Content uploaded by Michelle Mccarthy
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Michelle Mccarthy on Oct 05, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
The demographics of forced marriage of
people with learning disabilities: findings
from a national database
Rachael Clawson, Anne Patterson, Rachel Fyson and Michelle McCarthy
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this study is to compare the UK demographics of forced marriage of people with
learning disabilities and people without learning disabilities to inform effective safeguarding practice.
Design/methodology/approach –An analysis of all cases of forced marriage reported to the UK
Government’s Forced Marriage Unit (FMU) between 2009 and 2015.
Findings –Peop le with learning disabilities are at five times greater risk of forced marriage than people without
learning disabilities. Men and women with learning disabilities are equally likely to be forced to marry, whereas
amongst the general population, women are more likely than men to be forced to marry. Patterns of ethnicity,
geographic location within the UK and reporters are the same for people with and without learning disabilities.
Research limitations/implications –The analysis is based on cases reported to the FMU, and forsome
cases, data held was incomplete. More importantly, many cases go unreported and so the FMU data
does not necessarily reflect all cases of forced marriage in the UK.
Practical implications –Forced marriage of people with learning disabilities is a safeguarding issue.
Practitioners across health, education, criminal justice and social care need to better understand the risk
of forced marriage for people with learning disabilities. Links to practice resources developed as part of
the wider project are provided.
Originality/value –This is the first time that researchers have been given access to FMU data and the
first time that a statistical analysis of cases of forced marriage involving someone with a learning disability
have been analysed.
Keywords Intellectual disability, Learning disability, Disability
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Forced marriage is a safeguarding issue which may affect people of any age, sex,
sexuality, religion, ethnicity, country of origin or (dis)ability. However, as with other
safeguarding issues, some people may be at heightened risk. It is important to understand
variations in risk of forced marriage at both an individual and population level, so that
safeguarding resources and staff training can be appropriately targeted. The true extent of
forced marriage in the UK and elsewhere is not –and perhaps cannot be –known with any
degree of certainty. A number of studies of forced marriage have been undertaken in the
UK [see Chantler (2012) for an overview of six studies] but, in the UK and elsewhere, little is
known about forced marriage of people with learning disabilities. However, it is known that
people with learning disabilities are at risk of forced marriage; that very real differences
exist between victims with and without learning disabilities and the ways they are (or are
not) protected from harm; and that practitioners across a range of professional groups find
it challenging to both recognise and respond adequately to forced marriage of this group
(Clawson, 2016;McCarthy et al.,2020).
Rachael Clawson is based
at the School of Social
Work, University of
Nottingham, Nottingham,
UK. Anne Patterson is
based at the School of
Sociology and Social
Policy, University of
Nottingham, Nottingham,
UK. Rachel Fyson is based
at the School of Sociology
and Social Policy,
University of Nottingham,
Nottingham, UK.
Michelle McCarthy is based
at the Tizard Centre,
University of Kent,
Canterbury, UK.
Received 6 September 2019
Revised 8 January 2020
24 January 2020
Accepted 10 February 2020
The authors are grateful to the
Forced Marriage Unit for their
time and effort in providing ano-
nymised data to facilitate this
study. The authors also grate-
fully acknowledge the funders,
NIHR School for Social Care
Research, for their financial
support.
Disclaimer: This report is based
on independent research
funded by the NIHR School for
Social Care Research; the
views expressed are those of
the authors and not necessarily
those of the NIHR School for
Social Care Research or the
Department of Health, NIHR or
NHS.
DOI 10.1108/JAP-09-2019-0029 VOL. 22 NO. 2 2020, pp. 59-74, ©Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1466-8203 jTHE JOURNAL OF ADULT PROTECTION jPAGE 59
In 2005, the UK-wide Forced Marriage Unit (FMU), jointly overseen by the Home Office and
the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, was established to prevent the forced marriage of UK
citizens, both in the UK and worldwide. It does this through outreach and educational
activities, through providing advice to those who have been forced to marry or may be at
risk of forced marriage and through intervening in individual cases. Individual casework can
include working with other local, national and international government agencies to prevent
forced marriages from taking place and/or to safeguard victims where forced marriages
have already occurred. In the UK, casework can involve the FMU offering advice; helping to
find the victim a safe place to stay; helping to stop a UK visa if the victim has been forced to
sponsor someone; and helping to apply to the court for a Forced Marriage Protection Order.
The FMU also collates annual statistics on the cases of forced marriage that are reported
via its helpline (Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Home Office,2018a, 2018b). This
paper uses FMU data to explore forced marriage of people with learning disabilities to
improve safeguarding responses.
Forced marriage and the law
The UK Government defines forced marriage as occurring when “one or both people do not
(or in cases of people with learning disabilities or reduced capacity, cannot) consent to the
marriage” (Home Office, 2018). Forced marriage is different to arranged marriage where
the family takes the lead in choosing a potential spouse but both parties have the right to
refuse a potential match. As the definition suggests, people who lack the capacity to
consent to marry may be particularly vulnerable to forced marriage; this includes people
with learning disabilities. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act (2014,s.121)
makes it clear that:
In relation to a victim who lacks capacity to consent to marriage, the offence [of forcing someone
to marry] is capable of being committed by any conduct carried out for the purpose of causing
the victim to enter into a marriage (whether or not the conduct amounts to violence, threats or any
other form of coercion).
This means that “force”, duress or coercion are not needed for a marriage to be considered
a forced marriage: all that is needed is for one (or both) parties to be unable to lawfully
consent to the marriage because of mental incapacity. Moreover, because the decision to
marry is not a decision that can ever be made on behalf of another person (Mental Capacity
Act, 2005, s.27: excluded decisions), this means that some people with learning disabilities
may be unable to marry. Forcing someone to marry is an offence regardless of whether the
marriage takes place in the UK or elsewhere and regardless of whether the ceremony is
civil, religious or designated as marriage by custom. The offence of forcing someone to
marry is punishable by up to seven years in prison and an unlimited fine.
