Removing the Presumption of Parental Involvement: Family Law Reform to Protect Children
The Government has announced plans to change family law in England and Wales. It intends to remove the long-standing presumption that it is usually best for a child to have contact with both parents.
As reported by the BBC, the Ministry of Justice has said that new evidence shows how automatically assuming both parents’ involvement is in a child’s best interests can, in some cases, perpetuate abuse. Domestic abuse charities such as Women’s Aid have welcomed the move as a vital step towards protecting children and survivors.
The reform follows years of campaigning by Claire Throssell. Her two sons were killed by their father in a house fire in 2014. This was after he was granted contact, despite a history of threats of severe abuse. Her consistent advocacy has highlighted the concerns surrounding the deep rooted “pro-contact” culture in the family courts.
This article was written by Family Paralegal Saffron Foley, with supervision from Associate Solicitor Gavin Yeung and Head of Department Danielle Peters.
The Law as It Stands Now
Under the current law, family courts operate under the “presumption of parental involvement.”
As per section 1(2A) of the Children Act 1989, judges must begin with the presumption that a child’s welfare is best served by having both parents involved. This applies unless there is explicit evidence that involvement would cause harm. Under section 1(3), the court is to consider factors such as emotional needs, risk of harm and capability of the parents when applying this presumption.
This presumption was meant to encourage shared parenting. However, this outlook has long been criticised by domestic violence survivors, charities and solicitors. In practice, as confirmed in Re H-B (Contact) [2015] EWCA Civ 389, where the judge ordered direct contact with the father despite sexual abuse allegations, this presumption has too often overshadowed the welfare factors within section 1(3), creating serious safety concerns.
What’s Changing?
The Government now plans to remove this presumption.
Courts will no longer start from the presumption that both parents have contact unless there is evidence of harm. Instead, decisions on contact will be fact specific, enabling a more holistic assessment of safety and welfare issues for children.
Although the welfare checklist in section 1(3) has always guided courts, removing the presumption allows judges to focus fully on each child’s individual needs. This includes their physical, emotional, and educational needs, any actual or potential harm, and their wishes and feelings (amongst other factors).
This aligns with the judgment in Re L 2000. In this judgment, the court warned against the risks of prioritising parental involvement in cases where a perpetrator of domestic abuse is involved.
The Ministry of Justice says this reform will enable faster and safer decisions to limit contact with abusive parents. Justice Secretary David Lammy has called it “an important step forward” in child protection.
Challenging Outdated Assumptions
This legal change does not only challenge legal norms, but also broader assumptions about family structures.
For generations, society has placed huge emphasis on the idea that a “normal” family means having two involved parents, or that maintaining biological connections is always best for children. This is based on the idea that two parents can provide more love and stability for their child than one. Ostensibly, this appears logical. However, this can be an oversimplification that does not reflect all family situations.
Although contact with both parents is often valuable, a uniform presumption does not adequately protect children in circumstances involving risk of abuse. One size does not necessarily fit all. Therefore, it is important that the law is sufficiently flexible to provide protection for all children.
The reform recognises that contact should never be maintained simply to uphold an ideal or to give an unsafe parent the benefit of the doubt. It also acknowledges that children exposed to instability, emotional neglect, or abusive dynamics can experience long-term emotional and psychological effects that could be preventable.
Contact should exist only where it clearly supports a child’s safety, growth and welfare and where this can be properly assured. This change doesn’t diminish good parents’ roles; it simply ensures that involvement is treated as a privilege, not a right.
Listening to Children’s Voices
A key element of this reform is the increased emphasis on truly hearing the children, as per section 1(3)(a), and ensuring their participation in family proceedings.
As campaigner Claire Throssell said, “for 30 years the family courts have let down children, have failed to protect them, have failed to see, hear, believe and support them.”
Too often, children’s voices are minimised. This could be because of their age, or assumed lack of understanding of the consequences of what they say. But even if a child doesn’t grasp every legal or emotional nuance, they are still aware of their lived experience. This includes when they feel unsafe or unsupported.
These opinions must be acknowledged, rather than forming life changing judgements based on “snapshots” of children’s lives.
What this Means for Parents and Practitioners
For parents, there will be no default expectation that contact automatically benefits the child. This will have to be demonstrated with evidence.
For practitioners, this marks an important cultural and procedural shift. Risk assessments, safeguarding concerns, and the child’s emotional wellbeing will carry greater weight than before. Legal arguments and evidence will need to reflect this renewed focus on safety and welfare.
It’s not yet known when these amendments will take effect. The MoJ has said it will legislate “when Parliamentary time allows”. However, there is clear political momentum to move forward quickly following consistent campaigning.
Looking Ahead
This amendment shows a firm move toward a more protective, child-centred legal system, one that prioritises welfare over outdated presumptions. As these reforms are introduced, it will be important to see how well they balance parental rights with child safety.
The Government also plans to restrict parental responsibility for rapists and sexual offenders, reinforcing its commitment to child protection. These changes have been widely welcomed within the child protection sector, and further developments will be closely monitored.
Contact Us
If you require legal advice for children matters or would like to learn more about child arrangement orders, our Family Law team at Crane & Staples can provide support, advice, and representation in all matters relating to child arrangements and safeguarding.
Please contact us if you require any confidential legal advice on any of the topics discussed in this article.
If you or someone you know is a victim of domestic violence, please see the following websites and resources: