Family lawyers have reacted to the government’s confirmation that the new Courts and Tribunal Bill will repeal the presumption of parental involvement.
The “landmark repeal” is in honour of Claire Throssel MBE “and her remarkable campaign to keep children safe,” the Ministry of Justice said in a statement confirming the change. Throssell’s two sons – Jack, 12, and Paul, 9 – were both killed by their father despite her warnings he was a danger to them. She has since campaigned to prevent unsafe child contact with dangerous perpetrators of domestic abuse.
“For a decade, I have been campaigning with Women’s Aid to change the family courts system to make sure that no child is ever again placed at risk of further harm from abusive parents,” Throssell said.
“Seeing that the presumption of parental contact will finally be repealed, and in the memory of my sons, Jack and Paul, is deeply meaningful. No child should have to hold out a hand for help in darkness, saying that they were hurt by someone who was meant to protect them.
“No parents should have to hold their children as they die, from the abuse of a perpetrator, as I did 11 years ago.”
The presumption of parental involvement was introduced into the Children Act 1989 to help ensure children could maintain a relationship with both parents after separation. While the current law contains safeguards that allow involvement to be restricted where it harms a child’s welfare, the government said repealing the provision and legislating through the Courts and Tribunal Bill sends a clear message that it is putting children’s welfare and safety first.
The change means the courts will no longer start from an assumption that parental involvement is always in a child’s best interest, and instead adopt an open-minded inquiry.
If parents are a threat to their child’s safety, they should expect to have their involvement restricted through courts ordering supervised contact, involvement limited to written communication, or by ordering that there should be no involvement at all.
Rooted in the clear principle that every child deserves to be safe, the repeal will now go through parliament and will be removed from the Children Act 1989.
“Every child deserves to be safe, every victim deserves to be heard, and every family deserves a justice system they can trust,” deputy prime minister David Lammy said.
“We need to make sure that what happened to Claire and her children never happens again.
“This government’s priority is to bring our justice system back from the brink. That means making sure the safety and welfare of children remains at the heart of every decision, and that’s why we are repealing the presumption of parental involvement through the Courts and Tribunal Bill.
“This is a landmark moment that I want to dedicate to the remarkable Claire Throssell, and to the memory of her two children, Jack and Paul. Her selfless campaign is helping us rebuild a justice system that is fair, compassionate, and with children’s safety at its heart.”
The bill has been broadly welcomed by family lawyers, with Antonia Mee, senior partner at Burgess Mee calling it “an important change” to child contact cases where there is a risk of domestic abuse.
“The starting presumption of parental involvement did not help to protect children and parents at risk from domestic abuse perpetrators,” she said.
“The focus in these cases should be solely on what is in the child’s best interests.”
Nick Gova, head of family at London law firm Spector Constant & Williams, said scrapping the presumption of parental involvement is a decisive break from a culture that too often prioritised contact over child safety.
“This reform pushes the focus back where it belongs: on evidence, the risk of harm to a child, not on automatic assumptions about parental rights,” he said.
“For too long, survivors of abuse have felt pressured by the system to facilitate unsafe contact, irrespective of safeguards being put in place. Hopefully, this change finally acknowledges that reality.
“The role of a judge is rightly to assess the role of a parent, without the need for a presumption, pulling their decisions in one direction. If implemented rigorously, this bill has the potential to save children from being exposed to further harm through the family courts. Although such steps should not be taken lightly and only where there has been a thorough investigation or findings.
“The success of this reform will depend on strong judicial training and consistent application, without which, the promise of change risks falling short.”
However, Jake Mitchell, family lawyer at Freeths, called the repeal “a dangerous red herring”.
“In reality, courts do not order contact simply because this presumption exists,” he said.
“They are already explicitly required under Practice Direction 12J to avoid making any order for contact in cases involving allegations of abuse unless it is proven to be safe.
“Removing the presumption instead places an unfair emotional and evidential burden on the parent, forcing them to justify their involvement in their child’s life.