Previous research funded by the FMU (Clawson, 2011;Clawson and Fyson, 2017), based
on a survey of practitioners who had worked with victims of forced marriage, suggested that
the demographics of forced marriage of people with learning disabilities were different from
those of people without learning disabilities. As a consequence, from 2009 onwards, the
FMU introduced “disability” as a new item of data on which it would collect information
whenever an actual or attempted forced marriage was reported (Table I).
As can be seen, FMU data shows that from 2010 to 2014, the percentage of reported cases
of forced marriage involving a person with learning disabilities rose fairly steadily, and since
then have remained broadly static. This is likely to be attributable to improved recording
practices within the FMU and the publication in 2010 of the UK’s first practice guidelines on
forced marriage and learning disability (HM Government, 2010).
As part of a wider study of forced marriage involving people with learning disabilities in the
UK, this paper reports an analysis of cases of forced marriage reported to the FMU as
involving at least one person with a learning disability. The particular focus of the analysis is
PAGE 60 jTHE JOURNAL OF ADULT PROTECTION jVOL. 22 NO. 2 2020
to compare characteristics of cases of forced marriage between victims with and without
learning disabilities. The FMU holds data on every case of actual or attempted forced
marriage that is reported to them. Although these cases do not capture every case of
forced marriage in the UK, the FMU database is the only national dataset on forced
marriage available in any country worldwide. An analysis of this data, therefore, affords an
unrivalled opportunity to learn more about the demographics of forced marriage of people
with learning disabilities. This is the first time that the FMU data has been interrogated by
external researchers. The data presented in this paper provides new insights into how risk
factors for forced marriage amongst people with learning disabilities are both similar to and
different from risk factors amongst the general population. It is hoped that the findings can
inform the development of more effective adult safeguarding practices, both in the UK and
internationally.
Methodology
This work forms one part of a larger project which sought to better understand forced
marriage of people with learning disabilities from a range of stakeholder perspectives and
thus improve safeguarding policy and practice (see www.nottingham.ac.uk/research/
groups/mymarriagemychoice/forfurtherdetails).
A caseworker from the FMU extracted information on all cases (where disability was
recorded as present) reported between 2009, when recording of disability was introduced,
and 2015, the most recent full year for which data was available. The data extraction took
place in late summer 2016. Data was extracted from case notes by applying a standard
framework to each case, to enable the drawing out of basic demographic information (age,
sex, type of disability), geographic details and information about who had reported the
case. The resultant quantitative data was analysed to provide descriptive statistics of each
phenomena. In some categories, there were significant amounts of missing data which
limited the analysis; unless otherwise stated, missing data was excluded from calculations.
Some, but not all, cases also included additional information in the form of case notes. The
presence or absence of such notes was recorded and, where notes were present, key
issues were noted. There was insufficient qualitative data to undertake a thematic analysis,
but a summary of how the nature and quality of notes developed over time is provided in
Table II.
Finally, it should also be noted that “cases of forced marriage” includes all cases reported
to the FMU, whether of forced marriages that took place or where forced marriage was
attempted. Although these caveats mean that the data must be approached with caution, it
nevertheless provides a unique opportunity to understand more about the demographics of
UK forced marriage of people with learning disabilities.
Table I Disability and forced marriage in the UK
Year
No. of cases where the FMU gave advice or support relating to
possible forced marriage
No. (%) of cases involving
a person with disabilities
2009 Unknown 15 (Aug-Dec)
2010 1,735 70 (4.0%)
2011 1,468 66 (4.5%)
2012 1,485 114 (7.7%)
2013 1,302 97 (7.5%)
2014 1,267 135 (10.7%)
2015 1,220 141 (11.6%)
2016^ 1,428 140 (9.8%)
2017^ 1,196 125 (10.5%)
Note: Data in this table is from statistics published annually by the FMU
VOL. 22 NO. 2 2020 jTHE JOURNAL OF ADULT PROTECTION jPAGE 61
Ethics
Ethical approval was sought and obtained (Research Register for Social Care ID no. 16/
IEC08/0014) from the Social Care Research Ethics Committee for England (NHS, undated).
The extraction of data was undertaken by FMU staff; no information which might have
enabled the identification of specific individuals was shared with researchers. Owing to the
sensitivity of the data and the imperative of maintaining confidentiality, researchers were not
granted direct access to any case files. Rather, they were provided with a set of data that
had been extracted from the FMU’s case files and anonymised.
Findings
The FMU data included a total of 593 cases where a disability was identified, of which 554
cases (93 per cent) related to someone with a learning disability and the remaining 39 (7
per cent) related to physical or sensory impairment. The analysis which follows relates to the
554 cases that involved someone with a learning disability. Information collected by the
FMU has allowed for quantitative analysis of three main factors: personal characteristics
(age, sex, disability); geographies (within UK and internationally); and who is reporting
cases of forced marriage. Each of these factors will be examined in turn but consideration
will first be given to the qualitative data.
Each case of actual, attempted or planned forced marriage reported to the FMU is
allocated a unique case file number. At the point when a case is reported via the national
forced marriage helpline (020 7008 0151), the FMU ask for a range of data from the person
who contacts them. Depending on who is reporting the forced marriage, the volume and
quality of information which the FMU is able to collect will vary. There have also been
improvements over time in the way in which the FMU collects data and in the amount of
detail recorded in case files.
