ellie. I do want to bring in Andrew here. You have been researching for many years for your biography

about the links between the then, Duke of York now, Andrew Mountbatten, Windsor, and his former wife, Sarah Ferguson. I'd be curious for your reaction to the revelations, as you've heard thus far, from Ellie and others about these documents. Well, I mean, I'm not surprised at all. They just confirm what I found the course of my research. I knew that she was very close to Epstein.

The relationship began much earlier than people realized it lasted much longer. And they kind of used each other. I mean, she, the story was that he'd only given her 15,000 pounds. Well, the sum is more like two million pounds. And he actually had her investigated at one point. He was very upset when she publicly disowned him. And yet she continued to remain friendly with him. I mean, she was staying in his properties as late as 2014.

So it doesn't surprise me, again, that the charities have cut links. I mean, it's sad. Sarah Stras did some good work. And she did some good work as a human. But the problem always were where you drew the line between her reputation laundering, her social ambitions, her business activities, and actually what she was doing for the charities. And time and time again, when I contacted charities, I found that she had perhaps been less useful to them than she had presented in public.

And she has been closing, she always had lots and lots of different accounts. She's been closing those. She's been withdrawing from some of the charities. So this has been a long, ongoing process. But her reputation is completely finished. She did come back in 2010 after being caught for selling access to Andrew in a sting operation by a newspaper. But I think now, I mean, her credibility is completely damaged. Here she is ostensibly supporting children's charities and writing children's books.

And yet here she is entertaining her children with the convicted paedophile. And I'll come to her children in just a moment. You mentioned two million pounds, Andrew. What is the evidence for that? Well, I had lots of sources. I talked to 300 people. And I got it from several sources, people very close to her. Okay.

And I don't have, as we mentioned, we've reached out to Sarah Ferguson, but the BBC has, but has not responded as yet. I do want to turn to her children. She has two daughters, Beatrice and Eugenie. What do you know thus far, Andrew, about her relationships with her daughters? In the past, they have talked about an unbreakable bond, talking about like a tripod that supports one another. Yes, I mean, she was very close to the daughters.

I mean, she wasn't the greatest mama she claims. She was hardly ever there. She was always working of trying to earn some money. And the children were brought up by collection offices and nannies. but there has been a close relationship, particularly as adults. She took them everywhere. I mean, she and both parents took the children on a lot of their trip, but it doesn't surprise me that she took them off to see Epstein at that point.

You say it doesn't surprise you? I don't think these things matter. I think they just turned a blind eye. These people, that was what they did, and they didn't ask too many questions. These were people who were rich who could be useful, and that was the important thing. Andrew Lowney, thank you very much for speaking to us this morning. I want to come back to you, Ellie.

We mentioned Sarah Ferguson's daughter is there. What was revealed in these emails on what was said thus far? There's been, as I say, there's been the meeting that was where the daughters went. There's also been another email which sounded like it was sort of made in jest about suggesting what one of the daughters had been up to one weekend sort of lurid suggestions, which you know came across as potential chat but were quite awkward when you read them

in the context of all of this, particularly obviously with, you know, what the S-Ebstein files actually talk about. I think looking, sort of taking a step back and looking more generally at all of this and where this leaves us, obviously you know, Sarah Ferguson was married

to the then Duke of York, the Prince Andrew, the then-Prince of Andrew, who obviously lost all his titles back in October So there's, I think, a distance obviously with the royal family now, though obviously Eugenie and Beatrice very much remain part of it. I think an interesting statement from the Palace last night who obviously haven't been commenting on all of this because of very much the whole point being the distance that they've made in losing his titles. But it's a question about whether Andrew Mountbatten, Windsor, should give evidence in the US about what he knew about Jeffrey Epstein. The source, the Bucking Palace source,

said anyone who has information should consider helping in any investigation, but that is ultimately a matter for Andrew Mountbatten, Windsor and his conscience. This is, and I just want to mention Peter Nagar that Andrew was referring to there, is a convicted sex offender. This is a tranche,

this three and a half million that was released last week by the US Department of Justice. There are more to be released, as I understand, Ellie. Well, the Justice Department said that's it now. They've given out everything that they plan to give out. But there are survivors. There are Democrat politicians over in the US who say there are up to another two and a half million files to be released. Now, to be completely honest, but you're not quite sure what the chances are of those being released. There are other sort of legal matters that are in the way. And don't forget, a number of these files that have come out are redacted. Now, there's been separate arguments about that because three million files, the point, they were delayed in the first place. they were expected to come out earlier. The authorities said that they were delayed because of the issue of going through and redacting sensitive information like the names of some of the survivors and victims.

