This blog post has been contributed by Professor Robert Jago, Module Convenor for Family law.
In October 2025 the Ministry of Justice published the Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement. This comprehensive review examines how courts apply the statutory presumption that a parent’s involvement in a child’s life will further that child’s welfare, and delivers findings that then prompted the Deputy Prime Minister to announce plans to remove this presumption from the Children Act 1989. For family law students this represents a key development in understanding how the courts make decisions as to a child’s welfare and potentially something of a landmark shift in continuing to prioritise the safety over a child over a parent’s right to be involved in their child’s up bringing.
The presumption of parental involvement can be found in s1(2A) Children Act 1989 as inserted by the Children and Families Act 2014. This provision requires courts to presume that, unless proven otherwise, involvement of a parent in a child’s life will further the child’s welfare. This presumption only applies when a parent can be involved without putting the child at risk of harm and can be rebutted with evidence that involvement would not benefit the child’s welfare. The review was triggered by the 2020 report from the Expert Panel on Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Children Cases (the “Harm Panel”), which recommended an urgent review of the presumption due to its ‘detrimental effects.’ The Ministry of Justice subsequently launched a formal review focusing on how courts apply the presumption and its impact on child welfare.
The review’s evidence gathering involved three commissioned research projects: a literature review examining 32 academic papers and 23 grey literature publications; qualitative research exploring experiences of 19 Black, Asian and ethnic minority parents in child arrangement cases, and 10 parents whose cases involved alleged child sexual abuse; and analysis of 245 unpublished court judgments and magistrates’ written facts and reasons. Additionally, the review team conducted workshops with family justice stakeholders and synthesized published evidence, though they acknowledged significant limitations in data availability, access, and quality within the family justice system.
Perhaps surprisingly, the review found that judges and magistrates did not routinely reference the presumption when making decisions about contested child arrangements orders. When mentioned, it was highlighted as just one of several factors the court must consider, with child welfare remaining the central consideration. This suggests the presumption may operate more in the background of decision-making rather than as an explicit factor in final judgments.
The most common outcome in child arrangements cases was some form of involvement between a child and both parents, typically unsupervised and face-to-face contact. Notably, this remained true even in cases involving allegations of domestic abuse or harm. Orders for no involvement or substantially restricted involvement were not routinely made. The review found concerning evidence that in cases with indicators of high risk, including convictions, protection orders, and findings of harm, courts still pursued or ordered direct involvement between children and the parent who posed a risk. This ‘no stone unturned’ approach to promoting parental involvement appears deeply embedded in family justice practice.
The evidence reviewed confirmed that where there is no risk of harm to the child, involvement of both parents’ following separation generally has a positive impact on child welfare. However, when controlling for factors such as family income, exposure to parental conflict, or quality of parent-child relationships, the differences in outcomes between shared care and sole care arrangements often disappeared. Critically, where a parent posed a risk or had harmed a child, the evidence suggested that involvement with that parent might not further the child’s welfare and could leave children at ongoing risk of harm with both short and long-term negative implications.
It was also reported in the review that children’s views were not always considered in proceedings. When children were engaged, it often occurred late in the process, and courts appeared to take a ‘selective’ approach to listening to children’s voices. The views of older children and those supportive of parental involvement tended to be amplified more than those of other children.
The review concluded that while the presumption itself was not routinely referenced in judicial decision-making, the family justice system as a whole would appear to be intrinsically geared toward fostering involvement for a child with both parents after separation. For many children, such decisions further their welfare. However, where a parent poses a risk or has caused harm, the evidence suggests that children’s welfare is not always supported by parental involvement.
Subsequent to publication in March 2026, the UK Government announced it would repeal the presumption through the new Court and Tribunals Bill. Removal of the presumption of parental involvement from the Children Act 1989 will now happen when parliamentary time allows. This change would likely require courts to place greater emphasis on individualised assessments of each child’s circumstances rather than starting from a presumption of parental involvement.
Back in 2013 when the presumption was being debated Professor Felicity Kaganas wrote that ‘The new presumption appears to be the result of a ‘symbolic crusade’ to reaffirm the importance of two institutions: the family justice system and the institution of the family based on particular notions of the importance of the father.’ (Kaganas, 2013, 290). She then warned that introduction of this presumption would likely come ‘at the expense, potentially, of vulnerable mothers and their children.’ (Kaganas, 2013, 293). Subsequently in 2018 Kaganas wrote that evidence to date suggested the presumption had little impact although it was potentially putting mothers and children at risk (2018, 549). As the presumption falls so this crusade has failed. Evidence from this review and the wider commentary, would suggest that the change in law, when it comes, will not be before time.
References
Ministry of Justice, ‘Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement’ (2020)
Felicity Kaganas, ‘A Presumption That Involvement of Both Parents Is Best: Deciphering Law’s Messages’ (2013) 25 Child & Fam L Q 270
Felicity Kaganas, ‘Parental Involvement: A Discretionary Principle’ (2018) 38 Legal Studies 549