When Forces children’s voices aren’t heard: A call for change

In the context of national security, a child’s right to participate in decisions that affect them – for example, the impact of training exercises, deployments, or postings – is sometimes seen as an “extra” to be accommodated when resources or time allow. In reality, it is an obligation that duty-bearers must uphold and an entitlement that children have, even in challenging circumstances. Recognising this does not conflict with operational priorities; rather, it can help to build trust and reduce stress within families, supporting serving personnel to focus on their duties.

Many leaders and professionals in defence and partner charities express strong support for hearing children’s voices. However, opportunities for genuine participation remain limited. There is no accessible, routine mechanism for gathering their views – for example, an equivalent of FAMCAS for children – and children’s views have rarely informed strategic reviews such as housing or work on transitions. Where their views have been sought, the children and young people frequently say that they don’t know what happens with them or what difference, if any, they made. Often, this gap reflects system design rather than a lack of will. By making child participation a normal part of planning, consultation, reporting and feedback, we can move from tokenistic examples to meaningful engagement.

It is understandable that some worry about the risks of inviting children to speak about forces life. However, experience shows that children are already highly aware of what they can and cannot say. With careful preparation, they can be supported to express their needs and views without disclosing sensitive or personal information. Security concerns should lead us to design protective processes, not to silence children’s voices.

The very qualities that sustain operational effectiveness – prioritising selfless service, unity, loyalty, stoicism, and the ‘can-do’ mindset – can also be mirrored in families and passed down to children, discouraging them from speaking up about the challenges they face. For some, pride in their parent’s service and concern about how their views might be perceived, including potential implications for their parent’s career, can make them reluctant to share their experiences. For others whose parents may have left the forces through medical or dishonourable discharge, there may be shame, stigma and confused emotions and identity. These dynamics can contribute to children concealing their connection to the forces, bottling up stress, or masking emotions, all of which affect wellbeing and resilience. Creating the environment that supports psychological, social and emotional safety and security is necessary to support them.

Readiness for conflict requires a culture of hierarchy and discipline. Children and young people are acutely aware of their serving parent’s role and rank in the forces. Children and young people who live on the patch will live alongside those whose parents are of a similar rank. They will move house within the same patch if their parent gets promoted so they no longer live alongside those their parent now command. These practices and values, while essential for military effectiveness, can create barriers for children and young people in forces families when it comes to speaking up about their needs and experiences. The same dynamics that make it difficult for personnel to challenge superiors—such as respect for chain of command — can be experienced by children.

As a result, many young people from armed forces families may need support to share their views in mixed groups or lack confidence that their perspectives will be taken seriously, especially when these challenge the dominant military narrative of hierarchy, resilience, sacrifice, and cohesion. Openly and safely exploring the dynamics of power and hierarchy needs to be central to working with this group of children, particularly in the early stages of group formation.

Children are not a homogenous group, and some experience further obstacles to participation. The children of those who are minorities in the armed forces – including women, LGBT+ personnel, bereaved families, and non-UK serving personnel – as well as children who are neurodivergent, have other additional needs or are young carers, often require tailored approaches to have their voices heard.

More also needs to be understood about how gender shapes experience. Anecdotally, boys may face pressure to ‘be the man of the house’ when their father is deployed. Research suggests that boys may be most vulnerable to parental separation in early childhood, while girls are often more vulnerable in adolescence. Boys frequently externalise distress and receive help earlier; girls tend to internalise and often receive support only once difficulties become more serious.

It is essential that the intersectionality of their needs and barriers is understood to ensure participation is genuinely inclusive and that the least-heard voices are represented.

The impact of forces life on children is not always recognised as an issue in its own right. It can be difficult to identify when a child is experiencing separation or other stresses related to service life, and this can deprive them of much-needed support.

Forces children can be seen as indirectly affected by military decisions or as needing protection from them. This well-intentioned view can unintentionally make them passive recipients of decisions, with little agency and few opportunities to participate in matters that directly affect them.

As Laura Lundy (2018) reminds us: “Vulnerability should not eclipse agency.” To ensure that children in armed forces families do not slip through the cracks, we need to shift perspectives – from seeing them as passive recipients of support to active contributors with valuable insights.