For decades, the family courts in England and Wales have operated on a well-intentioned assumption: that children benefit from the involvement of both parents after separation. In most families, that principle holds, but in cases involving abuse, it has too often placed children at risk. The Government’s decision to abolish the presumption of parental involvement through the forthcoming Courts and Tribunals Bill marks an important and overdue shift in how the justice system approaches the safety of vulnerable children.
The presumption, introduced through the Children Act 1989, was originally designed to encourage continued parental relationships following divorce or separation. However, over time, it has become increasingly clear that the policy does not always work as intended. In situations involving domestic abuse or coercive control, the expectation that contact should be maintained can place pressure on courts to preserve parental access even where serious concerns have been raised.
The proposed reform would remove that starting assumption. Instead of starting from the position that both parents should remain involved, courts would be required to assess each case with an open mind and determine what arrangement truly serves the child’s welfare. In practice, this means that when a parent poses a genuine threat, courts would be empowered to restrict involvement through supervised contact, written communication, or, in some cases, no contact at all.
Few issues highlight the consequences of unsafe contact arrangements more starkly than cases involving children who were seriously harmed by abusive parents during court-ordered contact. In several specific cases, over the years, concerns about parents’ behaviour had been raised repeatedly before the courts; nevertheless, ongoing access was still authorised. These cases have become some of the most powerful examples cited by campaigners arguing that the system must change.
The experiences of affected families have helped bring the issue firmly into the public spotlight. Campaigners and domestic abuse charities have long argued that the legal framework has too often prioritised parental rights over children’s safety. The Government’s decision to repeal the presumption of parental involvement is therefore not only a policy reform but also a recognition of the many voices calling for change for years.
The measure forms part of the broader Courts and Tribunals Bill, legislation intended to address long-standing pressures within the justice system. Ministers say the reforms will help deliver faster decisions for victims while modernising court processes. However, the symbolic significance of removing the parental involvement presumption goes beyond procedural reform. It signals a clear shift in legal philosophy: that the welfare of the child must be the central starting point, not an assumption about parental access.
Government ministers have described the repeal as a landmark moment, emphasising that every child deserves to grow up safe and that every family deserves a justice system they can trust. In many ways, that statement reflects the deeper question underlying this debate. Family courts do not exist simply to resolve disputes between adults; they exist to protect children.
Critics of the reform have occasionally warned that removing the presumption could make it harder for loving parents to remain involved in their children’s lives after separation. Yet the change does not prevent courts from supporting contact where it is safe and beneficial. Rather, it removes a legal starting point that campaigners argue has distorted decision-making in cases involving abuse.
Ultimately, the success of any reform will depend on how it’s implemented. Training for judges, improved risk assessments, and greater awareness of coercive control will all be essential if the change is to translate into safer outcomes for children. Legislation alone cannot fix every failing within the family justice system, but it can reshape the framework within which those decisions are made.
For years, families and advocacy groups have argued that the system must place children’s safety above all else. The repeal of the presumption of parental involvement does not erase past tragedies, but it represents an attempt to learn from them. If it leads to more cautious and thoughtful decisions about contact in high-risk cases, it may help ensure that the family courts fulfil their most important responsibility: prioritising the protection of children.