And there are a number of victims who've said actually their names haven't been redacted and are calling for them to go back and look. So it's all terribly complicated in terms of the volume. But yeah, 3 million files. And I can assure you they're very difficult to go through. This is not a simple website to go through. That's what I was wondering. Have they actually, even with AI or whatever other methods we might have at the moment?

I mean, have they being combed through? They're certainly being combed through. But finalised? Well, quite. I mean, if you think of all the media organisations in all of the world, and I think that's a point worth making as well, the scale of all of this. Here we're obviously interested in a former cabinet minister

and UK ambassador to the US. We're obviously interested in the links to our royal family. In Norway, they're looking at links to the royal family there. In France, there's senior politicians who are implicated. Obviously in the US, There is much interest in what Donald Trump may have had with Epstein, as well as Bill Clinton. Yes. Two former richest men in the world, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, who've also said denied doing any wrongdoing but are mentioned in these files.

You know, and around the world, there are different headlines on different news programs talking about different key people, key, you know, great and good, elite, rich people, connected people who all seem to be mentioned in this. Now, as you said, and it's worth reiterating, just because you're mentioned in the Epstein. files doesn't necessarily mean you are guilty of any wrongdoing. But this is an enormous, the scale of this is enormous and very international. And yeah, there are millions of files to go through. I mentioned the BBC contacted Sarah Ferguson for comment. I should also say Andrew Mountbatten, Windsor, has always consistently and strenuously denied any wrongdoing. Ellie Price, thank you so much for joining us also to Dr. Andrew Launey, who wrote entitled

The Rise and Fall of the House of York. Now, we turn to renewed calls for greater public education on the workings of this country's vast legal system. Actually, I'm going to come to that in just a few minutes' time, but before that, I want to turn to our podcast. It's Send in the Spotlight. Our episode this week is exploring the system that supports children's special educational needs and disabilities.

And we change things up a little bit. You, the listener, takes the starring role this week as we assemble an expert panel to answer your questions. For example, how to help a child who is high needs but sits quietly and struggles in class. I do think that whilst that child may not be the squeaky wheel now, eventually that child will become the squeaky wheel. And when those children that are a little bit more under the radar become the squeaky wheel, it might be later on in their school lives.

It might be that there's self-harm. It might be there's eating irregularities. it might be that they have depression. And so those things come up maybe a little bit later on, but eventually they will become that squeaky wheel. And then we really do have a crisis, which is why I would really advocate for diagnosis. And as much as people might hate labels,

a label is only a problem. If you have a problem with the label, I'm fabulously autistic and quite proud of it. But what I would say is that if I was struggling in school and someone noticed that I wasn't really playing with any of my friends at school and my mum didn't want me to have a diagnosis. What that holds me back from is all of those other traits that may be to come. And it would be so good if we could get early intervention on some of those other areas.

And we're not going to get that if we don't have the diagnosis. Join me with Send Parents, Carrie and David Grant, plus a lawyer and a teacher with decades of experience as we address your queries about the Send system. You can find the podcast on BBC Sounds. Just search for Send in the spotlight. and while you're there, why not subscribe for free? So then you will never miss an episode. Right, let me turn back to the courts, as I was mentioning.

There are money looking for more education on the country's vast legal system and to really ensure the potential victims are equipped with a clear understanding of how it operates. Maybe you found yourself engaging with the courts, perhaps during a divorce or as a victim of a crime. You might have your own experiences of how challenging it can be. Well, joining me today are a leading family law barrister, a Samantha Singer, who has launched an online platform designed to empower victims. And also with us is Joe Silver from the charity, Safe Lives. Welcome to you both. Samantha, let me begin with you.

