A proposed reform to family law in England and Wales could change the statutory starting point used in some private-law children cases. Clause 17 of the Courts and Tribunals Bill would repeal the presumption that a parent’s involvement in a child’s life will further the child’s welfare unless the contrary is shown.
Domestic-abuse organisations regard repeal as a safety reform, while some fathers’ groups and practitioners fear it could make proceedings harder for safe non-resident parents.
The Bill is not law. As of 12 June 2026, it has been reintroduced at Report Stage in the House of Commons after completing Committee Stage. The presumption remains in force until the Bill passes, receives Royal Assent and is commenced.
What Is the Presumption of Parental Involvement?
The presumption was inserted into section 1 of the Children Act 1989 by the Children and Families Act 2014. In specified private-law proceedings, including applications for child arrangements orders, the court must presume that the involvement of a qualifying parent in the child’s life will further the child’s welfare unless the contrary is shown.
“Involvement” can be direct or indirect. It does not create a right to equal parenting time, shared residence, overnight contact or any particular division of the child’s time.
The presumption applies only where the parent can be involved without putting the child at risk of harm. It can also be rebutted by evidence showing that involvement would not further welfare.
The child’s welfare remains paramount. Courts must apply the welfare checklist and, where domestic abuse is alleged, Practice Direction 12J. It is not an automatic entitlement to contact.
Why Is Repeal Being Proposed?
The proposed repeal follows concern about how private-law proceedings respond to domestic abuse and other harm.
The Ministry of Justice’s 2020 Harm Panel report found evidence of a “pro-contact culture” and recommended a review of the presumption. That review began in November 2020 and its final report was published in October 2025.
The review concluded that the presumption was one of several factors contributing to a culture in which parental involvement was strongly promoted. It identified a high incidence of ordered contact between children and parents who had caused harm or presented a risk of harm, including cases where direct contact remained the objective despite serious risk indicators.
The findings did not suggest that involvement by both parents is generally harmful. Safe relationships can benefit children. The concern was that a strong focus on contact could sometimes minimise abuse or delay protection.
For families dealing with abuse allegations, child supervised contact in domestic abuse situations may provide a structured setting while safety is assessed.
What the Courts and Tribunals Bill Would Change
Clause 17 would remove sections 1(2A), 1(2B), 1(6) and 1(7) of the Children Act 1989. It would also repeal section 11 of the Children and Families Act 2014.
Repeal would not create a presumption against parental involvement. It would not prevent courts from ordering direct, indirect or supervised contact, or arrangements for a child to live with either parent.
Instead, the court would decide the case without the statutory assumption that involvement will further welfare. It would continue to apply the paramountcy principle, welfare checklist, Practice Direction 12J, relevant evidence and European Convention on Human Rights considerations.
The reform changes the starting point, not the ultimate question: which arrangements best protect and promote this child’s welfare?
The Debate Around Repeal
Supporters argue that repeal permits a genuinely open welfare inquiry and reduces pressure to maintain contact where coercive control, domestic abuse or other harm requires caution.
Critics note that the current law already contains a risk-of-harm exception. They fear repeal could produce inconsistent decisions or make proceedings more adversarial for parents seeking to preserve safe relationships.
Disputed allegations require careful handling. An allegation does not automatically determine the outcome, but it cannot be ignored. Courts may need safeguarding checks, disclosure, witness evidence or a fact-finding hearing before deciding whether contact is safe.
Children need protection from harm, but may also be harmed by unnecessarily losing a safe parental relationship. Repeal would address that balance through individual welfare analysis rather than a general assumption.
What It Could Mean for Contact Arrangements
A more open welfare assessment
If repeal takes effect, judges would no longer begin with the parental-involvement presumption. They would consider the child’s needs, relationships, wishes and feelings, history and risks without that additional starting point.
This would not create a formal burden for every parent seeking contact. Reliable evidence about the child’s experience and how contact has operated will remain important.
Factual records from supervised sessions can help the court understand what occurred rather than relying only on conflicting accounts. The article on evidence from court ordered child contact services explains how neutral observations may assist.
Safety and risk from the outset
Practice Direction 12J already requires courts to identify domestic-abuse issues, consider whether fact-finding is necessary and ensure that any order protects the child and the parent with whom the child lives from further harm.
The national rollout of Child Focused Courts, previously known as the Private Law Pathfinder model, is intended to strengthen early information gathering, risk identification and children’s participation. Additional centres are joining during 2026, with wider implementation planned through March 2029.
For families seeking child arrangement support Manchester, early preparation and focused professional input can help present the child’s circumstances clearly.
The welfare checklist takes centre stage
The welfare checklist includes the child’s wishes and feelings, physical and emotional needs, the likely effect of change, relevant background, harm suffered or feared, each parent’s ability to meet the child’s needs and the court’s available powers.
A contact supervisor can provide factual session records. An independent social worker may undertake a welfare assessment when properly instructed. If an ISW is put forward as an expert in ongoing proceedings, the court’s permission is generally required under the Family Procedure Rules.
CAR’s ISW Services page explains the available support.
What This Could Mean for Fathers
Many non-resident parents are fathers, so concern about repeal is understandable. The proposal creates no preference for mothers or presumption against fathers.
A father with a safe, child-focused relationship can still apply for a child arrangements order. Evidence of reliable care, respect for boundaries and responsiveness to the child’s needs will remain relevant.
Where safety is disputed or a relationship needs rebuilding, professional support may provide useful evidence. CAR offers child supervised contact services for fathers where supervised contact is suitable.
The article on the role of court ordered child contact services in high conflict parenting cases explains how structured arrangements can support children when adult communication has broken down.
How Independent Support Can Help
Supervised contact can provide a safer setting and a factual record of sessions. It is not required in every case, and the court decides what weight to give any report.
Supervised child contact services Manchester and across Greater Manchester, Cheshire and Merseyside can help where direct contact needs safeguards, observation or gradual development.
For mothers with safety concerns, the Child Arrangement Services for Mothers page and Court Ordered Supervised Contact page explain how professional supervision can operate.
Professionals can use the Referrals page, while families can review the Why Us page. Services can also respond to particular circumstances, including families seeking child supervised contact services for accountants greater Manchester.
FAQs
Is the presumption already gone?
No. As of 12 June 2026, the Bill is at Report Stage in the House of Commons. The presumption remains in force unless and until repeal is enacted and commenced.
Would repeal make courts less likely to order contact?
Not necessarily. Courts would continue to order contact where it serves the child’s welfare. The reform removes a statutory starting assumption; it does not create an assumption against involvement.
Would domestic-abuse allegations automatically prevent contact?
No. Allegations must be considered properly and may require investigation or fact-finding. Depending on the evidence, contact may be direct, supervised, indirect, paused or refused. Supported handovers or staged progression may also be considered where risks can be managed safely.
How can supervised contact help?
It can provide a supported setting and a neutral record of what occurs. Its value depends on the quality, relevance and purpose of the records. The FAQs page explains CAR’s services.
Should parents obtain legal advice?
Yes. The Bill is still progressing, and current cases remain governed by existing law. A family-law solicitor can advise on evidence, Practice Direction 12J, expert assessments and any commencement or transitional provisions.
Get Professional Support in a Changing Legal Landscape
The proposed repeal would change an important statutory starting point, but not the central principle of children law: the child’s welfare is paramount.
Courts need clear information about safety, the child’s experience and the quality of contact. Proportionate support can help identify safe, workable arrangements.
Child Arrangement Resolutions works with families, solicitors and professionals across Greater Manchester, Cheshire and Merseyside. Contact the team today to discuss support for safe, child-focused arrangements.