“This risks creating further hurdles within a system already stretched to breaking point and, most importantly, heightens the potential for emotional harm to the children it is designed to protect.”
The bill is set to reach second reading in the House of Commons today (Tuesday).
4 responses
It’s a difficult subject, but I’m concerned that these measures will place an even greater burden on people who are falsely accused in order to gain an advantage in Child Arrangements proceedings.
The financial and emotional cost of challenging an Emergency Non‑Molestation Order especially when it is based on false allegations is enormous. Even accepting undertakings puts the accused at an immediate disadvantage, and both they and the children suffer emotionally as a result.
False allegations can allow one parent to quickly take control of the situation: seizing the children, obtaining an Emergency Non‑Molestation Order, imposing child maintenance payments, and effectively taking over the family home due to restrictions placed on the other parent. They can also change doctors, dentists, and addresses within weeks, all while presenting themselves as a victim to justify these rapid changes.
On top of that, the accusing party can then access free legal representation and reduced court fees because of the allegations they’ve made.
In my case, all of this happened before I even had the chance to defend myself at the initial hearing. The Non‑Molestation Order was eventually dropped in favour of undertakings, not because I was guilty, but because the projected legal costs were around £20,000, and I needed to restore contact with my children as quickly as possible. At no point were my ex‑partner or the children ever in danger.
During this period, the house was emptied and left vacant, which required another court appearance just to regain entry. It then took two further hearings to establish regular contact with my children, resulting in a 55/45 split in my ex‑partner’s favour. Her priority was clearly to maximise child maintenance payments and maintain control over the children’s lives, knowing that financial pressure would limit my ability to challenge her through the courts. Ultimately, we settled through mediation (At the court gates) because she wanted a deal and I simply wanted consistent contact with my children. Money was never my motivation; fairness and the children’s wellbeing were.
I believe wholeheartedly in protecting children and ensuring their safety. But I’m afraid this measure won’t achieve that. I speak from the perspective of a man, but I know women can face similar situations. Under the current system, regardless of this proposed change, it is the children who will continue to suffer.
I agree entirely with Jake Mitchell.
There is already the safeguarding process at the outset of any application and PD12J for a find of fact which allows the court to thoroughly investigate any potential harm to the children.
As it is there is already a high burden upon the absent parent to achieve arrangements which allow adequate involvement in the child’s upbringing. This change is shortsighted. Everyone should surely recognise that it is generally in the best interest of the child to have a relationship with both parents and hence the presumption properly enshrined in The Children Act 1989. The principles of this sound legislation have been fully endorsed since by all the senior judges and successive Presidents of the Family Division. It is wrong and short sighted to remove this presumption.
It seems apparent that insufficient attention is being given to the emotional harm to the many children being deprived of having a relationship with both parents and the potential cost to significant sections of society in the years to follow.
If the Harm Report is anything to go by, this will be another ruling with little practical effect, and the family court will continue much as before. I remain sceptical of measures said to protect children when wide judicial discretion so often means they are not meaningfully applied. The President’s guidance on neurodiversity is another example of policy that sounds worthwhile on paper but too often makes no difference in real cases. Those who continue to support abusive, coercive and unsafe fathers within a pro-contact culture are unlikely to have much to fear, because I see little reason to believe real change is coming.
When I first started out in family law the parent seeking contact had it all to do. Numerous hearings, baby steps at best and review hearing after review hearing. A section 7 report before any meaningful contact meaning huge delays both in terms of proceedings themselves but also progressing the relationship following relationship breakdown. Eventually this led to demonstrations and Batman on to top of court buildings. Things then changed with a recognition that children had a right to a relationship with both parents. The pendulum swung in the other direction. I hope this change doesn’t take us back 20 years and the pendulum back to where it started. The law as it is is correct – children should have a relationship with both parents so long as it is safe and positive. It is for the court to gate-keep and assess this and ensure the law is applied properly. Perhaps somewhere in the middle is what is strived for. Children should be safe but be deprived of valuable relationships.