The government has announced plans to repeal the presumption of parental involvement from the Children Act 1989. The presumption, which can be found at section 1(2A) of the act, states that the court should ‘presume, unless the contrary is shown, that involvement of… [a] parent in the life of the child concerned will further the child’s welfare’. The government’s decision has attracted widespread press interest, with the family court’s approach to domestic abuse and its impact upon vulnerable children and survivors continuing to be the subject of much debate.
The government’s plans for reform follow years of campaigning by domestic abuse survivors and advocacy groups on the issue. Women’s Aid’s Child First campaign commenced in 2016 and has repeatedly called upon the government to repeal the statutory presumption. Claire Throssell MBE has been central to this, having campaigned tirelessly since the deaths of her sons, Jack and Paul, then aged 12 and 9, after they were murdered by their father in 2014 during five hours of court-endorsed unsupervised contact. The court had been informed by Throssell of previous threats to kill made by the boys’ father.
The call for a review of the presumption gained increasing momentum following the Ministry of Justice’s expert panel report, Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Children Cases, published in June 2020. The panel identified a ‘pro-contact’ culture in the family courts, leading to a backdrop of minimisation of allegations of domestic abuse. Evidence pointed towards the presumption reinforcing such a culture, detracting from the court’s focus on the child’s individual welfare and safety.
The MoJ’s final report on the Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement, published in October 2025, only echoed the concerns of the Harm panel report. The court’s ‘no stone unturned’ approach to contact was found to be ‘intrinsically geared towards fostering involvement for a child with both parents after separation’, even in circumstances where a parent posed a risk.
Critics of the repeal of the presumption argue that it may have unintended negative consequences for children. Research has repeatedly pointed towards it being in children’s welfare interests to have both parents involved in their lives if safe. Not every parent is motivated by their child’s best interests. There are concerns that the repeal of the presumption will reinforce in some parents’ minds that they do not need to promote contact with the other parent in circumstances where contact is safe and in the child’s best interests.
It is of note that the presumption itself, introduced into legislation by the Children and Families Act 2014, was already something of a compromise, with some calling at the time for a presumption of equal involvement, or shared care being enshrined within the statute (as is the case in other jurisdictions around the world).
Crucially, the current presumption is a rebuttable one. Section 1(6) of the act expressly ensures the presumption applies ‘if the parent can be involved in the child’s life in a way that does not put the child at risk of suffering harm’. In a properly resourced family court system, there should theoretically be the ability for professionals to assess risk of harm and the courts to make proper determinations in respect of the same. This is properly addressed within the Children Act 1989, section 1(3), which necessitates consideration of any harm which the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering as part of the Welfare Checklist, which the court must have regard to when deciding issues concerning a child’s welfare. Practice Direction 12J provides the family court with a framework where allegations are made and domestic abuse has been raised as an issue in the proceedings and necessitates consideration of risk of harm to the child and other parent when making both interim and final orders for contact.
The rebuttal of the presumption may be politically attractive, but it could also be considered a hollow gesture which may have little real consequence in practice if the existing framework is not properly resourced to assess risk. Many argue that there is a culture shift needed within the family court more generally to recognise the impact of domestic abuse on parents and children, and its potential impact upon future welfare decisions. This requires better judicial training and a fully resourced system.
It is in this context that those working within the family justice system look towards the new ‘Pathfinder’ process with great interest. This pilot programme, which is gradually being rolled out in England and Wales, is designed to improve the experience of families and children in private children proceedings. It aims to gather more information at the start of a case to ensure the early identification of issues such as domestic abuse, provide increased support for victims, and ensure the child’s voice is heard at the very outset. It remains to be seen whether this will lead to a more efficient, safety-focused and trauma-aware approach to private children proceedings within the family court nationwide. What is certain is that the repeal of the statutory presumption alone will not suffice.
Frankie Shama is a barrister specialising in family law at 4PB
1 Reader's comment