The website is called Courtney. You have it going for a little while, but you have a new animated film. And it's about a scenario where a couple are in court over a domestic abuse injunction. Tell us a little bit about the film. people see and why you wanted to make it? Thank you. Well, this video is, we believe, probably the first of its kind that demonstrates what actually happens in the family court setting when an individual seeks a protective order from a judge in the context of domestic abuse. What we were aiming to demonstrate is the system as it is on the ground for most people

and not to focus on the representations people may see in a fictionalised setting to empower and to educate with the aim of ensuring that those people who need the protection of the family court and those orders that are uniquely available from the family court are able to access them, understand how they can access them and are not put off by some of the representations of the court system they may see in the media. So let's talk about this particular one. It's animated. It's kind of what I remember is lime green and pink.

It's like we're able to follow along very easily, I feel, even though these are complicated matters. We have a husband and wife that are separated by a screen. We have a judge. There's been a non-molestation order. Yes, that's right. So Courtney as a platform is an animated law library that brings to life, as I say, the family court hearings.

And so each animation, like the one we've recently released, on this domestic abuse injunction, which was scripted by the brilliant Naomi Wiseman of Barristo practicing in this field. It aims to show what an individual would experience going into that court setting. And so, as you say, there is a screen to divide the two individuals because the allegations are of domestic abuse. The judge is dealing with issues around how the hearing should take place to take care of the concerns and the needs of the potential victim of domestic abuse. And so we hope it shines a light on the issues that are relevant and the means by which someone would need to prepare to go into that hearing, bearing in mind the significant strain on the

system and lack of funding, lack of legal aid, which means that many women will be facing hearings of this type without adequate legal support. Yeah, I think I would describe it almost as a ping pong of concerns that the judge is putting towards the man and towards the woman and giving both of their responses equal value. Are some of these videos particularly, let's say this domestic abuse injunction, aimed at women specifically? It's neutral public legal education, so it's aimed at everyone. But what I would say is that it's obviously we know a majority of women

who will be seeking these injunctions, because it is the majority of victims are women overwhelmingly. And you probably gather, as you say, from the way in which Courtney is designed with its pink and its lime green, it is the realisation of a law library reimagined from the perspective of a group of women, a group of women barristers who feel that there was a serious lack of innovative, dynamic, public legal education that is inviting, that is not the dense text and jargon.

the decisions are still, can be heartbreaking at times. Joe, I want to bring you in here. What do women tell you about their experiences of the courts? Joe, can you hear me? Thank you, sorry, just unmuting. The victims that we work with in safe lives again and again and again tell us the very reason that they go to court is for protection,

but their experience isn't that. So some of the quotes that we have from our victims who've been through this process are the court dismisses the abuse. So the judge said, just get over it. He's done what he's done and move on. The victim completely shocked and nobody challenged that in the court.

Also on the emotion of survivors, normally women in this space, being used against them. So because I was emotional, my intelligence and my ability as a mother were questioned. And I just wanted to bring us back to the kind of importance of these family court processes for victims of domestic abuse. This is not really an opt-in, opt-out, where that is the case with a criminal court. You can decide really whether you want to be part of this. This is normally women experiencing domestic abuse, fighting for,

their home, trying to keep themselves safe and trying to work out how to keep their children safe in a family court process so that outcomes of this are life-changing. Yes. For what we're doing through these processes. And let me jump back on that, Joe, because you raise a number of points, which makes me think of the video, again, Samantha. There is a house at stake here. The couple are, neither of them want to leave the home.

The woman does not want the man to be able to return to that home. He doesn't want to leave. And from her perspective, the outcome that the judge gives is unsatisfactory. It's basically try and work around each other. The order for him to leave that house has a very high bar, which the actions that he's had thus far, which I think could be seen as coercive control, are not at the level of which they would have to be for him

to be made, his house. It's pretty brutal, I mean, from her perspective. She is also emotional, one of the aspects that Joe mentions there. The judge has not dismissed the abuse, but it seems some kind of cold, hard facts that might be very difficult for people to see if they're thinking about entering that system. I would agree. Sorry, Joe, go ahead.

Sorry, go ahead, Joe, and then I'll come to Samantha. I was just going to say, that's why I think this animation is so useful. we are so grateful for it. So the information that it shows victims and survivors before entering is real. It's not the Waltons. It's not all going to be okay. I will say, though, when we ask our pioneers to watch the video, they say it is user-friendly and very, very simple to understand, but so anxiety-producing for them and ret traumatising. So what they want is a best friend or an expert in domestic abuse who can sit alongside them and work those emotions through

because as you have already said, the outcome isn't satisfactory for the victim. The victim is clearly very, very scared and has nobody in that court really that has that expert understanding. And I will say in this particular video, the woman asks for her friend to come. The judge says no, they can because they could be a potential witness in the future.

