• 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However, crucially, once the presumption is repealed, judges will no longer have a starting point that parental involvement is in the child’s best interests.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

  • Surveyors' Refresher Seminar

    Hope Barton

    Events

    min read
  • Right to Work Reforms Webinar

    Kelvin Tanner

    Events

    min read
  • Building Safety Update Seminar

    David Savage

    Events

    min read
  • From Pilot to Nationwide Protection: New Powers to Protect Victims of Domestic Abuse

    Hilde Braaten Resseth

    Quick Reads

    min read
  • Lauren Fraser comments in New Law Journal on a Supreme Court decision regarding Right to Manage claims

    Lauren Fraser

    In the Press

    min read
  • What could the Law Commission’s proposals on the rights of first refusal mean for office occupiers?

    David Haines

    Insights

    min read
  • Birthright citizenship changes and US surrogacy: what UK and Swiss intended parents need to know

    Michael Wells-Greco

    Insights

    min read
  • Charles Russell Speechlys advises long-standing client BioMed Realty on Jagex's move to Granta Park

    Amy Shuttleworth

    News

    min read
  • Property Patter: Service Charges – What is the current state of play?

    Georgina Muskett

    Podcasts

  • World Trademark Review quotes Robert Lundie Smith on the High Court’s $11.6 million damages award to Swatch

    Robert Lundie Smith

    In the Press

    min read
  • Charles Russell Speechlys appoints Justine Howard as General Counsel

    Justine Howard

    News

    min read
  • Niamh Tenison contributes to an Estates Gazette legal Q&A on limitation periods and incorrect court fees

    Niamh Tenison

    In the Press

    min read
  • Hannah Catt writes in PrimeResi on the upcoming High-Value Council Tax Surcharge in the UK and why it needs careful design

    Hannah Catt

    In the Press

    min read
  • The latest UK-Switzerland Services Deal: Is it a Game-Changer for Cross-Border Mobility?

    Paul McCarthy

    Quick Reads

    min read
  • No Easy Escape: The Court confirms test to restrain a call on an on-demand performance bond

    Sara Cunningham

    Insights

    min read
  • CasinoBeats quotes Darren Bailey on player betting bans and sports gambling partnerships

    Darren Bailey

    In the Press

    min read
  • Kerry Stares, Rory Partridge and Lyla Gilbert write in Sustainable Views about how sustainable packaging is becoming a condition of EU market access

    Kerry Stares

    In the Press

    min read
  • William Longrigg writes in the Law Society Gazette on the potential return of Calderbank offers in family proceedings

    William Longrigg

    In the Press

    min read
  • Pay Up or We'll Tell All: The High Court's Firm Stance on Blackmail in Privacy Cases

    Hannah Gornall

    Quick Reads

    min read
Back to top