Family Court Reform: Rethinking Parental Involvement and Child Protection

Created: 15 December 2025

Family breakdown is rarely straightforward, and some couples face greater challenges than others when negotiating post-separation arrangements, especially where their children are concerned. Ideally, parents can agree on child arrangements themselves. Reaching decisions cooperatively provides a stronger foundation for positive co-parenting. Support from family solicitors, mediators, or divorce coaches can also be extremely helpful and does not necessarily indicate that communication has collapsed. Some parents seek guidance to ensure all necessary issues are covered; others want to understand how they can formalise an agreement. Family lawyers always work with the awareness that separated parents will remain part of each other’s lives as they raise their children. However, not all parents can reach an agreement without assistance, and many require the intervention of lawyers or, ultimately, the Family Court.

The Family Court and family practitioners operate under the Children Act 1989, the Children and Families Act 2014, and the Family Procedure Rules—particularly Practice Direction 12J when domestic abuse is relevant.

These frameworks establish several key principles: The child’s welfare is the court’s paramount consideration. In assessing welfare, the court must recognise the welfare checklist. Where there are no welfare concerns, the court must presume that a child benefits from involvement with both parents. In every case, the court must consider all relevant factors, including a thorough investigation of any allegations of past, ongoing, or potential harm—such as domestic abuse or other risks—when determining how much time a child should spend with each parent.

Over the past decade, the presumption of parental involvement has faced increasing scrutiny, largely due to concerns about risks posed to parents and children who have survived domestic abuse. Critics argue that, in some cases, the rights of perpetrators have been prioritised over child welfare and that some individuals misuse court processes to continue patterns of abuse.

In 2020, the Expert Panel on Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Children Cases (“the Harm Panel”) published its report. It drew upon testimony from those with both personal and professional experience of the family court, concluding that the presumption of parental involvement can, in some circumstances, have harmful effects.

On 22 October, the Ministry of Justice released its Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement, examining how the presumption is applied in family courts, the findings of the Harm Panel, the review launched in November 2020, the impact of the presumption and the court’s capacity to identify and understand risk to children.

The report concluded that the Government has decided to repeal the presumption of parental involvement, reaffirming that a child’s welfare will remain the court’s overriding priority. Despite this, several concerns remain regarding the proposed reforms. Most practitioners have encountered at least one case involving false allegations of domestic abuse, which can seriously harm a parent-child relationship. Without a presumption that parental involvement is generally in a child’s best interests, avoidable mistakes may occur, with consequences that could be irreversible for children.

The court does not always reach the correct conclusion, and it is deeply distressing when errors occur. However, the solution lies in improving training, funding, and resources. Judges must have the time required to give each case proper attention, and there must be sufficient judicial capacity to handle the volume of cases.

Furthermore, both judges and practitioners need ongoing specialist training on harm, risk of harm, and the potential impact on children. This training should extend beyond domestic abuse and encompass issues related to religion, culture, gender, sex, and sexuality. Few decisions are more significant than those involving a family’s future, and those tasked with making them should have meaningful experience in family law as well as specialist knowledge of the diverse issues that may arise.

Children must remain at the centre of all decisions about contact, and thorough risk assessments should be carried out by everyone involved in the process. In response to the government’s decision, Farah Nazeer, Chief Executive of Women’s Aid, called for mandatory specialist domestic and sexual abuse training for all judges. I fully support this recommendation, but believe that broader, comprehensive training, such as that described above, is essential.

Implementation of the reform may still be months away, but it’s vital that family practitioners continue to exercise vigilance. Removing the presumption of contact marks a significant shift and will bring new challenges of its own.