This informal CPD article, ‘Boundaries that Hold: How Firmness and Compassion Co-Exist in Trauma-Informed Practice‘, was provided by Regina Riley of Adoniso, a training and development organisation committed to enhancing the quality of care for children and young people through emotionally intelligent, trauma-informed practice.
Trauma-informed practice is sometimes mistaken for permissiveness, as though compassion means lowering expectations or removing boundaries. In reality, healthy boundaries are often what make safety possible.
Children who have lived through trauma, loss, disrupted attachment, neglect or instability do not simply need adults who are warm. They need adults who are warm and reliable. They need adults who can stay emotionally available while also being clear, consistent and protective.
Trauma-informed practice is not permissiveness. It does not mean removing expectations or allowing harmful behaviour to go unchallenged. It asks adults to hold boundaries in ways that protect safety without reproducing shame, fear or rejection.
What is trauma-informed practice
The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities describes trauma-informed practice as being grounded in the understanding that trauma can affect neurological, biological, psychological and social development. It also highlights key principles including safety, trust, choice, collaboration, empowerment and cultural consideration. Importantly, it encourages practitioners to look beyond presenting behaviour and ask, “What does this person need?” rather than “What is wrong with this person?”
A trauma-informed boundary does not say, “I am bigger than you, so you will do as I say.” It says, “I care enough to guide you, protect you and stay connected while we work through this.”
Boundaries should not be about control. They are about containment. They help children know what is expected, what will happen next, where safety begins, and how the rights and safety of others will also be protected.
Importance for children
For children whose lives have been shaped by unpredictability, this matters deeply. Predictability is not a small thing. It is part of how safety is built.
Howard Bath’s “three pillars” of trauma-informed care identify safety, connection and emotional regulation as central to supporting traumatised children. Bath argues that much healing can take place in everyday living environments, not only in formal therapy (Bath, 2008).
This has clear implications for carers, teachers, residential workers, support workers and leaders. The everyday adult response matters. Tone matters. Timing matters. Follow-through matters. Repair matters.
A child does not only learn from the rule. They learn from the adult holding the rule. When an adult calmly follows through on what they have said, they model safety through consistency. The child learns that adults can mean what they say without becoming frightening. They learn that limits do not always mean rejection. They learn that warmth can remain present even when behaviour is being corrected. For some children, that may be a new experience.
Ofsted’s current SCCIF for children’s homes places children’s experiences and progress at the centre of inspection. It specifically refers to children developing skills to manage conflict and difficult feelings through positive relationships with staff, alongside “clear, consistent and appropriate boundaries”. It also expects staff to understand children’s experiences, respond with appropriate boundaries about what is safe and acceptable, and seek to understand behavioural triggers (Ofsted, 2026).
This is the balance. Behaviour may be communication, but it still requires guidance. Trauma may explain behaviour, but it does not remove the adult’s responsibility to protect, teach and respond.
A trauma-informed boundary holds both truths:
“I understand there may be a reason for this behaviour.”
And:
“I cannot allow this behaviour to continue.” This is not contradiction. It is relational authority.
A trauma-informed boundary holds truths
A trauma-informed boundary usually contains five elements
First, firmness with empathy
“I cannot allow you to hurt others, and I can see you are really struggling.”
This holds accountability without humiliation. It does not excuse harm, but neither does it reduce the child to the harm they have caused.
Second, predictability
Children need to know what will happen next. Sudden reactions, inconsistent consequences, raised voices, sarcasm, threats or emotional withdrawal can make a boundary feel unsafe. Predictability is not rigidity. It is trustworthiness.
Third, structured choice
Choice does not mean unlimited options. It means offering agency within safe limits.
“You can sit with me here, or you can take five minutes in the calm space. I am not leaving you to manage this alone.” This restores dignity while keeping the adult responsible for safety.
Fourth, repair after rupture
Children will test boundaries. This is not always defiance. Sometimes it is fear asking, “Will you still be here if I get this wrong?”
Repair does not mean pretending the behaviour was acceptable. It means returning to the relationship after the incident and helping the child make sense of what happened.
“What was going on for you?”
“What did you need in that moment?”
“What can we try next time?”
“How do we put this right?”
This is where learning happens: not in shame, but in calm, accountable reflection.
Fifth, adult self-regulation
The boundary begins in the adult’s nervous system. Tone, posture, facial expression, pace and volume all communicate something before the words land. A dysregulated adult can turn even a reasonable boundary into a threat. A regulated adult can make a firm boundary feel safe. This is not soft practice. It is skilled practice.
Guidance for children
NICE guidance on looked-after children and young people reinforces this wider responsibility. It highlights the need for stability, nurturing relationships and support across social care, health and education. In schools, NICE specifically recommends that behaviour management policies should reflect trauma-informed practice and attachment issues.
This means trauma-informed boundaries cannot depend on which adult is on shift. They must be embedded in culture, leadership, supervision, policy and daily practice. Boundaries without relationship can feel like rejection. Relationship without boundaries can feel unsafe.
Children do not need adults who are either soft or harsh. They need adults who are steady: adults who can say no without withdrawing warmth, correct without contempt, protect without overpowering, and remain present when behaviour becomes difficult.
A punishment often asks, “How do we make the child pay for what happened? ”A boundary asks, “What needs to be protected, taught, repaired or restored?” That distinction matters.
Final thoughts
Boundaries are the bridge between nurture and structure. Too soft, and children may feel unsafe. Too harsh, and they may feel rejected. The art lies in holding both: firm enough to protect, gentle enough to connect.
Trauma-informed practice does not ask adults to abandon authority. It asks us to reimagine it. Authority becomes stewardship. Not domination. Not fear. Not emotional distance. Not control dressed up as care.
Stewardship says:
- “I am responsible for the safety of this space.”
- “I will not shame you.”
- “I will not let you hurt yourself or others.”
- “I will help you learn another way.”
- “I will still be here after this moment has passed.”
Boundaries are not the opposite of care. They are its expression.
They are the quiet promise that says:
- “You can trust me to mean what I say.”
- Healing does not begin where rules are rigid.
- It begins where safety is real.
We hope this article was helpful. For more information from Adoniso, please visit their CPD Member Directory page. Alternatively, you can go to the CPD Industry Hubs for more articles, courses and events relevant to your Continuing Professional Development requirements.
References:
Bath, H. (2008) ‘The three pillars of trauma-informed care’, Reclaiming Children and Youth, 17(3), pp. 17–21.
Department for Education (2015) Guide to the Children’s Homes Regulations, including the quality standards. London: Department for Education.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (2021) Looked-after children and young people. NICE guideline NG205. Published 20 October 2021.
Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (2022) Working definition of trauma-informed practice. London: GOV.UK. Published 2 November 2022.
Ofsted (2026) Social care common inspection framework (SCCIF): children’s homes. London: GOV.UK. Updated 1 April 2026.
