![\"Goodman](\"https:\/\/www.goodmanray.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Goodman-Ray-Repealing-the-Presumption-of-Parental-Contact-Banner-1024x341.webp\")
<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
Background: Presumption of Parental Involvement in Family Law<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The Family Courts in England and Wales have, and currently, operate under presumption that favours both parents\u2019 involvement in a child\u2019s life (section 1(2A) Children Act 1989). On amendment of this legislation, the starting point for the Court will be to ask whether a parent should be involved, rather than working on the presumption that they should be unless established otherwise. This change will work to ensure that child safety remains the paramount consideration under the Act, where no principle of parental involvement will override child welfare.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Children Act 1989 Explained<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nThe\u00a0\u092c\u093e\u0932 \u0905\u0927\u093f\u0928\u093f\u092f\u092e 1989<\/a> is the cornerstone of child law in England and Wales. Its overriding principle is that the child\u2019s welfare is the court\u2019s paramount consideration when making decisions about upbringing, living arrangements, and contact with parents.<\/p>\n\n\n\nSince 2014, the Act has included a statutory\u00a0presumption of parental involvement<\/strong>, meaning that, unless the contrary is shown, a child\u2019s welfare is presumed to be furthered by the involvement of both parents in their life. Importantly, \u201cinvolvement\u201d does not necessarily mean equal time or direct contact; it can include indirect contact such as letters or phone calls. The presumption applies only where involvement does not place the child at risk of harm.<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe Act also requires courts to consider the welfare checklist, including the child\u2019s wishes and feelings, emotional and educational needs, the likely effect of any change in circumstances, and any risk of harm. In principle, the presumption was intended to support children maintaining meaningful relationships with both parents, while still prioritising safety and wellbeing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
How Presumption Has Been Applied in Practice<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nIn practice, the presumption of parental involvement has often carried significant weight in child arrangement proceedings. Courts have frequently started from the position that some form of contact with both parents is beneficial, even in cases involving allegations of domestic abuse, coercive control, or high parental conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Critics argue that this approach has, at times, resulted in contact being promoted or enforced before risks are fully assessed, placing pressure on victims of abuse and, in some cases, on children themselves. Campaigners and professionals have raised concerns that the presumption can inadvertently shift focus away from the lived experiences of children and the protective parent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This has led to controversy around whether the presumption has been applied too rigidly, rather than as a rebuttable starting point. The presumption can lead to the preservation of inappropriate relationships, heightening risk and reducing the notion that child welfare is the paramount consideration of the court. Reviews and inquiries have highlighted cases where safeguarding concerns were minimised in favour of maintaining parental contact, contributing to calls for reform and clearer guidance for the family courts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nfind out more about our children law services<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\nWhy Is the Government Repealing the Presumption of Parental Contact?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The government\u2019s announcement came following a review by the Domestic Abuse Commissioners of the Family Courts in England & Wales which established that even in cases where abuse was evident, contact was often treated as the default rather than the exception as a number of court orders established direct contact with parents who had perpetrated abuse and posed a risk to the child(ren). Such circumstances can be extremely distressing for parents who are survivors of domestic abuse where findings of fact have been made following trial (known as a Fact-Finding Hearing).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Many have reported feeling pressured into accepting child arrangement orders which they consider unsafe, with arguments of \u2018alienation\u2019 being levelled against them, fearing worse outcomes if they resisted. Issues arise where there is a presumption that the involvement of both parents is beneficial and courts fail to properly assess allegations against that presumption. The proposed shift aims to address the nuances and dynamics of domestic abuse to prevent those parents and children who have suffered abuse being trapped in cycles of fear and compliance by their abusers, and, overall, prevent children from being placed in harmful situations. It therefore reduces the risk that any parent benefits from the presumption of contact where allegations of domestic abuse, violence or coercion exist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Findings of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner Review<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nThe\u00a0Domestic Abuse Commissioner\u2019s review<\/a> of the family justice system highlighted systemic failings in how domestic abuse is identified, understood and accounted for in child arrangement cases \u2014 especially where the statutory presumption of parental involvement operates as a starting point. The issue begins where risk allegations are not properly assessed and response to harm is not effectively managed.