The government plans to remove the presumption of parental involvement from the Children Act 1989 through the Courts and Tribunals Bill. Once the repeal is brought into force, courts in England and Wales will no longer start from the statutory assumption that a parent’s involvement will usually further a child’s welfare.
One caveat matters first. As of July 2026, the change is not yet law. The Bill is still passing through Parliament, so the current presumption still applies until the repeal is enacted and commenced.
Since 2014, section 1(2A) of the Children Act 1989 has told courts to presume, unless the contrary is shown, that a parent’s involvement in a child’s life will further that child’s welfare. The connected provisions explain that involvement can be direct or indirect, does not mean any particular division of time, and should not put the child at risk of harm. Clause 17 of the Courts and Tribunals Bill would remove those provisions.
The reform follows the Ministry of Justice review of the presumption, published in October 2025, which followed the 2020 Harm Panel report into private law children cases. The concern was that the presumption could reinforce a pro-contact culture, especially in cases involving domestic abuse or safeguarding worries. The campaign was also shaped by Claire Throssell MBE, whose sons, Jack and Paul, were killed by their father after court-ordered contact.
For separated parents, the practical question is what changes at the starting line.
| Aspect | Current law | If the repeal takes effect |
|---|---|---|
| Starting point | Courts presume parental involvement furthers welfare, unless shown otherwise | No statutory presumption either way |
| Parent raising concerns | Must raise evidence showing involvement may harm the child | Concerns are weighed without a statutory pro-involvement starting point |
| Court’s focus | Welfare remains paramount, with the statutory presumption in the background | Welfare remains paramount, assessed on the facts and evidence |
| Contact outcomes | Contact may be direct, indirect, supervised, supported or refused | The same options remain available |
| Existing orders | Continue unless varied or discharged | Continue unless varied or discharged |
Notice the key point. This is not a ban on contact. The welfare principle in section 1(1) of the Children Act remains paramount, and the court will still look at what arrangement is best for the individual child. If you already understand your responsibilities under a court-ordered arrangement, your day-to-day duties do not change automatically.
A common worry is that removing the presumption means one parent, often a father, automatically loses contact. That is not how it works. The change removes a statutory starting assumption for everyone. A parent seeking contact and a parent raising safety concerns will both need evidence. It helps to understand the difference between supervised and unsupervised contact when thinking about what a court might decide. In many lower-risk cases, the result may look similar. The difference is that safety is considered without the same statutory thumb on the scale.
Without the presumption, evidence becomes even more important. Clear records of how reports from supervised contact are used in court give a judge something practical to weigh, and the same is true of wider evidence from court-ordered contact services. For families where there are genuine concerns, including a history of domestic abuse, safe, supervised contact can test whether a relationship is child-focused and safe, rather than leaving the issue to argument alone.
This is steady, careful work. Well-evidenced structured contact services help you show, not just assert, that contact is safe, consistent and centred on the child. For parents whose jobs make scheduling difficult, supervised contact for accountants shows how support can be fitted around professional life. If you already have an order, it is worth checking whether a court-ordered arrangement can be changed before assuming the new law will alter anything by itself.
Frequently asked questions
Has the presumption of parental involvement been abolished?
Not yet. The repeal is in the Courts and Tribunals Bill, but the presumption remains in force until the law is changed and commenced.
Does removing the presumption mean a parent loses contact?
No. It removes a statutory starting assumption. Courts will still decide cases on welfare, safety and evidence.
Will my existing child arrangements order change automatically?
No. Existing orders remain in place unless a court varies or discharges them.
Why is the law changing?
The Ministry of Justice review found that the presumption could contribute to a pro-contact culture that may leave some children and victims of abuse at risk.
Get arrangements that stand on the evidence
As the law moves towards deciding each case on its facts, well-evidenced, child-focused contact matters more than ever. Talk to Child Arrangement Resolutions about supervised contact and clear, factual reporting that helps a court see the full picture. Email info@childarrange.com to start a confidential conversation.