Repeal ‘presumption of parental involvement.’

The government is taking steps to repeal ‘presumption of parental involvement’, and an end to ‘pro-contact’ within the Family Courts.

There is so much to unpick, and of course on the face of it, safeguarding all children is paramount. No child should ever have to endure any form of abuse from a parent.

I rather suspect the many thousands of non resident parents who are not able to see their children will have plenty to say on the ‘pro-contact’ of the Family Courts!

The “presumption of parental involvement” was introduced in the Children and Families Act 2014. It states that, unless there is evidence of harm or risk of harm, a child’s welfare is normally best served by having both parents involved in their life. The government is now considering repealing this presumption, arguing that it may unintentionally pressure courts to order contact with abusive or unsafe parents.

Arguments For Repeal

1. Child safety must come first
   The welfare of the child is supposed to be the paramount consideration in family law. The presumption can unintentionally shift focus away from safety, as judges may feel obliged to maintain both parents’ involvement even in uncertain or borderline abuse cases. Repealing the presumption would make it clear that no legal assumption should override the child’s safety.
2. Protecting victims of domestic abuse
   Many victims of domestic abuse, (domestic abuse is not gender specific)  say the presumption has been used against them. They may feel pressured to agree to contact arrangements with an abusive ex-partner. Removing the presumption would ensure that courts assess each case individually based on actual safety and benefit to the child, rather than starting from a blanket assumption.
3. Clarity for the courts
   The current law can be misinterpreted as requiring both parents to be involved in all cases. In fact, the law intends that involvement should depend on the child’s best interests. Repealing the presumption would give courts greater freedom to make case-by-case decisions.
4. Gender neutral in law, but real-world effects differ
   In law, the repeal would apply equally to fathers and mothers. In practice, however, fathers—who are more often the non-resident parent—might find it harder to secure contact. Nonetheless, the goal is to make all decisions evidence-based, not presumption-based.

Arguments Against Repeal

1. Children benefit from both parents
   Research consistently shows that, in most cases, children have better emotional and social outcomes when both parents remain involved in their lives after separation. The presumption reinforces the idea that involvement from both parents is generally beneficial, unless proven otherwise.
2. Risk of bias returning
   Before the 2014 change, some people felt that family courts were biased towards mothers and that fathers faced unnecessary barriers to contact. Repealing the presumption could revive those concerns and make it harder for safe, caring fathers to maintain relationships with their children.
3. Courts already prioritise safety
   Existing law already allows judges to deny contact where there is a proven risk of harm. The presumption does not force courts to allow contact with an abusive parent; it simply starts from the principle that both parents are important unless the evidence suggests otherwise.
4. Symbolic and social importance
   The presumption also carries symbolic weight. It sends a message that both parents are valued and responsible for their children. Removing it could be seen as a step backwards, reinforcing outdated stereotypes about mothers as primary carers and fathers as secondary.

Will the change affect fathers and mothers equally?

Legally, the repeal would apply equally to both parents. However, in practice it would probably affect fathers more, since they are more often the non-resident parent who must apply for contact. Repealing the presumption might therefore make it harder for some fathers to maintain involvement without additional evidence. On the other hand, it could benefit both mothers and fathers who have experienced abuse by removing the pressure to maintain unsafe contact arrangements.

The case for repeal focuses on protecting children and victims of abuse, and ensuring that every decision is made according to the facts of the case. The case against repeal emphasises the importance of both parents in a child’s life and the risk that removing the presumption could make the system less fair to fathers. Ultimately, the debate centres on how best to balance child safety with parental equality.

There are many grandparents groups who for years have been campaigning for a change in the Children Act to include grandparents in the ‘presumption of involvement’, so where does this leave them?

I suspect I know the answer.