Why is the presumption of parental involvement being repealed?

A significant change is coming to family law in England and Wales. This week, the Government announced plans to repeal the presumption of parental involvement, a principle that has shaped child arrangements decisions for over a decade. This reform is being welcomed by many as a step towards prioritising child safety and wellbeing over automatic assumptions about parental rights.

In this blog, we explain what the presumption is, why it’s being removed, and what this means for families navigating the family justice system.

What is the presumption of parental involvement?

When parents ask the court to decide arrangements for their children, the court applies the principles in the Children Act 1989. One key principle - added in 2014 - is the presumption that a child is generally best served by having some form of involvement from both parents, unless there is evidence to suggest that such involvement would put the child at risk of harm.

Importantly, “involvement” is defined as either direct (like visits) or indirect (like phone calls) contact, but not any particular division of time. This means there is no automatic right to equal parenting time or specific types of contact. The presumption applies only where the parent’s involvement does not pose a risk to the child.

Even when the presumption applies, it can be rebutted if there is evidence that a parent’s involvement would not further the child’s welfare. This is often referred to as “the exception” to the presumption.

Alongside this, the court must apply the “welfare principle” - the child’s welfare is the paramount consideration in any decision. Judges use a checklist of factors to guide their decisions (often called the “welfare checklist”), including:

• The child’s wishes and feelings.
• Their physical, emotional and educational needs.
• The likely effect of any change in circumstances.
• Each parent’s ability to meet the child’s needs.
• Any harm the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering.

Case law has also reinforced a “positive duty” on judges to promote parental involvement, requiring courts to consider all alternatives before ordering no contact.

Why Is the presumption being removed?

The presumption has faced growing criticism for contributing to a “pro-contact culture” in the family courts. Critics argue that it can lead to decisions that prioritise parental contact over child safety, even in cases involving domestic abuse or other serious risks.

In response to these concerns, the Ministry of Justice launched a public call for evidence in 2019, which received over 1,200 responses. This led to the formation of the Harm Panel, a group of experts including survivors, legal professionals, and academics.

They published their findings and recommendations in Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Children Cases. Survivors of abuse reported feeling unheard, and there was a concern that some children were being placed in harmful situations because the court focused too heavily on maintaining contact with both parents. The panel concluded that the presumption could lead to unsafe outcomes, could not remain in its current form and needed to be urgently reviewed. 

Following this, the government launched a formal review which has now been published: Review of the presumption of parental contact: final report. The findings confirmed that the presumption was being applied inconsistently, could detract from the court’s focus on the child’s welfare and sometimes led to decisions that could put children at risk.

What exactly did the review find?

The review found that the presumption was inconsistently applied and often not explicitly referenced in court decisions. Even in cases involving domestic abuse, courts frequently ordered direct contact between children and the parent who posed a risk.

Key findings included:

• The presumption was rarely challenged, even when there were clear indicators of harm.
• Courts often minimised the seriousness of abuse, especially if it was historic or deemed “less severe”.
• Children’s voices were not consistently heard
• There was little evidence about how court-ordered contact affected children after proceedings ended.

The review also highlighted a “no stone unturned” approach in the family justice system, where courts pursued parental involvement at every stage - even when it might not be safe. This culture was reinforced not only by the statutory presumption but also by case law.

This meant that most cases ended with an order for some sort of involvement of both parents with the child, most often involving direct unsupervised contact. While the evidence gathered by the review found that involvement with both parents could further a child’s welfare in a lot of cases, it also found an “apparent high incidence of orders [for direct contact] where there were indicators of risk” meaning courts were ordering direct contact between children and parents who caused or posed a risk of harm. This echoed findings from a recent review by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner. 

In short, the review concluded that the presumption was not serving its intended purpose and could, in some cases, perpetuate harm.

What will replace the presumption?

The government has confirmed that the presumption will be repealed “when parliamentary time allows”. In its place, courts will assess each case individually, focusing solely on the child’s welfare.

Judges will continue to use the welfare checklist and consider:

• The child’s wishes and feelings.
• The nature of their relationship with each parent.
• Any history of abuse or neglect.
• The impact of contact on the child’s wellbeing.

In many cases this will of course mean courts deciding children will benefit from ‘involvement’ with both parents, and what difference the anticipated change makes will remain to be seen, but the starting point for the court will no longer be presumption of parental involvement.

What else is changing in the family justice system?

In a further step to protect vulnerable families, this week the Government also announced new amendments to the Victims and Courts Bill that will automatically restrict the exercise of parental responsibility in two situations: 

• where a person has been convicted of a serious sexual offence against any child and sentence to four or more years in prison; and 
• where a child is born as a result of rape. 

These changes mean that individuals convicted of such offences will no longer be able to make decisions about a child’s life, such as schooling, medical care, or travel, without the need for the other parent to initiate costly and distressing court proceedings.

This reform delivers on long-standing campaigns by MPs and survivors’ advocates and is part of the Government’s broader mission to halve violence against women and girls within a decade. By removing the need for victims to apply through the Family Court, the change offers immediate protection following sentencing. 

Removing the presumption of parental involvement marks a turning point in family law. If you're unsure how it affects your situation, our family law team is here to help. Contact us today for clear, compassionate advice tailored to your family’s needs.