Fotoulla Menikou, partner in our family law team, has experience working with children and adults affected by domestic abuse and welcomes the changes proposed by the government to the Children Act 1989. These changes would end the “presumption of parental involvement” in a child’s life, a principle currently embedded in how courts approach decisions surrounding child contact.
In this short article, Fotoulla explains how and why the law is changing and what this means for children involved in family court proceedings.
What does the law currently say about the presumption of parental involvement?
In 2014, the Children and Families Act introduced a change to section 1 of the Children Act 1989. This created a legal presumption that, unless there is evidence to the contrary, a child’s welfare is best served by having both parents involved in their life. In practice, this meant that judges are directed to start from the position that involvement from both parents will generally benefit a child.
Critics of the legislation, both before and after its introduction, have argued that it tipped the balance too far in favour of parental access – even in situations where it may be inappropriate, such as cases involving allegations of domestic abuse. While the law does allow judges to withhold contact where it would place a child at risk, in practice, this safeguard has not always been robustly applied. Tragically, there have been repeated instances where children have been harmed or even killed after contact was granted to a parent with a known history of abuse.
What will repealing the presumption of parental involvement change?
A government press release issued on 22nd October 2025 acknowledged “new evidence” showing that always prioritising contact “can perpetuate child abuse in the worst cases”. Legislative changes are now planned which would allow the courts to restrict a parent’s involvement in a child’s life where they are “thought to be a threat to their child’s safety”. This could include limiting involvement to written communication, ordering supervised contact, or an order that there be no involvement or contact whatsoever.
The central priority of all family court decisions is and must always be the welfare of children. Following the planned repeal of the 2014 amendments, judges will receive a clearer mandate that contact with both parents is not always in a child’s best interests. It is hoped that the new legislation will place greater emphasis on safety, ensuring that more children are protected from abuse and the risks that have too often been minimised under the current framework.
These changes form part of a wider programme of family court reform, including proposals to automatically restrict the exercise of parental responsibility in cases where an individual has been convicted of a serious sexual offence against any child (not just their own), or where a child is born of rape.
Commentary
The Government’s plan to repeal the presumption of parental involvement from the Children Act 1989 is a monumental step forward. Repealing the presumption sends a clear and overdue message: children’s safety must come first. For too long, the law has operated on a dangerous assumption that contact with both parents is always best, even when one poses a risk of harm. That assumption has cost lives.
The government’s decision to change course recognises what so many survivors and campaigners like Claire Throssell MBE have been saying for more than a decade – children are not collateral in adult relationships. They are people, with their own right to feel safe, protected and heard.
As a trauma-informed solicitor who works with survivors of domestic abuse daily, I welcome this change with cautious optimism. A cultural shift in our family courts must now follow.
Large-scale recruitment of judges is urgently needed to address the current shortfall, which continues to cause delays and backlogs that harm families. Government funding must be made available to support the early resolution of private children cases outside of a court setting, with a real investment in alternatives such as mediation and early legal advice. And crucially, specialist training for the judiciary on the issue of domestic abuse is long overdue. Without this, we risk repeating the same mistakes under a different framework.
