We last wrote on this topic in October 2025 when Parliament had announced the intention to repeal the controversial presumption when time could be found. A review of the presumption found that it contributed to a perception of a pro-contact culture, even though the presumption was only intended to apply when contact was safe.
It’s now been announced that the repeal is part of the Courts and Tribunals Bill, introduced on 25 February.
This is the clause in the Bill:
Decisions of courts under Children Act 1989
17. Welfare of the child: repeal of presumption of parental involvement
(1) In section 1 of the Children Act 1989 (welfare of the child), omit subsections (2A), (2B), (6) and (7) (which provide for a presumption, in certain circumstances and for certain purposes, that the involvement of each parent in the life of a child will further the child’s welfare).
(2) In consequence of the repeal made by subsection (1), omit section 11 of the Children and Families Act 2014.
(Section 11 of the C&F Act 2014 was the legislation that inserted the 2014 changes with effect from October that year.)
Here are the Explanatory Notes on the change:
150. Section 1(2A) inserted into the Children Act 1989 the presumption that, unless the contrary is shown, involvement of each parent in the life of the child will further the child’s welfare. This applies in specified proceedings concerning parental
responsibility (as specified in section 1(7)) and applications under section 8 (for child arrangements orders, specific issue orders or prohibited steps orders).
151. Section 1(2B) clarified that the presumption does not require any particular division of the child’s time between parents, nor does it imply a right to direct or face-to-face contact.
152. Section 1(6) defined the scope of the presumption, specifying which parents it applied to and under what circumstances. It applied only to a parent who could be involved in the child’s life in a way that did not put the child at risk of suffering
harm.
153. This measure repeals section 1(2A), (2B), (6) and (7) from the Children Act 1989. The remaining provisions of section 1, including the paramount welfare principle (subsection (1)), the no delay principle (subsection (2)), and the no order principle
(subsection (5)), remain unchanged and will continue to guide judicial decision-making.
154. Prior to the introduction of the statutory presumption, it was already well established in case law that the involvement of both parents in a child’s life would usually further the child’s welfare and that compelling reasons must be demonstrated for the court to suspend contact between a child and their parent.
This means that the Children Act 1989 welfare principle will no longer include a starting presumption in favour of a child having a continuing relationship with each parent. However, as indicated in note 154 above, the case law that lists other principles still stands. These are set out in many judgments, such as Re H (A Child: Contact: Domestic Abuse) [2024] EWCA Civ 326 [para 44]:
- The welfare of the child is paramount and the child’s best interests must take precedence over any other consideration.
- There is a positive obligation on the State and therefore on the judge to take measures to promote contact, grappling with all available alternatives and taking all necessary steps that can reasonably be demanded, before abandoning hope of achieving contact.
- However, the positive obligation on the State, and therefore on the court, is not absolute. Whilst authorities must do their utmost to facilitate the co-operation and understanding of all concerned, any obligation to apply coercion in this area must be limited since the interests, as well as the rights and freedoms of all concerned must be taken into account and, more particularly, so must the best interests of the child.
- Excessive weight should not be accorded to short term problems and the court should take a medium and long term view.
- Contact should be terminated only in exceptional circumstances where there are cogent reasons for doing so, as a last resort, when there is no alternative, and only if contact will be detrimental to the child’s welfare.
Although the Bill may take a while to go through Parliament, especially as it contains some radical clauses about criminal cases and juries, we think lawyers and judges have already stopped quoting the presumption, relying on the other principles in contact disputes.
Image: Houses of Parliament, Wikimedia Commons