But what about that? anxiety provoking and traumatising in some ways for some. We recognise that. Our concern, as Barrister's practicing in this area, is to do what we can, which is to represent the system as it is, not how we might want it to be. Because although, as Joe rightly points out, there are very many needs that are unmet within the system and we need very much more funding, we need legal aid, we need support for victims.

Right now, today, up and down the country, there are women. in entering into courtrooms without any preview of what they're going into and what they're going to be asked and what is going to be important when the stakes are so high. So we recognize that and we hope and we hope Joe will agree that what we've tried to do by being realistic is empower people to understand what they face and hopefully leave them in a position whether they have that educative tool and they're not left to the representations from the failings of the system or that alone. so we hope that it also enables people to recognise that they have rights, that they understand them, and that they can come forward.

But in terms of whether the video is brutal in terms of what it shows, the outcome that the judge that we demonstrate in the video decides, what she decides to be really clear is that she doesn't have the evidence on this occasion. And that's a really common scenario for a non-molustation order in an occupation order application. She says, effectively, this is a sticking plaster. You're going to need to come back and see me in a number of weeks because I only have evidence from one side

and that was the victim of domestic abuse. I mean, in it as well, they mention that there is no, neither of them have managed to get legal aid or have help with financial support for a lawyer. I know some might start turning for legal advice to something like. AI, does that concern you, Samantha? I think AI has its place and I think anyone involved in projects around access to justice

would see that access to justice tech is hugely important. And I hear from women who are experiencing domestic abuse who will say that AI tools have assisted them, for example, with selecting the right court form. But let's be clear, there is no technology tool that is a substitute for legal advice. and I would urge anyone facing these issues to get specialist legal advice and check their eligibility for legal aid or explore their options around free legal advice from law clinics, for example,

because that really is the centrepiece for all people facing domestic abuse and any other family law legal issue. Jo, you mentioned your pioneers. I imagine there are people within your system who tried this out who have been through the courts, so to speak. I mean, what would you like to see changed? I completely agree with Sarah and I just want to say in 25 years I've been working in this sector. My history is a police officer.

I have never walked into an event like I did the Courtney event, which was packed full of professionals, judges, barristers, solicitors, the commitment and desire to do better. I have never, ever experienced and I got on the train and thought times are a changing. Let's just acknowledge that. We have a huge amount of desire to make this better. I think the two things that I would end with that I think are gaps for victims of domestic abuse going through the family court. Domestic abuse is not fair. The court wants it to be fair and transparent, but those parties are not coming to the court in the same position. So the victim of the domestic abuse that needs to be understood by the court. So the court needs to be trained to

understand domestic abuse and the dynamics, the impact of that on the children, because we must and forget children are a lot of the time involved in these big decisions. So we need a court that's receptive, understands domestic abuse, can understand what supports needed for the victim to give their evidence in a clear way, but also to understand where perpetrators, perpetrators, perpetrators, are using the court system to re-victimise and control their partner and their children's lives, and also that victims do have access, which has to be funded from experts in domestic abuse, because this will not be the only thing that they are managing in their lives. They may well be in criminal court.

They may well be behind with rent. They may well be managing the rules that the perpetrators put around. their lifestyle and their children's lifestyle. It's an awful lot and I don't want us to end this thinking victims have to be more resilience or more articulate. The whole system needs to be more informed about what's going on for the victim so that we can adapt to what they need. So their family court does protect the victims and their children.

Let us leave it there. That is Joe Silver from the Charity SafeLong. Thank you. Samantha Singer, one of the barristers behind Courtney, made by five women. It's an online platform with accessible legal advice. You'll see that latest video we're talking to to if you go to their website is the most recent one. And if you have been affected by anything you've heard in the discussion, you can go to BBC Action Line, where you feel links to support groups. I do want to read a little from the Ministry of Justice, a spokesperson who said, we recognise that for many victims, the family court can feel intimidating. And we welcome

initiatives like Courtney's legal that has helped people better understand the process. As part for our violence against women and girls strategy, we're investing £550 million over the next three years in specialist victim and witness services, including advice and support for people attending court while reforming the family justice system through initiatives such as pathfinder pilots to make proceeding safer and less adversarial. We did approach Kafka, children and family court advisory and support service for a statement. but they were unable to provide a comment at this time. Right.