Table II shows how FMU recording of cases changed and developed during the years
2009-2015. Over time, the data shows an increased understanding and awareness
amongst FMU staff of the relevance of learning disability. It also demonstrates the
increasing links made between FMU and other relevant Government agencies, including
both local authority safeguarding teams and immigration authorities (UK Border Agency/UK
Visa and Immigration), in seeking to prevent forced marriages from taking place. With the
Table II Development of information within FMU case notes
Year
All FMU
cases
Cases involving
learning disability
Learning disability
cases with notes Level of detail within notes
2009 Unknown^ N= 15 (% n/a) 3/5 (% n/a) Very scant notes –mostly UK location of “case”
2010 1,735 N= 51 (2.9%) 12/51 (20%) UK location and some very brief descriptions of cases
2011 1,468 N= 58 (4.0%) 24/58 (23%) More detailed notes begin during latter part of 2011, in some
cases including the call-takers’ actions
2012 1,485 N= 54 (3.6%) 36/54 (67%) More detailed descriptions of cases, including the call-
takers’ actions
2013 1,302 N= 100 (7.7%) 100/100 (100%) Additional notes for all cases involving learning disability.
Variable in length and detail, but many being quite
extensive
2014 1,267 N= 135 (10.7%) 135/135 (100%) Additional notes for all cases involving learning disability.
Variable in length and detail; 77 of 135 (57%) were cross-
referenced to other Government databases
2015 1,220 N= 141 (11.6%) 141/141 (100%) Additional notes for all cases involving learning disability.
Variable in length and detail; 84 of 141 (60%) were cross-
referenced to other Government databases
Notes: ^2009 was the year that recording of disability was introduced at the FMU; because it was introduced in August, the number of
cases involving learning disability applies only to the months August-December and not the whole year
PAGE 62 jTHE JOURNAL OF ADULT PROTECTION jVOL. 22 NO. 2 2020
increased overall number of cases involving people with learning disabilities, there came
more detailed additional notes. During the latter years (2013-2015), a caseworker was
assigned specifically to advise on cases involving people with learning disabilities, which
has led to increasing expertise about what information is needed to inform safeguarding
action. The creation of this role in the FMU has been beneficial in terms of raising awareness
of the issues relating to people with learning disabilities, both internally and externally.
The qualitative data from case file notes provided insights into individual experience and
context for the numerical data, bringing to life the trauma which some people with learning
disabilities experience in the context of forced marriage. Incidents reported within case files
included physical and psychological abuse; rape and pregnancy (including the use of
pregnancy as a means of bolstering visa applications); honour-based violence; and female
genital mutilation. Although not all forced marriages of people with learning disabilities
involve these types of trauma, many do.
The intersections of disability, age and sex in forced marriage of people with
learning disabilities
Disability
As noted earlier, the vast majority (93 per cent) of cases reported to involve a person with
disability involved a person with learning disability rather than any other disability or
impairment. Table I showed that, as reporting and recording of cases has improved, the
proportion of all reported cases of forced marriage known to involve someone with a
disability has stabilised at an annual rate of around 10.5 per cent. Given that 93 per cent of
recorded disabilities are learning disability, this suggest that around 10 per cent of all cases
of forced marriages of UK citizens involve a person with learning disability.
The significance of this figure lies in its relation to the prevalence of learning disability within
the general UK population, as this evidences the increased vulnerability to forced marriage
amongst people with learning disabilities. UK-wide prevalence figures for learning disability
are not available. This is because Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales only publish data
about the number of people with learning disabilities who are known to be using specialist
support services, rather than the overall number of people with learning disabilities
(Northern Ireland Department of Health, 2017;Scottish Commission for Learning Disability,
2018;Statistics for Wales, 2018). In England, Public Health England (2016) estimates that
around 2 per cent of the adult population has a learning disability, though fewer receive
support from adult social care services. Whilst the proportion of people with learning
disabilities who have access to adult social care may vary owing to variations in funding and
threshold criteria, it is unlikely that the prevalence of learning disabilities in the overall
population differs widely across the UK. If anything, the prevalence of learning disability is
likely to be higher in England than in other countries of the UK. This is because England is
more urbanised and densely populated (Statista, 2019) and, although severe learning
disabilities are distributed evenly amongst the population, mild learning disabilities are more
prevalent in deprived urban areas (Department of Health, 2001).
Comparing the population-level prevalence of learning disabilities (circa. 2 per cent) to the
prevalence of learning disability within the FMU forced marriage statistics (circa. 10 per
cent) leads to the conclusion that people with learning disabilities face a five times greater
risk of being forced to marry in comparison to people without learning disabilities.
Age
Table III shows the distribution of cases of forced marriage of people with learning
disabilities 2010-2015 by age of victim; the youngest victim was aged just 12 and the oldest
was 85. As can be seen, age was only consistently recorded in 2014 and 2015 and so,
VOL. 22 NO. 2 2020 jTHE JOURNAL OF ADULT PROTECTION jPAGE 63
given the high proportion of missing data in earlier years, only these two years can be
considered to provide reliable data on age distribution.
Public data from the FMU (Foreign & Commonwealth Office and Home Office statistics,
2010-2018) shows that, amongst the general population, around half of all forced marriages
take place when the victim is aged between 16 and 21 and very few forced marriages (<10
per cent) are reported after the age of 30. However, the age-related pattern of forced
marriage amongst people with learning disabilities shows a rather different pattern: a
smaller proportion of victims are under 21 and they face an increased risk of forced
marriage not only between the ages of 22 and 30, which is when up to half all reported
forced marriages of people with learning disabilities occur but also on into their 30s, with up
to a quarter of all cases occurring in those aged 31 or older. The age at which a person with
learning disabilities is most likely to be forced to marry can be linked to the reasons why
parents and family carers may wish to procure a marriage for their relative with a learning
disability –namely, to secure a long-term carer (McCarthy et al., 2020;Clawson and Fyson,
2017).
Sex
Much of the general literature (and Government policy) on forced marriage alludes to it
being an issue affecting predominantly young females. However, Table IV shows a
comparisons of the male-to-female ratios of victims of forced marriage with and without
learning disabilities, and reveals substantial differences in the sex of victims.
