We have been posting about this topic for some years now – most recently in February this year.
Last week, there was another blaze of publicity about the repeal by Parliament of the legislation introduced in 2014 that added a presumption to the Children Act 1989 where separated parents are in dispute – that it is in a child’s welfare for them to grow up with both parents involved in their upbringing, where safe.
Timeline:
June 2020: the Harm Report is published and the Government announces the presumption will be reviewed.
October 2025: the Review is finally published. The Government announces the presumption will be repealed.
February 2026: The Courts and Tribunals Bill is introduced in the House of Commons. Clause 17 is the legislation that will repeal the presumption.
During its passage, the Bill attracts a lot of discussion and criticism of other previsions, about jury trials in criminal courts. The Opposition indicate they will not oppose clause 17.
May 2026: the Bill is reintroduced.
On 13 October, the Bill reached its Third Reading in the House of Commons. Dr Marie Tidball, who is the MP (Labour) for the constituency where bereaved mother Claire Throssell lives, spoke in favour of the Bill (col. 272). It was noted during her speech that the Opposition had recently put in an amendment to remove Clause 17 from the Bill but the Shadow Justice Minister, Dr Kieran Mullan MP, did not actually speak on this in the debate. This may be because time was limited and there was still a lot that MPs wanted to say about jury trials, despite some Government concessions on those clauses. However, it means we don’t know in detail why the Opposition decided at a late stage that the presumption should stay. One Conservative MP, Rebecca Smith, did however mention the amendment and say Clause 17 would ‘increase the state’s power to erase one parent from a child’s life, and we know that that is often their father. It will rebalance the relationship between parents and the state.’
The Bill still has to go through the House of Lords, where presumably Clause 17 won’t be strongly opposed, if at all.
We don’t anticipate any dramatic change in family court decisions from the day the Bill is enacted and the Children Act is amended, but over the six years since the Harm Report identified the presumption as contributing to a ‘pro-contact culture’ and potential risks of unsafe contact arrangements, the statutory presumption become cited less often amongst the factors considered by the court.
Image: Houses of Parliament – Wikimedia Commons
We have a small favour to ask!
TEN YEARS A CHARITY
The Transparency Project is a registered charity in England and Wales run by volunteers who mostly also have full-time jobs. Although we’ve now been going for a decade, we’re always 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 can’t do what we do without help from you!
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
This is terrible news! The Harm report was flawed and based on poor data collection [edited for legal reasons]
The Family Court has the power to stop an abusive parent from having contact with their children but as in divorce and division of assets the starting point should be 50:50 contact
There is plenty of evidence that children do better when there is contact with both parents in the absence of any safeguarding issues
The irony is that while it is generally agreed that the involvement presumption is ineffective and irrelevant, and that it has had no effect on cases, those who oppose it are absolutely desperate to have it repealed and have resorted to some very low tactics to do so. The Harm report was based on the unverified anecdotal accounts of a self selected group of mothers. No attempt was made to corroborate their accounts. [Edited for legal reasons] If repeal goes ahead it will be based on extremely flimsy and ideological evidence and will almost certainly be detrimental to children’s welfare because it sends a message that a father’s involvement is optional or even harmful.