The Ministry of Justice’s decision to remove the presumption of parental involvement from the Children Act 1989 marks an important step towards clarifying how the family courts approach cases involving allegations of domestic abuse. In this article, trainee solicitor Mollie Mann considers how the reform reinforces the primacy of the child’s welfare, provides greater clarity in the courts’ handling of abuse allegations and may encourage a more cooperative and less adversarial culture in children cases, including greater use of non-court dispute resolution.

Background of the report

The presumption, introduced by the Children and Families Act 2014, requires the court to begin from the position that a child’s welfare is furthered by the involvement of both parents, unless the contrary is shown.

Over time, however, the provision has attracted criticism for creating the perception that the courts were predisposed towards contact, even where risk of harm was alleged. The 2020 Harm Panel Report questioned whether this statutory wording risked reinforcing an overly “pro-contact” culture and recommended that the Ministry of Justice review the presumption.

In October 2025, the ministry published its ‘Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement’ (“the Review”). The Review concluded that the presumption is rarely relied upon in judgments. In practice, judges determine cases by reference to the welfare checklist and Practice Direction 12J, which provides a clear framework for managing allegations of domestic abuse and assessing risk.

On that basis, the government announced its intention to remove the presumption altogether, ensuring that the legislation reflects how cases are decided in practice.

Clarity, not upheaval

The contents of the Review dispels the notion that the courts are constrained by an outdated “contact at all costs” culture. The real framework for decision-making is widely perceived to be the welfare checklist and Practice Direction 12J, which sets out a detailed framework for managing allegations of harm. The Review therefore confirms that judges in private children cases already base their decisions on the paramountcy principle, viewing matters through the lens of child welfare.

The Review further found that references to the presumption in judgments were limited, and where it appeared, it was treated as one of many factors rather than a determinative rule. This reflects the reality that judges balance competing considerations carefully, guided by evidence and context rather than presumption.

Removing the presumption, therefore, provides clarity rather than change. It confirms publicly what has long been true in practice: contact is not automatic, and where abuse is alleged or proven, the court’s first duty is to protect the child. Stewarts’ Alex Verdan KC says: “If the law is properly applied, it is all there anyway. I don’t know of any case, either that I’ve experienced or that any of my colleagues have experienced, where a judge, simply because of section 1(2A) of the Children Act 1989 and that presumption, has said, ‘Okay, despite findings of abuse and harm, we’re going to set up contact’.”

The Review also highlights the importance of ongoing judicial training. Domestic abuse can present in many forms, including coercive control, financial manipulation and emotional harm. Consistent, informed decision-making remains crucial to ensuring a protective and fair approach across all tiers of the family courts. Ultimately, as Alex Verdan KC explains: “Someone has to take responsibility and say, in this case, no contact ever; in this case, a different type of contact is safe, taking into account all the risks.”

Encouraging non-court resolution

The Review also notes that the majority of separating parents reach child arrangements without ever going to court. This reflects both the capacity of parents to resolve matters independently and the growing emphasis on non-court dispute resolution (NCDR).

Removing the presumption may support this trend. Without a perceived legal ‘starting point’, parents may feel less pressure to seek judicial confirmation of contact arrangements and instead work collaboratively to agree bespoke, child-centred solutions.

NCDR options, such as mediation, arbitration and child-inclusive discussions, allow families to retain control, resolve disputes confidentially and prioritise communication. For high-net-worth families, these routes also provide valuable privacy, efficiency and flexibility, particularly in cases involving international mobility or financial complexity.

Comment

Toby Atkinson, a partner at Stewarts, comments: “The proposed removal of the presumption will not alter how judges decide cases in practice, but it provides important clarity for parents and practitioners. The welfare of the child has always been, and will continue to be, the court’s paramount consideration. The key is not the existence of a presumption, but the quality of the court’s analysis, its understanding of harm and its ability to ensure that every child’s safety and wellbeing are at the forefront of decision-making.”

The proposed removal of the presumption of parental involvement does not revolutionise family law; it clarifies and modernises it. It aligns public understanding with the judicial reality- that every case turns on the welfare of the individual child and that protection from harm is paramount.

The reform may also help to foster a less adversarial culture in children proceedings, encouraging families to seek solutions that prioritise safety, cooperation and the child’s long-term wellbeing.

Subscribe – In order to receive our news straight to your inbox, subscribe here. Our newsletters are sent no more than once a month.