As you can read about here, we’ve been regularly sending Freedom of Information requests to the Ministry of Justice about the ‘urgent’ review they were undertaking on the presumption of parental involvement. The statutory presumption that it’s in a child’s welfare for them to have a continuing relationship with both parents is only one contributory factor to a ‘pro contact culture’ identified in the 2020 Harm report. However, the fact that the MoJ had quickly announced an urgent review into the presumption suggested that it may be a significant factor.
Despite the apparent urgency, it took more than three years for the review to be completed, during which time there has been no information available at all about its findings. Although the review was completed in October 2023, well over a year ago, there is still no public knowledge of its contents. We don’t think this is very transparent but when we ask for information under the FoI Act we are always told that we need to wait for full publication.
A question about the presumption was raised by Josh Fenton-Glynn MP, in Prime Minister’s Questions on 8 January. The prepared reply by the Prime Minister focused on the expansion of the Pathfinder pilot, rather than the presumption, but it did mention that the review was still being considered.
Much more detail on the problems of ensuring safe contact has been covered in a parliamentary debate held on 22 January, instigated by Dr Marie Tidball MP, who is the MP for the constituency where Clare Throssell lives. A statement for Women’s Aid about the debate is available here.
Dr Tidball introduced the debate by saying:
There must be urgent reform of the presumption of parental involvement in child arrangements, known in law as presumption of contact, on the basis of evidence and principle, and to ensure that children’s voices are at the heart of our family courts.
In reply to the various MPs’ questions and concerns, Sarah Sackman MP, a Minister for Justice, said:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the broader understanding of what can constitute abuse has to be incorporated in how we reflect on and review the presumption. The point made by a number of Members—that family courts must never be locations where victims can be re-traumatised by the legal process itself—is a vital one. It is also important that, at the centre of our family courts and law, the best interests and safety of the child are always the focus of any decision making. If we were to ask any family court judge, they would reiterate that that is the law they apply.
It is right, however, that a review has taken place. The Government understand the concerns that have been so eloquently raised today. As my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge pointed out, the previous Government and the Ministry of Justice conducted a wide-ranging review of private family law proceedings. A harm panel comprising experts analysed submissions of evidence from victims and families from right across the public, publishing a landmark report on private family law. As I said, family courts must never be a tool for domestic abusers to continue to exert their coercive control and abuse over others.
The panel recommended that we review the presumption of parental involvement, because in some cases it is leading to negative and unintended consequences. That review has been undertaken, and the Government will be publishing the findings. At the moment, we are grappling with what the policy implications of those findings will be. It would not be right for me to pre-empt the publication of the findings, but it is on its way. As soon as we can publish it alongside our policy response, we will.
Between them, the previous government and the current government have had more than four years to ‘grapple with the policy implications’ of potential outcomes of a review. From the outset, they would have known that the recommendations would be either no change, minor changes or substantial changes.
In view of Ms Sackman’s statement we won’t be renewing our FOI questions again just yet, in the hope that publication of the review might happen.
We’d just add that the parliamentary debate ended with an interesting question from Dr Lauren Sullivan MP about what her constituents could do now, if they felt they had been re traumatised by the family court process. Ms Sackman replied that the court service has a complaints process, which we think rather misses Dr Sullivan’s point. We don’t think she was referring to complaints about court administration, as must have been clear from the preceding debate.
We have a small favour to ask!
The Transparency Project is a registered charity in England and Wales run by volunteers who mostly also have full-time jobs. We’re working to secure extra funding so that we can keep making family justice clearer for all who use the court and work in it. We’d be really grateful if you were able to help us by making a small one-off (or regular!) donation through our Just Giving page.