Family law in England and Wales is rooted in the principle that the welfare of the child is paramount. Yet, recent proposed reforms around parental involvement have sparked intense debate — particularly the government’s decision to repeal the statutory presumption that a child benefits from involvement by both parents. This article explains what parental responsibility and the presumption mean, why reform was debated, the key arguments on each side, and what comes next for courts, children, and families.
What Is Parental Responsibility?
Parental responsibility (PR) is a legal concept defined in Section 3 of the Children Act 1989 as “all the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which by law a parent of a child has in relation to the child and his property”.
In practice, PR includes fundamental decisions such as:
- Choosing a child’s school, consenting to medical treatment, travel abroad, or changing the child’s name;
- Receiving important information about the child’s welfare and representing the child in certain legal contexts.
PR attaches automatically to all mothers, and to fathers who were married to the mother at birth. Unmarried fathers can acquire PR by being named on the birth certificate, through a parental responsibility agreement, or by court order.
Although PR gives legal authority, it does not limit the court’s ability to decide whether and how involvement should happen — that remains under the Child Arrangements Orders system.
Understanding the Presumption of Parental Involvement
From 2014, amendments to the Children Act 1989 introduced a statutory presumption of parental involvement in private law proceedings. Under this presumption, courts are required to start from the position that “involvement of that parent in the life of the child concerned will further the child’s welfare”, unless evidence suggests that involvement would cause harm.
Here, “involvement” can include direct or indirect contact — not necessarily equal time with a child.
This presumption was intended to ensure that children have access to both parents where it is safe to do so.
Why Repeal It? The Government and Campaigners’ Case
After years of critique from campaigners and researchers, the UK government (England and Wales) announced plans to repeal the presumption of parental involvement from the Children Act 1989 — “when parliamentary time allows.”
Advocates for repeal argue that the presumption has contributed to a “pro-contact culture” in the family courts — one that has, in practice, prioritised contact over child safety in cases involving domestic abuse and other harm.
The Ministry of Justice’s review of the presumption — built on three research strands including court judgment analysis — found that in many cases courts were slow to disapply the presumption even where there were clear indicators of risk, effectively driving decisions toward contact.
Campaigners, including domestic abuse charities, have explicitly linked this culture to harm. Women’s Aid’s Child First campaign has documented cases where children were returned to dangerous situations despite abuse warnings, and calls the presumption a factor that “dilutes the court’s focus on the welfare of the child.”
Voices from Experts and Survivors
One of the most powerful public advocates for reform has been Claire Throssell MBE, whose own sons were killed by their father during an unsupervised court-ordered visit where she had warned of danger. Her experience has been central to campaigning for change.
Throssell has said:
“No parent should have to hold their children and comfort them as they die… The system is so flawed, it protects bad practice.”
This sentiment motivated the Child First and Hear Them or Grieve Them campaigns, seeking a system that believes survivors and centres safety.
The 2020 Ministry of Justice Harm Panel Report (“Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Children Cases”), which first recommended a review of the presumption, stated that the presumption’s implementation was inconsistent and that the courts’ application of it had contributed to a culture that could expose children and non-abusive parents to harm.
Arguments Against Repeal
Despite strong advocacy for reform, critics have raised concerns.
Some family lawyers and commentators argue that the statutory presumption’s removal may not address deeper cultural issues in the courts — and that courts already have discretionary power to refuse contact where risk is shown.
There are also fears that removing the presumption could be misused, potentially giving rise to unfounded allegations that unjustly prevent safe parents (often fathers in statistics) from maintaining a relationship with their child without safeguards.
Critics highlight that child welfare decisions require individualised assessments, and that broad legislative change without sufficient court resources, training, and trauma-informed systems may fail to protect children or may inadvertently create new harms by denying meaningful parental relationships.
Balancing Child Safety and Parental Involvement
The heart of the debate lies in balancing child safety against the benefits of meaningful relationships with both parents. The Children Act already prioritises welfare above all, and the presumption was one factor among many in judges’ decisions.
Repeal supporters argue that removing the presumption will clarify the law and reduce automatic pro-contact bias, making bespoke risk assessments central. Detractors caution that risks of abuse allegations being weaponised — or of alienating relationships — must be mitigated through robust practice and training.
Conclusion: A Decision Made – But Implementation Ahead
The decision to repeal the statutory presumption of parental involvement has now been taken by the UK government for England and Wales.
However:
- The repeal has not yet been fully enacted — it requires parliamentary time and legislative drafting.
- Implementation will need to be supported by judicial training, court practice reforms, and resource investment to ensure child welfare is genuinely realised, not just in law but in practice.
- Schemes like Pathfinder point to a broader shift in family justice — where safety, evidence-based assessment, and multi-agency coordination are prioritised.
In the years ahead, whether this reform achieves its goal of better protecting children — without unfairly restricting safe relationships with parents — will depend on how courts, agencies like CAFCASS, and practitioners integrate child-centred and risk-aware practice into every family case.
If you would like more information or are worried about your children or how to manage your separation then please make contact with us here .