The exact ratios differ slightly each year, but the overall picture is that roughly 80 per cent of
all victims of forced marriage are female and only 20 per cent are male. However, amongst
people with learning disabilities, the figures are very different: the overall male-to-female
ratio is roughly fifty–fifty, with cases involving male victims in a majority in recent years. This
trend has continued since this study was completed, with published FMU statistics for 2016
and 2017 showing reported cases involving men with a learning disability at 61 and 53 per
cent, respectively (Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Home Office, 2017,2018a,
2018b).
The geographies of United Kingdom forced marriages involving a spouse with
learning disabilities
Geographies of forced marriage are significant because although the FMU does not
systematically collect data about ethnicity, it does record both the region of the UK in which
the victim lives and the “focus country” of the forced marriage, defined as:
The ‘focus country’ is the country to which the forced marriage risk relates. This could be the
country where the forced marriage is due to take place, or the country that the spouse is
Table III Distribution of forced marriage of people with learning disability, by age
Year
No. of LD
cases
No. (%) of LD cases
with age recorded
Age range (years) and no. of cases
11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 6oþ
No. (%)
missing data
2009 15 0 (0%) 15 (100%)
2010 51 21 (41%) 12 7 1 1 30 (59%)
2011 58 33 (57%) 13 13 4 3 25 (43%)
2012 54 16 (30%) 7 6 3 38 (70%)
2013 100 23 (23%) 8 13 2 77 (77%)
2014 135 112 (83%) 24 (21%) 59 (53%) 25 (22%) 3 (3%) 1 (1%) 0 (0%) 23 (17%)
2015 141 129 (91%) 26 (20%) 71 (55%) 21 (16%) 7 (5%) 3 (2%) 1 (1%) 12 (9%)
All years 554 334 (60%) 90 168 56 13 4 2 220 (40%)
PAGE 64 jTHE JOURNAL OF ADULT PROTECTION jVOL. 22 NO. 2 2020
currently residing in (or both) (Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Home Office,2018a,
2018b, p.10).
Explored together, these geographies of forced marriage –by which we mean both the
victims’ UK region and the focus country of the marriage –can tell us something about the
risks of forced marriage amongst people with learning disabilities in ethnic minority
communities.
Focus country
Although some forced marriages involving UK citizens take place in the UK, around 90 per
cent take place overseas (Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Home Office, 2017,
2018a,2018b). The FMU reports that, since its inception, it has dealt with cases of forced
marriage involving over 90 focus countries, with 65 different focus countries noted in the
most recent year for which data is available (Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Home
Office,2018a, 2018b). Knowing more about the focus country in relation to forced
marriages involving someone with learning disabilities can help us to better understand
which individuals may be at greater risk. This is because in most, though not all, cases, the
focus country will reflect the ethnicity/family background of the victim.
Table V shows the number of forced marriages of people with learning disabilities from
each of the eight most frequently-occurring focus countries between 2009 and 2015.
Pakistan is consistently the most frequent country of focus, accounting for between 31.4
and 58.9 per cent of forced marriages in any given year, and 45.8 per cent of forced
marriages across all years. Three other countries are focus countries in a high number of
recorded cases. Bangladesh is the focus country for 13.4 per cent of recorded cases
across all years, with a particular “peak” of 21.6 per cent of cases in 2010; India is the focus
country for 12.8 per cent of recorded cases across all years and was the focus country for a
third of all cases in 2009; and the UK is the focus country for 11.6 per cent of all recorded
cases across all years with a “peak” of 20 per cent of all recorded cases in 2014.
The geographical spread of focus countries in part reflects UK patterns of immigration,
which in turn reflect the UK’s history of colonialism. There are settled, multi-generational
communities in the UK originating from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and elsewhere;
statistics for England and Wales indicate that 2.5 per cent of the overall population is of
Indian heritage, 2.0 per cent of Pakistani heritage and 0.8 per cent of Bangladeshi heritage
(Office for National Statistics, 2019). However, focus countries are not simply a reflection of
immigration –religious and cultural expectations within these communities also play a
significant role, particularly beliefs about marriage (McCarthy et al.,2020) and this may
explain the increased incidence of some focus countries.
Table IV Distribution of forced marriage 2010-2015 by sex ratio and disability
All cases/cases involving learning disability by sex ratio
Year
All cases
Male-to-female ratio
Cases involving learning disability^
Male-to-female ratio
2009 n/a 53:47
2010 14:86 36:64
2011 22:78 47:53
2012 18:82 43:57
2013 18:82 49:51
2014 21:79 55:45
2015 20:80 62:38
Notes: ^ Gender was recorded for 551 out of 554 cases; cases where gender was not recorded are
excluded from calculations
VOL. 22 NO. 2 2020 jTHE JOURNAL OF ADULT PROTECTION jPAGE 65
Table V Focus country of forced marriages involving someone with learning disabilities
Focus
Country^
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total
No. % in 1 year No. % in year No. % in year No. % in year No. % in year No. % in year No. % in year No. % all years
Afghanistan 0 0.0 1 2.0 1 1.7 1 1.9 0 0.0 1 0.7 3 2.1 7 1.3
Bangladesh 1 6.7 11 21.6 8 13.8 5 9.3 19 19.0 12 8.9 18 12.8 74 13.4
India 5 33.3 6 11.8 6 10.3 7 13.0 20 20.0 17 12.6 10 7.1 71 12.8
Nigeria 1 6.7 2 3.9 1 1.7 0 0.0 2 2.0 1 0.7 0 0.0 7 1.3
Pakistan 6 40.0 16 31.4 28 48.3 26 48.1 33 33.0 62 45.9 83 58.9 254 45.8
Somalia 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 3.0 0 0.0 3 2.1 6 1.1
Turkey 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.9 1 1.0 4 3.0 0 0.0 6 1.1
UK 0 0.0 3 5.9 3 5.2 5 9.3 10 10.0 27 20.0 16 11.3 64 11.6
Other2 13.3 12 23.5 11 19.0 9 16.7 12 12.0 11 8.1 8 5.7 65 11.7
TOTAL 15 100.0 51 100.0 58 100.0 54 100.0 100 100.0 135 100.0 141 100.0 554 100.0
Notes: Where total incidence <1% or focus country was not recorded/known. ^Focus country was recorded for 516 out of 554 cases; cases where focus country was not
recorded are excluded from calculations
PAGE 66 jTHE JOURNAL OF ADULT PROTECTION jVOL. 22 NO. 2 2020
As well as recognising that people with learning disabilities from South Asian, and
particularly Pakistani, backgrounds are at heightened risk of forced marriage, it is important
to note that a significant minority of forced marriages (almost 12 per cent of the total across
all years) have a focus country which is not in the “top eight”. This means that professionals
should be wary of making assumptions about the likelihood of forced marriage based
purely on ethnicity, as forced marriages can and do occur amongst individuals of all ethnic
and national backgrounds. Moreover, it is likely that patterns in the country of focus will
change as patterns of immigration change. For example, amongst all forced marriages (not
just those involving people with learning disabilities), FMU statistics for 2017 show Somalia
overtaking India as the third most frequent country of focus (Foreign and Commonwealth
Office and Home Office,2018a, 2018b).
