When separated parents are unable to agree arrangements for their children, such as with whom the children should live, then they will need to apply to the court for a child arrangements order.

The law that the court must apply when considering any such application is contained in the Children Act 1989.

When the Act was first passed it said nothing about children having a continuing relationship with both parents. However, in 2014 the Act was amended by adding a provision requiring the court to presume, unless the contrary is shown, that involvement of each parent in the life of the child concerned will further the child’s welfare. This became known as the ‘presumption of parental involvement’.

The presumption perhaps most commonly has a bearing when the court is considering contact applications, for example where the children are living with their mother and their father wishes to have contact with them. (The presumption is sometimes referred to as the ‘presumption of parental contact’.)

When the presumption was introduced, the Government explained that its purpose was to reinforce the importance of children having an ongoing relationship with both parents after family separation, where that is safe and in the child’s best interests.

However, in recent years the presumption has come under increasing scrutiny, amid concerns that it encourages courts to adopt a ‘contact at all costs’ approach, to the detriment of child safety.

The Harm Report

The turning point perhaps came with the publication of a report in 2020 assessing the risk of harm to children and parents in cases concerning child arrangements. The report was prepared by a panel of experts, and published by the Ministry of Justice. It became known as ‘The Harm Report’.

The panel found considerable evidence that the presumption of parental involvement was causing courts to downplay safety concerns in cases where allegations of domestic abuse were raised, in favour of the ‘right’ of parents, particularly fathers, to have contact with their children.

One mother, for example, told the panel:

“This is a very dangerous piece of legislation. The father of my children is a harmful, aggressive, controlling man. … This needs to be looked at carefully. It is not correct to assume, before investigation, that somebody will further a child’s welfare just because they share his/her genes”

This and other evidence led the panel to conclude that the presumption should not remain in its present form. The panel therefore recommended that the presumption “be reviewed urgently in order to address its detrimental effects”.

Review of the Presumption

The Ministry of Justice responded to this recommendation by launching a review of the presumption of parental involvement. The final report, outlining the findings of the review, was published in October 2025.

The review found that, whilst fostering involvement for a child with both of their parents after separation can further their welfare, where a parent poses a risk, or has caused harm to a child, children’s welfare was not always supported by parental involvement. A high incidence of orders are being made where there are indicators of risk, suggesting that the courts were ordering direct contact between children and parents who had caused, or posed, a risk of harm.

In short, the report concluded that assuming that it’s always in the best interest of a child to have the involvement of both parents can perpetuate abuse.

In the light of these findings the Government has decided that it will legislate to repeal the presumption of parental involvement, when Parliamentary time allows.

The decision has been generally welcomed. Farah Nazeer, Chief Executive of the domestic abuse charity Women’s Aid, for example, commented:

“Women’s Aid warmly welcomes the decision to remove the presumption of contact in family court cases. This archaic presumption has put the lives of women and children at risk for far too long, and this must stop now.”

And Resolution, the association of family lawyers, said:

 “In our experience, although judges already consider these cases carefully in practice, this is a positive step towards a cultural shift. It is vital that children and parents are safe – and made to feel safe – within the family justice system.”

And that is perhaps the best way of looking at the revocation of the presumption – as part of a cultural shift, rather than a simple alteration of the law. In a sense, it could be argued that it will make little difference, as the courts will still conclude in most cases that the child’s welfare will be best served by them continuing to have a relationship with both parents. But perhaps in future they will be just a little more cautious in coming to that conclusion.