\u00a0 The Commissioner\u2019s analysis found that domestic abuse is \u201ceveryday business\u201d in family courts and that a deeply ingrained\u00a0pro-contact culture\u00a0has too often meant that allegations of abuse are minimised or side-lined when determining contact arrangements.<\/p>\n\n\n\nKey points from the review include:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n- Domestic abuse features in a substantial majority of private law children cases, yet is not always treated as a central factor when assessing a child\u2019s welfare.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- The existing presumption of parental involvement has been interpreted in many cases as a presumption\u00a0in favour of contact, even where evidence suggests that contact may be unsafe.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Courts have sometimes ordered unsupervised or direct contact despite the presence of abuse indicators, reflecting a culture that prioritises contact over safety.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- The Commissioner has called for reforms aimed at culture change, including specialist domestic abuse training for judges and court officers, improvements to training on the impact of abuse on children and adults, and greater transparency in decision-making.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
The review\u2019s findings were a significant catalyst for government action to repeal the presumption of parental involvement, seeking to ensure Family Court decisions place safety, harm reduction and child wellbeing at the centre of proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Focus on Child Safety and Wellbeing<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nOne of the central shifts underpinning the move to repeal the presumption of parental involvement is a reframing of how the family justice system approaches risk, protection and the welfare of children. Rather than beginning from a position that a child should have involvement with both parents unless harm is shown, the emerging policy approach prioritises child safety and individualised assessment of risk as the core concern in every contact decision. The relevant question now becomes what the child needs in order to prioritise their wellbeing and cultivate safe, stable relationships.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This shift reflects growing recognition that:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n- Child welfare and safety must be the paramount consideration, and that safeguarding must be fully integrated \u2014 not subsumed \u2014 within contact decisions.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Courts should be guided to assess evidence of harm and the impact of domestic abuse on children on a\u00a0case-by-case basis, rather than relying on a general starting presumption that involvement is beneficial.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Understanding the\u00a0voices, wishes and experiences of children themselves\u00a0is essential in determining what arrangements are genuinely in their interests \u2013 the change considers the child\u2019s perspective of the relevant relationships.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- By removing the statutory presumption, judges are expected to devote greater attention to safeguarding evidence, trauma-informed practice, and protection from both physical and non-physical abuse when making child arrangement decisions.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Overall, the reform agenda signals a more nuanced, evidence-based approach \u2014 one that resists one-size-fits-all presumptions about contact and places the safety and psychological wellbeing of the child at the forefront of legal decision-making. It ensures that the system identifies the risk and prioritises the safety and wellbeing of children.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Impact of Forced Contact on Children\u2019s Emotional and Psychological Wellbeing<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The review notes where children are compelled to maintain relationships with parents who have perpetrated abuse, they often experience significant psychological strain. The emotional burden of maintaining a relationship with an abusive parent, can, for children, outweigh the presumption that contact with both parents is within their best interests. Ultimately, the government\u2019s recent announcement confirms that the prioritisation of contact has, in effect, undermined the overarching aim of the Family Justice system \u2013 to assure the protection of children and keep them safe.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What Will Change in Child Arrangement Decisions If the Law Is Amended?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Whilst it is not known exactly when the legislation will be amended, the announcement is encouraging evidence of the government\u2019s intention for the way forwards \u2013 to ensure the right to safety is at the heart of every decision made about each and every child so that safeguarding of their wellbeing is prioritised over the preservation of parental access. Change will not be immediate, and once actioned, embrace of the reform will be required by practitioners, the judiciary and\u00a0\u0915\u0948\u092b\u0915\u0948\u0938<\/a>, to reign in the cultural shift intended.