Parts of the United Kingdom from which recorded cases originated
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the parts of the UK from which victims of forced marriage originate
closely correspond to the areas of the UK which have the most ethnically diverse
populations and the largest numbers of people of South Asian heritage.
As Table VI shows, of the 554 cases of forced marriage involving someone with a learning
disability, 26 per cent (144) originated from the London area; 18.8 per cent (104) from the
West Midlands; 12.3 per cent (68) from the South East; and 10.5 per cent (58) from the
North West. In spite of some gaps in the data, where geographical region was not
recorded, these four regions accounted for almost 70 per cent of the total figures during the
relevant time period.
Knowing that forced marriage is more prevalent in certain regions may help to encourage
public authorities in these regions to raise awareness amongst staff. However, it must also
be noted that over one-third of all cases occurred in regions not named above, and that
cases of forced marriage of people with learning disabilities are known to have occurred in
all countries and all regions of the UK.
Identifying and reporting cases of forced marriage of people with learning
disabilities
The third and final factor which was explored through the FMU data was information about
who reported cases of forced marriage involving people with learning disabilities. Knowing
who reports cases can help us to better understand where to focus safeguarding efforts
and to pinpoint “agents” who are under-represented for targeted training (Table VII).
Table VI Parts of the UK from which recorded cases originate
Country or region of UK No. of cases 2009-2015 % of cases 2009-2015
East 12 2.2
East Midlands 32 5.2
London 144 26.0
North East 15 2.7
Northern Ireland 0 0
North West 58 10.5
Scotland 11 2.0
South East 68 12.3
South West 7 1.3
Wales 9 1.6
West Midlands 104 18.8
Yorkshire and Humberside 48 8.7
Not known 46 8.3
VOL. 22 NO. 2 2020 jTHE JOURNAL OF ADULT PROTECTION jPAGE 67
Table VII Reporters of forced marriage of people with learning disabilities
Year reporter^ 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total across all years
Victim No.% in year 213.3% 12.0% 00.0% 11.9% 44.0% 53.7% 00.0% 132.3%
Friend/relative No.% in year 00.0% 59.8% 46.9% 1,018.5% 22.0% 43.0% 21.4% 274.9%
Social services professional No.% in year 853.3% 1,733.3% 2,746.6% 2,444.4% 3,535% 3,828.1% 4,733.3% 1,9635.4%
School/education professional No.% in year 16.7% 47.8% 58.6% 23.7% 44% 43% 21.4% 224%
Health professional No.% in year 00.0% 47.8% 35.2% 1,120.4% 55.0% 75.2% 53.5% 356.3%
Legal professional No.% in year 00.0% 59.8% 23.4% 11.9% 00.0% 00.0% 32.1% 112.0%
Police professional No.% in year 320.0% 815.7% 610.3% 11.9% 55.0% 96.7% 11 7.8% 437.8%
Other professional/statutory
agency
No.% in year 00.0% 35.9% 46.9% 47.4% 66.0% 85.9% 32.1% 285.1%
All professionals No. % in year 1,280% 4,180.3% 4,781% 4,379.7% 5,555% 6,648.9% 7,150.2% 33,560.6%
NGO No. % in year 16.7% 35.9% 35.2% 00.0% 22.0% 00.0% 53.5% 142.5%
UKBA/UKVI No. % in year 00.0% 00.0% 46.9% 00.0% 3,737% 5,943.7% 6,344.7% 16,329.4%
Anonymous No. % in year 00.0% 12.0% 00.0% 00.0% 00.0% 10.7% 00.0% 20.4%
Total No. % in year 15 (100%) 51 (100%) 58 (100%) 54 (100%) 100 (100%) 135 (100%) 141 (100%) 554 (100%)
Notes: ^Reporter was recorded for 552 out of 554 cases; in two cases, the report was made anonymously
PAGE 68 jTHE JOURNAL OF ADULT PROTECTION jVOL. 22 NO. 2 2020
Across all years, the highest proportion –over one-third of all reports of forced marriage of
people with learning disabilities –has come from local authority Social Services (35.4 per
cent from 2009-2015). Cases are also reported by a wide range of other professionals,
including health, education, police and criminal justice. Although each individual profession
represents only a small proportion of reported cases, together these account for 60.6 per
cent of all cases reported between 2009 and 2015. This may suggest that many different
professionals need to understand the risk of forced marriage that is faced by people with
learning disabilities and that more awareness-raising is needed.
