• Sectors we work in banner(2)

    Quick Reads

Government announces the repeal of the presumption of parental involvement

min read

The Government has announced that they will repeal the presumption of parental involvement, when parliamentary time allows. The presumption is enshrined in the Children Act 1989. The court, when considering making, varying or discharging certain orders for children, is to presume that, unless the contrary is shown, the involvement of a parent in the child’s life will further their welfare. 

However, crucially, once the presumption is repealed, judges will no longer have a starting point that parental involvement is in the child’s best interests. They will now be directed to review the evidence and assess a child’s wellbeing in line with the circumstances of each case.

The Government has outlined that new evidence shows that always prioritising contact between a child and a parent can ‘perpetuate child abuse in the worst cases’ and, “If parents are thought to be a threat to their child’s safety, involvement in their lives can be restricted, for example through courts ordering supervised contact, involvement limited to written communication, or by ordering that there should be no involvement at all.”

The presumption has been a source of controversy in cases where there is domestic abuse or allegations of domestic abuse. The Ministry of Justice’s 2020 Harm Panel report examined the statutory presumption of parental involvement and called for an ‘urgent review’ of the presumption to assess the impact on cases and emphasised that child safety must take precedence over contact.

Since the Harm Panel report we have seen the enactment of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and the establishment of the statutory office of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner – with the remit to make recommendations for reform and promote good practice in the prevention of domestic abuse, where children can be victims in their own right.

Notwithstanding some positive strides, domestic abuse campaigners have fought for further reform over many years to protect children and survivors of domestic abuse. The presumption and ‘pro contact culture’ was also highlighted as a risk factor in the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s October 2025 report, highlighting: “Nearly all survivors said that they were often made to feel that domestic abuse was irrelevant to contact because the professionals indicated that contact would go ahead irrespective of any abuse. Survivors described being discouraged from raising allegations of domestic abuse by Cafcass, the courts, and, sometimes, their own lawyer (if they had one), because contact would be ordered regardless”.

Whilst the Government has not committed to a timeframe in respect of the repeal, and parliamentary time is very limited, it is positive that a formal announcement has been made and this may also allow the presumption to be challenged (prior to the parliamentary repeal) in relevant proceedings. The full Government release can be read here: Government action to protect children from abusive parents - GOV.UK

The repeal is based on the clear principle that every child deserves to be safe. New evidence published today shows that assuming it is always in the best interest of a child to have the involvement of both parents might perpetuate abuse.

Our thinking

  • IBA Annual Conference 2026

    Jean-Baptiste Beauvoir-Planson

    Events

  • 9fin quotes Jamie Rhodes and Tom Smitham on the growing role of private capital in football finance

    Jamie Rhodes

    In the Press

    min read
  • Cristiana Felisi writes for We Wealth on when a parent can lose custody of their children

    Maria Cristiana Felisi

    In the Press

    min read
  • The National Security and Investment Act, Five Years On: What the 2025-26 Annual Report Tells Foreign Buyers

    Greg Stonefield

    Insights

    min read
  • Jersey Trade Mark Reform: What the New Regime Means for You

    Dewdney William Drew

    Quick Reads

    min read
  • The Telegraph quotes Julia Cox on the growing use of Family Investment Companies for inheritance planning

    Julia Cox

    In the Press

    min read
  • Tessa Bartley comments in Legal Futures about our framework for choosing the right legal AI tools

    Tessa Bartley

    In the Press

    min read
  • Investors’ Chronicle quotes Katie Talbot on the risks and responsibilities of undertaking a trustee position

    Katie Talbot

    In the Press

    min read
  • Chiara Muston comments in Employee Benefits on minimum wage enforcement changes

    Chiara Muston

    In the Press

    min read
  • Retail Collection: Reputation management for brand founders

    Claudine Morgan

    Podcasts

  • Charlie Ring and Mike Barrington write for Professional Adviser on how best to prepare for the sale of a financial services business

    Charlie Ring

    In the Press

    min read
  • EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR)

    Kerry Stares

    Insights

    min read
  • Beware the “late invoice” clause: TCC confirms the final date for payment must be fixed to the due date

    William Turner

    Insights

    min read
  • Can you get a “quickie divorce” in England and Wales?

    Jamie Kennaugh

    Quick Reads

    min read
  • Fraudsters in the Inbox: The Limits of Contractual Causation in Logix Aero v Siam Aero

    Natalya Stone

    Insights

    min read
  • Light Bites, expert nuggets for the seasoned developer: bonus episode

    James Souter

    Podcasts

  • Mace Construct Ltd v Baltic Investment Holdings Ltd: A case highlighting the risk of including tender clarifications and schedules of derogations in building contracts

    Henry Dalton

    Insights

    min read
  • Swiss executors dealing with UK assets – what do I do? Part one

    Sophie Hart

    Quick Reads

    min read
  • Child Maintenance: Reform, a Key Appeal, and the Elusive Christmas Order

    David Carver

    Quick Reads

    min read
  • High Court interprets repair covenant in Hotel lease and statutory fire safety obligations

    Chandni Pandya

    Insights

    min read
Back to top