<\/p>\n\n\n\nIn the meantime, it continues to be critical for parents to take legal advice in this changing landscape to ensure considered decisions are taken to protect their children whilst the presumption remains in place.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What\u2019s Expected in Child Arrangement Decisions<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nIf the presumption of parental involvement is repealed or substantially revised, child arrangement decisions are expected to place greater emphasis on individual assessment rather than legal starting points<\/strong>. Courts may move away from assuming involvement is beneficial and instead focus more explicitly on what arrangements best promote the child\u2019s welfare in each specific case.<\/p>\n\n\n\nDecision-making is likely to involve earlier and more rigorous consideration of safeguarding concerns<\/strong>, including domestic abuse, coercive control, and the emotional impact of contact on children. The child\u2019s voice and lived experience may carry increased weight, particularly where there is evidence of harm or fear.<\/p>\n\n\n\nWhile courts will still recognise the importance of positive parental relationships where safe and appropriate, the anticipated shift signals a more cautious and child-centred approach. The focus is expected to be on protective, evidence-based outcomes<\/strong>, rather than meeting a presumption of contact for its own sake.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If the presumption of parental involvement is repealed or substantially revised, child arrangement decisions are expected to place\u00a0greater emphasis on individual assessment rather than legal starting points<\/strong>. Courts may move away from assuming involvement is beneficial and instead focus more explicitly on what arrangements best promote the child\u2019s welfare in each specific case.<\/p>\n\n\n\nDecision-making is likely to involve\u00a0earlier and more rigorous consideration of safeguarding concerns<\/strong>, including domestic abuse, coercive control, and the emotional impact of contact on children. The child\u2019s voice and lived experience may carry increased weight, particularly where there is evidence of harm or fear.<\/p>\n\n\n\nWhile courts will still recognise the importance of positive parental relationships where safe and appropriate, the anticipated shift signals a more cautious and child-centred approach. The focus is expected to be on\u00a0protective, evidence-based outcomes<\/strong>, rather than meeting a presumption of contact for its own sake. This ensures that the child\u2019s welfare remains the paramount consideration for courts and reduces the risk that harmful relationships are preserved only to meet the legislative presumption.<\/p>\n\n\n\nGet in touch with our Children and Domestic Abuse Solicitors in London and Brighton<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Here at \u0917\u0941\u0921\u092e\u0948\u0928 \u0930\u0947<\/a> our team is to committed to providing clear and considered guidance to parents to enable them navigate their way through Court proceedings to secure the best outcome for their children. If you are looking for help, please contact our Children and Domestic Abuse Team<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Here at\u00a0\u0917\u0941\u0921\u092e\u0948\u0928 \u0930\u0947<\/a> our team is to committed to providing clear and considered guidance to parents to enable them to navigate their way through Court proceedings to secure the best outcome for their children. If you are looking for help, please contact our\u00a0Children and Domestic Abuse Team<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\nPresumption of Parental Contact FAQs<\/h2>\n\n\n\nWhat is the presumption of parental involvement in family law?<\/strong> The presumption of parental involvement, set out in section 1(2A) of the Children Act 1989, means that the Family Court starts from the position that a child\u2019s welfare is usually furthered by the involvement of both parents in their life. This presumption does not guarantee contact, and involvement does not necessarily mean direct or unsupervised contact. However, in practice, it has often resulted in contact being treated as the default, maintaining relationships with both parents, even where safeguarding concerns have been raised.<\/p> <\/div>
Since 2014, the Act has included a statutory\u00a0presumption of parental involvement<\/strong>, meaning that, unless the contrary is shown, a child\u2019s welfare is presumed to be furthered by the involvement of both parents in their life. Importantly, \u201cinvolvement\u201d does not necessarily mean equal time or direct contact; it can include indirect contact such as letters or phone calls. The presumption applies only where involvement does not place the child at risk of harm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Act also requires courts to consider the welfare checklist, including the child\u2019s wishes and feelings, emotional and educational needs, the likely effect of any change in circumstances, and any risk of harm. In principle, the presumption was intended to support children maintaining meaningful relationships with both parents, while still prioritising safety and wellbeing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In practice, the presumption of parental involvement has often carried significant weight in child arrangement proceedings. Courts have frequently started from the position that some form of contact with both parents is beneficial, even in cases involving allegations of domestic abuse, coercive control, or high parental conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Critics argue that this approach has, at times, resulted in contact being promoted or enforced before risks are fully assessed, placing pressure on victims of abuse and, in some cases, on children themselves. Campaigners and professionals have raised concerns that the presumption can inadvertently shift focus away from the lived experiences of children and the protective parent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This has led to controversy around whether the presumption has been applied too rigidly, rather than as a rebuttable starting point. The presumption can lead to the preservation of inappropriate relationships, heightening risk and reducing the notion that child welfare is the paramount consideration of the court. Reviews and inquiries have highlighted cases where safeguarding concerns were minimised in favour of maintaining parental contact, contributing to calls for reform and clearer guidance for the family courts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The government\u2019s announcement came following a review by the Domestic Abuse Commissioners of the Family Courts in England & Wales which established that even in cases where abuse was evident, contact was often treated as the default rather than the exception as a number of court orders established direct contact with parents who had perpetrated abuse and posed a risk to the child(ren). Such circumstances can be extremely distressing for parents who are survivors of domestic abuse where findings of fact have been made following trial (known as a Fact-Finding Hearing).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Many have reported feeling pressured into accepting child arrangement orders which they consider unsafe, with arguments of \u2018alienation\u2019 being levelled against them, fearing worse outcomes if they resisted. Issues arise where there is a presumption that the involvement of both parents is beneficial and courts fail to properly assess allegations against that presumption. The proposed shift aims to address the nuances and dynamics of domestic abuse to prevent those parents and children who have suffered abuse being trapped in cycles of fear and compliance by their abusers, and, overall, prevent children from being placed in harmful situations. It therefore reduces the risk that any parent benefits from the presumption of contact where allegations of domestic abuse, violence or coercion exist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The\u00a0Domestic Abuse Commissioner\u2019s review<\/a> of the family justice system highlighted systemic failings in how domestic abuse is identified, understood and accounted for in child arrangement cases \u2014 especially where the statutory presumption of parental involvement operates as a starting point. The issue begins where risk allegations are not properly assessed and response to harm is not effectively managed.\u00a0 The Commissioner\u2019s analysis found that domestic abuse is \u201ceveryday business\u201d in family courts and that a deeply ingrained\u00a0pro-contact culture\u00a0has too often meant that allegations of abuse are minimised or side-lined when determining contact arrangements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Key points from the review include:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The review\u2019s findings were a significant catalyst for government action to repeal the presumption of parental involvement, seeking to ensure Family Court decisions place safety, harm reduction and child wellbeing at the centre of proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One of the central shifts underpinning the move to repeal the presumption of parental involvement is a reframing of how the family justice system approaches risk, protection and the welfare of children. Rather than beginning from a position that a child should have involvement with both parents unless harm is shown, the emerging policy approach prioritises child safety and individualised assessment of risk as the core concern in every contact decision. The relevant question now becomes what the child needs in order to prioritise their wellbeing and cultivate safe, stable relationships.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This shift reflects growing recognition that:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Overall, the reform agenda signals a more nuanced, evidence-based approach \u2014 one that resists one-size-fits-all presumptions about contact and places the safety and psychological wellbeing of the child at the forefront of legal decision-making. It ensures that the system identifies the risk and prioritises the safety and wellbeing of children.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The review notes where children are compelled to maintain relationships with parents who have perpetrated abuse, they often experience significant psychological strain. The emotional burden of maintaining a relationship with an abusive parent, can, for children, outweigh the presumption that contact with both parents is within their best interests. Ultimately, the government\u2019s recent announcement confirms that the prioritisation of contact has, in effect, undermined the overarching aim of the Family Justice system \u2013 to assure the protection of children and keep them safe.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Whilst it is not known exactly when the legislation will be amended, the announcement is encouraging evidence of the government\u2019s intention for the way forwards \u2013 to ensure the right to safety is at the heart of every decision made about each and every child so that safeguarding of their wellbeing is prioritised over the preservation of parental access. Change will not be immediate, and once actioned, embrace of the reform will be required by practitioners, the judiciary and\u00a0\u0915\u0948\u092b\u0915\u0948\u0938<\/a>, to reign in the cultural shift intended.