It is also notable that, since 2013, an increasing proportion of reports each year (amounting
to 37 per cent in 2013, 43.7 per cent in 2014 and 44.7 per cent in 2015) has come from the
UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) (previously the UK Border Agency). This reflects both an
increased understanding of forced marriage by the UKVI and closer co-operation with the
FMU, including greater sharing of information.
Only a small proportion of cases were reported directly by victims themselves (2.3 per cent
across all years) or their friends and family (4.9 per cent across all years). The low numbers
reported directly by victims is perhaps unsurprising, given that some victims may have
limited verbal communication and many/most may lack knowledge about the FMU. The low
numbers reported by friends and family tell a slightly different story –it may similarly reflect
lack of knowledge about the FMU or forced marriage itself, but could also be influenced by
cultural beliefs about marriage[1], fear of government authorities and unwillingness to “point
the finger” at family members. This suggests that much work remains to be done to better
inform some communities about the negative impacts of forced marriage of people with
learning disabilities and to make such marriages culturally unacceptable.
Limitations of the study
This study was based upon an analysis of cases of forced marriage reported to the FMU; it
cannot be known whether this is a representative sample of all cases of forced marriage
within the UK. The quantitative data, particularly during the earlier years, was notable for
having significant amounts of missing data. For example, the victim’s age was only
recorded in 334/554 (60 per cent) of cases. Nevertheless, this study has provided new
evidence about the demographics and geographies of forced marriage of UK citizens with
learning disabilities, which may help to raise awareness of risk.
Discussion
The analysis of FMU data presented in this paper both provides new evidence about the
demographics of forced marriage of people with learning disabilities in the UK and raises a
number of questions about how best to respond to this safeguarding challenge. First, the
data makes clear that the overall risk of forced marriage is higher for people with learning
disabilities who account for around 10 per cent of all cases of forced marriage, but just 2
per cent of the general population. The intersections between disability, age and sex also
show some significant differences between people with and without learning disabilities
who are forced to marry. Here, the FMU data has confirmed earlier suggestions that both
the age and sex of learning disabled victims of forced marriage are different from non-
disabled victims; and those with learning disabilities are more likely to be male and more
likely to be older. These findings are important. In the UK, campaigns aimed at preventing
forced marriage through raising public and professional awareness have tended to focus
on young women as the most at-risk group; young men, and older people of either sex,
have been largely absent from the public discourse of forced marriage.
The demographics of forced marriage of people with learning disabilities may be linked to
the reasons why people with learning disabilities are forced to marry. In particular, the
desire on the part of (ageing) parents to secure a reliable carer for their son or daughter
VOL. 22 NO. 2 2020 jTHE JOURNAL OF ADULT PROTECTION jPAGE 69
needs to be understood (Patterson et al.,2018;McCarthy et al.,2020). This does not
excuse forced marriage, but it does go some way towards explaining the demographics of
forced marriage amongst people with learning disabilities, given that the pressure to secure
long-term care increases as people age and that men and women are equally likely to need
such carers. This factor needs to be viewed within the context of service use by families
from specific communities. In writing about the provision of care to people with learning
disabilities from ethnic minority groups, Singh and Orimalade (2009) note that “cultural and
religious attitudes are important in how care is sought, delivered and accepted” (2009,
p.405) citing studies which found many South Asian families prefer care to be provided by a
relative (Fatimilehin and Nardishaw, 1994) and that seeking or receiving support from
outside agencies carries stigma which may prevent engagement with services (Gilligan and
Akhtar, 2006). The lack of trust between some ethnic minority communities and statutory
services may also boost the desire to obtain care through marriage (Patterson et al.,2018;
McCarthy et al., 2020). For families seeking external support, a range of common
challenges emerge to the provision of culturally sensitive care, including language barriers,
differences in cultural views (including gender and generational views) and differing values
(Institute for Research and Innovation in Social Sciences (IRISS), 2010;Lindsay et al., 2014)
which may further exacerbate a reluctance to seek support. This suggests that forced
marriage might be reduced through the provision of more and better culturally competent
services combined with outreach work to explain the availability of publicly funded services
to communities where incidence of forced marriage is highest.
The FMU data has shown that although the demographics of forced marriage differ
between learning disabled and non-learning-disabled populations within the UK, the
geographies of forced marriage are broadly the same. In other words, forced marriage of
people with learning disabilities is associated with the same regions of the UK and the same
focus countries regardless of whether or not learning disability is present. While this
suggests that preventative measures might currently most usefully be targeted at South
Asian communities, the changing geographies of forced marriage cannot be disregarded.
The FMU data shows an immense diversity in focus countries and reveals that the
geographies of forced marriage are shifting in response to changes in patterns of
immigration. International evidence supports the idea that forced marriage is associated
with patterns of international migration from countries where the marriage is held in high
esteem, both culturally and religiously. For example, in Germany, where there is a
longstanding, settled Turkish community but few people of South Asian heritage, forced
marriage is most often associated with the Turkish community (DW.com, 2011); and
research in Canada has noted forced marriage linked to Haiti, the Dominican Republic and
Cuba (Bendriss, 2008). In the UK, Somalia has recently emerged as an increasingly
frequent focus country (Parveen, 2018) but other significant focus countries may emerge as
patterns of global migration continue to fluctuate in response to world politics and climate
change. This will require increased vigilance amongst professionals in new regions of the
UK as patterns of settlement gradually become evident.
Finally, the FMU data was able to tell us something about who is most likely to report the
forced marriage of someone with a learning disability. The high proportion of reporting from
social services professionals indicates that they are well-placed to identify –and potentially
to prevent –forced marriages amongst users of adult social care services, but it is unclear
why reporting by other professionals is low in comparison. This may simply reflect a better
understanding of the safeguarding implications of forced marriage and/or better awareness
of the functions of the FMU amongst social services professionals. Overall, however, the
diverse range of professionals involved in reporting cases to the FMU suggests an ongoing
need to raise awareness across many professions, including not only social work but also
health care, education, police and criminal justice. More recent data (Foreign and
Commonwealth Office and Home Office, 2017,2018a,2018b) shows that the single biggest
source of reports is now the UKVI. Whilst this finding demonstrates the value of joined-up
PAGE 70 jTHE JOURNAL OF ADULT PROTECTION jVOL. 22 NO. 2 2020
working between different Government departments, there is also a note of caution to be
sounded here. UKVI is, necessarily, primarily concerned with the application of visa
requirements and immigration law; it is not primarily concerned with safeguarding
vulnerable adults. Whilst it is encouraging that UKVI is able to identify and prevent some
forced marriages, their focus is likely to be largely on excluding the overseas spouse. This
may not always safeguard the person with a learning disability, particularly in cases where
they are sent to live abroad after the marriage has taken place. For safeguarding to be
effective, close working is needed between multiple branches of local and national
Government, between multiple different professionals and across multiple communities.
One of the messages from this study is that, although there are demographic features of
forced marriage which appear to be linked to learning disability and associated with particular
ethnic minority communities in specific regions of the UK, forced marriage can and does
happen to people with learning disabilities in all regions and from all ethnic groups, including
white British (BBC News, 2010). Whilst resources can be targeted at “hotspots”, this will only
result in partial success in reducing forced marriage amongst people with learning disabilities.
This is because the demographics and geographies of forced marriage will continue to
change as the UK population changes. In light of this, it is important that the risk of forced
marriage associated with learning disabilities becomes better known.
Conclusion
The key findings from this analysis of FMU data are as follows:
䊏people with learning disabilities face a five times greater risk of forced marriage than
people without learning disabilities;
䊏men and women with learning disabilities are equally likely to be forced to marry;
䊏the risk of forced marriage for people with learning disabilities remains high across the
lifespan;
䊏forced marriage of people with learning disabilities in the UK is at present most often
found within South Asian communities, but that as patterns of inward migration into the
UK change, the focus countries of forced marriage are also likely to change; and
䊏areas of the UK with larger South Asian population are currently also associated with
higher numbers of forced marriage, but this is also likely to change as migration
changes.
This new knowledge can help to support improved safeguarding practice, but only if more
people are aware of these facts and resources are allocated accordingly. At present, UK
statutory safeguarding adults guidance makes no mention of forced marriage, let alone forced
marriage of people with learning disabilities (Department of Health and Social Care, 2018).
This is in spite of the fact that the guidance names over 50 different ways in which a vulnerable
adult may be abused or neglected, including some (the so-called “honour”-based violence,
forced labour and domestic servitude) which are closely associated with forced marriage. The
omission of forced marriage from the guidance is an oversight which urgently needs to
be rectified to encourage Local Safeguarding Adults Boards to engage more fully in the risks
faced by people with learning disabilities (Clawson, 2016). Until that time, the findings from this
analysis of FMU data go some way towards raising awareness of the increased risk of forced
marriage that is faced by people with learning disabilities in the UK.
The wider outputs from this research project include a range of tools and awareness raising
resources that are available to download for free:
䊏Forced Marriage Awareness Film: An educational film that includes powerful real
cases, expert analysis and key messages for families and practitioners available in four
VOL. 22 NO. 2 2020 jTHE JOURNAL OF ADULT PROTECTION jPAGE 71
languages www.nottingham.ac.uk/research/groups/mymarriagemychoice/film/index.
aspx
䊏Practice guidance toolkit for assessing capacity to consent to marriage: This is
designed to be used by any frontline practitioner involved in assessing capacity to
consent to marriage www.nottingham.ac.uk/research/groups/mymarriagemychoice/
guidelines-resources/index.aspx
䊏Case study collection: This is designed to tell the stories of people with learning disabilities
who have been forced to marry. Each case study is a composite of various stories and
reports from actual cases, though the people depicted in them are fictional. www.
nottingham.ac.uk/research/groups/mymarriagemychoice/documents/case-studies.pdf
䊏Workbooks on forced marriage: These are designed to be used by practitioners
working with people with learning disabilities and their families www.nottingham.ac.uk/
research/groups/mymarriagemychoice/workbooks/index.aspx
Note
1. Cultural issues may include not only holding marriage in high regarding but also believing that
marriage can “cure” someone of their learning disability (Author, 2016).
References
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act (2014), available at: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/
12/contents/enacted (accessed 27 July 2019).
BBC News (2010), available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8426289.stm (accessed 6
September 2019).
Bendriss, N. (2008), Report on the Practice of Forced Marriage in Canada: Interviews with Frontline
Workers, Department of Justice Canada, available at: www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/fv-vf/fm-mf/
fm_eng.pdf (accessed 27 July 2019).
Chantler, K. (2012), “Recognition of, and intervention in, forced marriage”, Journal of Trauma, Violence
and Abuse, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 176-183.
Clawson (2011), Forced Marriage of People with Learning Disabilities: Final Report, Ann Craft Trust.
Clawson, R. (2016), “Safeguarding people with learning disabilities from forced marriage: the role of
safeguarding adult boards”, The Journal of Adult Protection, Vol. 18 No.5, pp. 277-287.
Clawson, R. and Fyson, R. (2017), “Forced marriage of people with learning disabilities: a human rights
issue”, Disability & Society, pp. 1-21.ISSN 1360-0508.
Department of Health & Social Care (2018), “Care act 2014: supporting implementation. Care and
support statutory guidance”, available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/care-act-statutory-
guidance/care-and-support-statutory-guidance#safeguarding-1 (accessed 27 July 2019).