Since the beginning of the program, I was asking you if you have not had children and whether you feel guilty about not making your parents, grandparents, lots of messages coming in. Here's one. My daughter who is 20 has asked me if I'll be upset if she doesn't have children. I told her that I would not and that my feelings would neither hear nor there, but her feelings on the matter were paramount.

I love my daughter. If she's happy not having children, then I'm happy. So why are we talking about this? Well, you know, we often talk or hear about mum guilt, but this is, we want to talk about the guilt about not becoming a mother and particularly on this aspect that if you don't have children and don't expect to

whether you felt that guilt of your parents not becoming grandparents. The writer, Ellen C. Scott has experienced this despite her parents not putting her directly under pressure, but she was moved to write about it for Stylus magazine. She's the digital editor there. And she said it struck a chord with so many women. Good morning, Alan.

Hi. Thanks, Pabwe. Good to have you in the studio. We've also got Professor Hannah Scherbertsky, who's a psychotherapist and associate professor at the University of Exeter joining us this morning. Good morning, Professor. Good morning. Hi. So I can see it strikes a chord, Ellen, from the calls that are coming, or the listeners who are getting messaging us at the moment this morning. But what prompted you to write about it?

I think, weirdly, it was my brother. I recently got married. And I think a lot of strangers and other people assume that kids would be next, which I've been really quick to say, no, not the case. But I've been talking with my brother, who's also married, about he does want children. And I think it suddenly hit me that if he has any struggles to have children, which is a very common, you know, possibility, it's a lot of pressure on him where I've said to my parents, I'm not having kids. So my brother's kind of the only hope you've got. So I started feeling, really guilt about that, coupled with my dad is such a baby person, which I didn't realize until kind of recently.

And seeing him interact with babies has made me feel a bit like, oh gosh, I'm depriving him. So, Ellen, have you spoken to your parents about it? No, never directly. You're just letting them hear it right now. I published the article, and I was kind of expecting them to message, but they haven't yet. I don't know if they've read it, but they're definitely aware that I'm not having kids. I very regularly establish that when I say, you know, our cats are your grandchildren? Like, that's it. That's all that's coming. But I've never explicitly asked them,

are you disappointed? So you talk about your brother, you talk about your father. That is familial, kind of nuclear family where the guilt is coming from, I think. Is it just there? or is it the other concentric circle of society that you feel is putting any pressure on you? Completely. Like I think any child-free women will know that the pressure and assumption of you having kids is ever present.

It comes from strangers, relatives, colleagues, like anyone you can think of has suggested to me that I should have children. My ex-partner explicitly called me selfish for it. Selfish. Selfish, which was really brutal at the time. I think now I've heard that enough times that I'm kind of less sensitive to it.

But yeah, everyone wants me to have children in a very specific way. I think that society at large is very keen for women to have children but doesn't provide the support once they do. So it's a real, it's baffling to me. Here's a message. I do carry some guilt about putting my parents through the quiet shame and embrace. embarrassment of not having children. What an interesting way to put it. The quiet shame and embarrassment,

especially as they live in a traditional community where having children is deeply valued. But I couldn't bear the thought of bringing another human being into this world, someone who would be more precious to me than anything when the world itself feels so undeserving of my children. Let me bring you in here, Hannah.

Listening to Ellen, hearing some of those comments from my listeners, what are your thoughts about the experience of feeling guilty? Oh, absolutely. Yes, I think these feelings of guilt are so common, so common. And from a systemic perspective, when we think about family life, it's so full of spoken and unspoken expectations, about relationships, about work, gender roles, and about becoming a parent. And especially, as Ellen said, about becoming a parent for a mother, for a woman, perhaps with a biological clock ticking, etc., you know. many of us grew up absorbing ideas that having children is what you do

and that that somehow fulfills your parents' dreams, I think. And of course, for parents, there's the potential loss of the role of being a grandparent. That's the interesting thing, I think. It's not just the experience of having grandchildren. It's also about that you're denying a grandparent a role as such. I wonder, is it also, the quiet shame and embarrassment, I think is such an interesting term. that it almost kind of describes a lack of a sense of belonging,

which I suppose their friends are going through perhaps at that particular time. Here's a comment that came in. I never had children and as an only child, my parents never had the joy of being a grandparent. If I had my time again, I would have had kids for their sake. I even wonder if having grandchildren would have slowed down the rapid progression of my dad's dementia. It's a major source of guilt for me.

So that's one. Here's another. I never even considered whether my parents would have liked me to provide them with grandchildren, so I don't feel at all guilty about having to decide to remain child-free. My mother had such difficulty giving birth to me that it was always clear on my side that I would not be putting myself through the pain and agony of it all. I have never regretted either, thankfully. Hannah?

Well, I mean, I think it's absolutely fascinating that there's such division there between people. What I think is interesting about Ellen's experience and people talking about this sense of guilt or not feeling guilty is that, you know, a kind of reminder that guilt and shame are quite different. And we might be sort of conflating them because I think guilt is often a feeling we associate with having done something wrong. But it also tells us that we care. And I think where somebody feels guilty is often can be something quite helpful because it tells us that we care about what our parents feel, which is really different. from feeling ashamed, perhaps, of not having children. That's a very different feeling. That's much more associated with self-esteem and our own sense of worth.

So maybe it's helpful to make that distinction between those two feelings, I think. Here's some, sorry to cut over you. Would you like to continue or would you like to hear another comment? Well, I'm just going to say, I also think it's important to distinguish between those who are child-free by choice and those who are child-free by circumstance. And of course, you know, it's very, very different, isn't it? If you've chosen, if you've made an active decision not to have children, compared to those for whom it just didn't happen.

And there might be infertility and a lot of sadness and grief that gets compounded with the feelings of guilt for the grandparents or lack of grandparents. So those are different kinds of feelings as well, I think. Yes, perhaps, but maybe the guilt is similar. I don't know. My parents supported me through a long and devastating journey of infertility. And sadly, I'm now childless, though,

not through choice. They say it adds to my sadness that my amazing parents weren't able to become grandparents. They would have been fabulous. Others saying, yes, I deeply regret not having hot children because my mum would have been the best grandmother

in the world. She loves children. They love her. She's never voiced her own regret at not being a grandmother, but she has said she's sorry that I haven't experienced the joy of motherhood.

I'm crying while I write this, as I know it would have meant the world to her to have had grandchildren. I mean, Ellen, you've really stumbled on something here. Yeah, and I think the second I put out, because I put on my Instagram, if anyone was up for talking to me, the reaction I got, like, blew my mind. Like, I often, as a journalist, will put out call-outs. I'm lucky to get, you know, 20 responses back. I got more than 50.

I think it's very clear that so many women are feeling this guilt and this pressure, but with very different experiences to mine. Like I think the, I realise how lucky I am that my parents haven't explicitly put that pressure on me. Whereas the women that I spoke to, you know, someone's mum had bought a baby bouncer as though, like, you need to have kids immediately. Yes, she bought the baby bouncer even though there was no sign of a child. Exactly, which is mind-blowing. And then similarly, you know, a really awful story about this woman who was reluctant to get a divorce because she wouldn't have children with his partner anymore and might be. depriving her parents. There's so many different experiences

and ways for the guilt to show up, but the guilt is always there. You know, we were talking the title of a book, a previous item about entitled, but I think there is that entitlement that comes up in some of these conversations that I was reading some of the comments that came through to you, Ellen,

on the part of parents at times and when it comes to grandparents, whether you talk about it and how you talk about it is another aspect. I'll see if your parents get in touch, you. After this, LNC. Scott, you can find her article on stylist. I also want to thank my guest. Professor Hannah Sherberski. Thank you. And thanks to all of you who got in touch as well. Right, Deborah Cohn, tomorrow, her book, Bad Influence, How the Internet Hijacked Our Health.

Also, Romula Garai, join me then. That's all for today's woman's hour. Join us again next time. How does someone invent a political theory that reshapes the map of the world? How do you get to a scientific breakthrough that saves thousands of lives or create works of that stand the test of time. How have brilliant thinkers through history done their best thinking, and what can we learn from them?

From BBC Radio 4, it's the second series of Human Intelligence with me, Naomi Alderman, from Carl Marx to Mary Curie, from Emily Bronte to Leonardo da Vinci. How did those exceptional minds do their work, and are their ways of thinking we can emulate today? To find out, listen to Human Intelligence on BBC Sounds.