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the meantime, it continues to be critical for parents to take legal advice in this changing landscape to ensure considered decisions are taken to protect their children whilst the presumption remains in place.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If the presumption of parental involvement is repealed or substantially revised, child arrangement decisions are expected to place greater emphasis on individual assessment rather than legal starting points<\/strong>. Courts may move away from assuming involvement is beneficial and instead focus more explicitly on what arrangements best promote the child\u2019s welfare in each specific case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Decision-making is likely to involve earlier and more rigorous consideration of safeguarding concerns<\/strong>, including domestic abuse, coercive control, and the emotional impact of contact on children. The child\u2019s voice and lived experience may carry increased weight, particularly where there is evidence of harm or fear.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While courts will still recognise the importance of positive parental relationships where safe and appropriate, the anticipated shift signals a more cautious and child-centred approach. The focus is expected to be on protective, evidence-based outcomes<\/strong>, rather than meeting a presumption of contact for its own sake.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n If the presumption of parental involvement is repealed or substantially revised, child arrangement decisions are expected to place\u00a0greater emphasis on individual assessment rather than legal starting points<\/strong>. Courts may move away from assuming involvement is beneficial and instead focus more explicitly on what arrangements best promote the child\u2019s welfare in each specific case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Decision-making is likely to involve\u00a0earlier and more rigorous consideration of safeguarding concerns<\/strong>, including domestic abuse, coercive control, and the emotional impact of contact on children. The child\u2019s voice and lived experience may carry increased weight, particularly where there is evidence of harm or fear.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While courts will still recognise the importance of positive parental relationships where safe and appropriate, the anticipated shift signals a more cautious and child-centred approach. The focus is expected to be on\u00a0protective, evidence-based outcomes<\/strong>, rather than meeting a presumption of contact for its own sake. This ensures that the child\u2019s welfare remains the paramount consideration for courts and reduces the risk that harmful relationships are preserved only to meet the legislative presumption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here at \u0917\u0941\u0921\u092e\u0948\u0928 \u0930\u0947<\/a> our team is to committed to providing clear and considered guidance to parents to enable them navigate their way through Court proceedings to secure the best outcome for their children. If you are looking for help, please contact our Children and Domestic Abuse Team<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n Here at\u00a0\u0917\u0941\u0921\u092e\u0948\u0928 \u0930\u0947<\/a> our team is to committed to providing clear and considered guidance to parents to enable them to navigate their way through Court proceedings to secure the best outcome for their children. If you are looking for help, please contact our\u00a0Children and Domestic Abuse Team<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The presumption of parental involvement, set out in section 1(2A) of the Children Act 1989, means that the Family Court starts from the position that a child\u2019s welfare is usually furthered by the involvement of both parents in their life. This presumption does not guarantee contact, and involvement does not necessarily mean direct or unsupervised contact. However, in practice, it has often resulted in contact being treated as the default, maintaining relationships with both parents, even where safeguarding concerns have been raised.<\/p> <\/div> How Presumption Has Been Applied in Practice<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Why Is the Government Repealing the Presumption of Parental Contact?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Findings of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner Review<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Focus on Child Safety and Wellbeing<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
The Impact of Forced Contact on Children\u2019s Emotional and Psychological Wellbeing<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What Will Change in Child Arrangement Decisions If the Law Is Amended?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What\u2019s Expected in Child Arrangement Decisions<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Get in touch with our Children and Domestic Abuse Solicitors in London and Brighton<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Presumption of Parental Contact FAQs<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"Solicitor](\"https:\/\/www.goodmanray.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/solicitor-Sheeja-Sukumaran-1.webp\")
<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n