Department of Health (2001), Valuing People White Paper, Cm 5086, Department of Health, London.
DW.com (2011), “Study finds thousands of forced marriages in Germany”, available at: www.dw.com/en/
study-finds-thousands-of-forced-marriages-in-germany/a-15522401 (accessed 27 July 2019).
Fatimilehin, I. and Nardishaw, Z. (1994), “A cross-cultural study of parental attitudes and beliefs about
learning disability”, Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 177-201.
Foreign & Commonwealth Office and Home Office (2017), “Forced marriage unit statistics 2017”, available
at: www.gov.uk/government/statistics/forced-marriage-unit-statistics-2017 (accessed 27 July 2019).
Foreign & Commonwealth Office and Home Office (2018a), “Forced marriage guidance”, available at:
www.gov.uk/guidance/forced-marriage (accessed 27 July 2019).
Foreign & Commonwealth Office and Home Office (2018b), “Forced marriage unit statistics 2018”,
available at: www.gov.uk/government/statistics/forced-marriage-unit-statistics-2018 (accessed 27 July
2019).
PAGE 72 jTHE JOURNAL OF ADULT PROTECTION jVOL. 22 NO. 2 2020
Gilligan, P. and Akhtar, S. (2006), “Cultural barriers to the discourse of child sexual abuse in asian
communities: listening to what women say”,British Journal of Social Work, Vol. 36, pp. 1351-1377.
HM Government (2010), Forced Marriage and Learning Disabilities: Multi-Agency Practice Guidelines,
Forced Marriage Unit,London.
Institute for Research and Innovation in Social Sciences (IRISS) (2010), “Improving support for black and
minority ethnic (BME) carers”.
Lindsay, S., Tetrault, S., Desmaris, C., King, G. and Pierart, G. (2014), “Social workers as ‘cultural brokers’
in proving culturally sensitive care to immigrant families raising a child with a physical disability in health &
social work”, Vol. 39 No. 2.
McCarthy, M. Clawson, R. Fyson, R. and Patterson, A. (2020), “Risk of forced marriage amongst people
with learning disabilities in the UK: perspectives of South Asian carers”.
Mental Capacity Act (2015), available at: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/9/contents (accessed 27
July 2019).
NHS Health Research Authority. (2020), “Social care research ethics committee”, available at: www.hra.
nhs.uk/about-us/committees-and-services/res-and-recs/search-research-ethics-committees/social-care-
research-ethics-committee/ (accessed 27 July 2019).
Northern Ireland Department of Health (2017), “Statistics on community care for adults in Northern
Ireland, 2016–2017”, available at: www.health-ni.gov.uk/publications/statistics-community-care-adults-
northern-ireland-201617 (accessed 27 July 2019).
Office for National Statistics (2019), “Population of England and Wales by ethnicity”, available at: www.
ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/british-population/national-and-regional-populations/population-of-
england-and-wales/latest (accessed 27 July 2019).
Parveen, N. (2018), “UK Somali teenagers taken ‘on holiday’ and forced into marriage”, The Guardian,
available at: www.theguardian.com/society/2018/aug/26/british-somali-teenagers-taken-on-holiday-
only-to-be-forced-into-marriage (accessed 27 July 2019).
Patterson, A. Clawson, R. McCarthy, M. Fyson, R. and Kitson, D. (2018), “My marriage, My choice:
summary of findings”, available at: www.nottingham.ac.uk/research/groups/mymarriagemychoice/
documents/summary-full.pdf (accessed 20 January 2020).
Public Health England (2016), People with learning disabilities in England 2015: mainreport, available at:
www.gov.uk/government/publications/people-with-learning-disabilities-in-england-2015 (accessed 27
July 2019).
Scottish Commission for Learning Disability (2018), “Learning disability statistics Scotland, 2018”,
available at: www.scld.org.uk/2018-report/ (accessed 27 July 2019).
Singh, I. and Orimalade, A. (2009), “Ethnic minority groups, learning disability and mental health”,
Psychiatry, Vol.8 No. 10, pp. 405-407.
Statista (2019), “Population density in the United Kingdom (UK) in from 2017 (people per sq. km), by
country”, available at: www.statista.com/statistics/281322/population-density-in-the-united-kingdom-uk-
by-country/ (accessed 27 July 2019).
Statistics for Wales (2018) “Local authority registers of people with disabilities”, available at: https://gov.
wales/local-authority-registers-people-disabilities-31-march-2018 (accessed 27 July 2019).
Further reading
Foreign & Commonwealth Office and Home Office (2012), Forced Marriage Unit Statistics 2012, available at:
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/141823/Stats_2012.pdf (accessed
27 July 2019).
Foreign & Commonwealth Office and Home Office (2016), Forced Marriage Unit Statistics 2016,
available at: www.gov.uk/government/statistics/forced-marriage-unit-statistics-2016 (accessed 27
July 2019).
Foreign & Commonwealth Office and Home Office (2015), Forced Marriage Unit Statistics 2015,
available at: www.gov.uk/government/statistics/forced-marriage-unit-statistics-2015 (accessed 27
July 2019).
VOL. 22 NO. 2 2020 jTHE JOURNAL OF ADULT PROTECTION jPAGE 73
Foreign & Commonwealth Office and Home Office (2014), Forced Marriage Unit Statistics 2014, available at:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/412667/
FMU_Stats_2014.pdf (accessed 27 July 2019).
Foreign & Commonwealth Office and Home Office (2013), Forced Marriage Unit Statistics 2013, available at :
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/
291855/FMU_2013_statistics.pdf (accessed 27 July 2019).
Corresponding author
Rachael Clawson can be contacted at: rachael.clawson@nottingham.ac.uk
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
PAGE 74 jTHE JOURNAL OF ADULT PROTECTION jVOL. 22 NO. 2 2020