CPAG response to two-child limit ‘rape clause’ court judgment

Note: anonymity orders and reporting restrictions are in place in relation to the claimants and their children in this case 

The High Court has today rejected a legal challenge against the rules on an exception to the two-child limit in universal credit. 

The case was brought by two mothers who each conceived two or more children non-consensually while in abusive relationships that started when they were teenagers. One of the mothers later had two more children consensually in a long-term relationship, while the other struggled to manage on universal credit support for only two of three children living with her after an older child was returned to her from local authority care. 

The mothers weren’t able to rely on the non-consensual conception exception to the two-child limit because under the current rules this exception is only applied for third or subsequent children.

The mothers argued that the rules on this exception to the two-child limit breach their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and are irrational. But the judge said that the issue is not one for the courts and will ultimately be resolved in the political arena and in the forum of public opinion.   

Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) represented the women.  

Responding to today’s judgment,  one mother, known as EFG, said:  

All of my choices were taken away from me for years by my abuser before I fled. I’ve fought hard to get on with my life for me and my kids. But the two-child limit makes it more difficult. The Government says that the exceptions are to protect people who - like me – didn’t have a choice about the number of kids in their family, but the rape clause doesn’t do that. The rules need to change to protect families like mine. The result today is disappointing but I will keep going and fight this to the end.  

The other mother LMN said: 

I want to keep going with the case as I feel like it’s against my human rights. When my oldest came back to live with me from care and before I got the exception for my youngest, we had to survive on less money. That stopped me doing things with the children – I never planned on having the children but that’s not their fault.

Claire Hall, solicitor at CPAG who represented the women, said:

The Court recognised that our clients were deprived of their personal and reproductive autonomy by their abusers which led to them having children through no choice of their own. Our clients have provided their children with safe and loving home environments but the rules have failed to protect them and their children from the impacts of the two-child limit. Our clients are obviously disappointed with today’s decision but are determined to keep going with their cases. We will look at appealing today’s decision but in the meantime all eyes are on the government which has the chance to do the right thing and abolish the inhumane two-child limit in the Autumn child poverty strategy. 

Anonymity orders and reporting restrictions are in place for the two claimants and their children. Pursuant to s.11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of either Claimant or of any matter likely to lead to their identification in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings. The claimants must be referred to orally and in writing, in place of their names, as LMN and EFG - https://cpag.org.uk/sites/default/files/2024-10/LMN%20EFG%20AC%202023%20LDS%20000259%20000260%20Fordham%20J%20order%2010.10.24%20approved.pdf

Today’s judgment is here https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/admin/2025/1849 More information on the case is HERE  

Notes to editors: 

CPAG press office:  07816 909302.   Neither of the mothers will be giving media interviews.