Parental Involvement Presumption Set to Go

The government plans to repeal the statutory presumption of parental involvement in the Children Act 1989. The proposed change is contained in Clause 17 of the Courts and Tribunals Bill, which is currently at Report stage in the House of Commons.

However, the law has not changed yet. Royal Assent has not been granted, and the government intends to carry the Bill into the 2026–27 parliamentary session. Parents involved in family proceedings should therefore continue to take advice based on the law currently in force.

This article explains what the proposed repeal could mean and how separating parents can prepare.

What is the presumption of parental involvement?

Section 1(2A) of the Children Act 1989 currently provides that, in relevant proceedings, the court must presume, unless the contrary is shown, that the involvement of each parent in the child’s life will further the child’s welfare.

The presumption applies where the court is considering certain applications concerning children, including contested applications for a Child Arrangements Order. It is subject to important safeguards. The legislation does not require involvement where it would put the child at risk of harm.

The meaning of “involvement” is also narrower than some people assume. Under section 1(2B), involvement may be:

• direct, such as spending time with the child; or
• indirect, such as telephone calls, video calls, letters or cards.

It does not mean that a child must spend equal time with both parents. It does not create an automatic right to shared care, a 50/50 arrangement or a particular number of overnight stays.

The relevant wording can be read in the current version of section 1 of the Children Act 1989.

Why does the government want to repeal it?

The government’s decision follows concerns about the way the presumption has operated in private law children cases.

The Ministry of Justice’s review identified concerns about a “pro-contact culture” in the family courts. One concern is that some parties may have treated the presumption as a starting point for contact or shared time, rather than as a limited welfare-based principle.

In practice, some parents have argued that they have a right to see their child simply because they are a parent. That is not an accurate statement of the current law, but the government considers that the statutory wording may contribute to that misunderstanding.

There are also concerns about how the presumption operates where domestic abuse or other safeguarding issues are alleged. A parent may argue for contact while the other parent raises concerns about coercive control, violence, intimidation or harm caused by the child witnessing abuse.

The government’s concern is not that the current legislation ignores harm. It does not. The existing provisions expressly exclude a parent where involvement would put the child at risk of harm, and the welfare checklist requires the court to consider harm suffered or at risk of being suffered.

The concern is that the presumption may still influence the culture or starting point of decision-making, particularly in cases where allegations of abuse are not immediately accepted or fully investigated.

The proposed repeal forms part of a wider package of family justice reforms aimed at placing children’s welfare and safety at the centre of decisions. The government’s Courts and Tribunals Bill factsheet describes the proposal and its relationship with other reforms.

What would replace the presumption?

The repeal would not create a presumption against parental involvement.

Instead, the court would begin with an open-minded inquiry into what is best for the individual child. The outcome would depend on the evidence and the child’s particular circumstances.

The court would still apply section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989, which provides that the child’s welfare is the court’s paramount consideration. The court would also continue to consider the statutory welfare checklist, including:

• the child’s ascertainable wishes and feelings, considered in light of their age and understanding;
• the child’s physical, emotional and educational needs;
• the likely effect of any change in circumstances;
• the child’s age, background and relevant characteristics;
• any harm the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering;
• the ability of each parent, and any other relevant person, to meet the child’s needs; and
• the range of orders available to the court.

The court would therefore still consider whether a relationship with each parent would benefit the child. The difference is that this would be assessed directly from the evidence, rather than being supported by a statutory presumption.

How could the change affect separating parents?

If Clause 17 becomes law, arguments based only on parental status are likely to carry less weight.

For example, saying “I have a right to see my child because I am their parent” would not answer the central question: what arrangement best meets the child’s welfare needs?

A stronger case would explain how the proposed arrangements would benefit the child. Relevant issues may include:

• the child’s existing relationship with each parent;
• the child’s routine, schooling and activities;
• each parent’s ability to provide consistent care;
• the practical arrangements for handovers and travel;
• the child’s wishes and feelings;
• any communication difficulties between the parents;
• the impact of conflict on the child;
• any allegations of domestic abuse or other safeguarding concerns; and
• whether contact should be direct, indirect, supervised or subject to other safeguards.

This does not mean that a parent must prove they are perfect. Family courts understand that separating parents may disagree and that relationships can be difficult. The important point is that proposals should be child-focused, realistic and supported by evidence.

What will not change?

The proposed repeal would not remove the basic framework of private children law.

The following principles would remain:

The child’s welfare remains paramount

The court must continue to put the child’s welfare first when deciding questions about upbringing.

The welfare checklist remains relevant

The court would still consider the child’s needs, wishes and feelings, the impact of change, the capacity of each parent to care for the child and any risk of harm.

The child’s wishes and feelings must still be considered

The weight given to a child’s views will depend on their age and understanding. A child does not simply decide the outcome, but their views remain an important part of the welfare assessment.

Delay remains relevant

The court must continue to have regard to the principle that delay is likely to prejudice the child’s welfare. Parents should not assume that waiting for a possible change in the law is necessarily in their child’s interests.

Existing court orders remain available

The court would continue to be able to make orders under section 8 of the Children Act 1989, including:

• Child Arrangements Orders, dealing with who a child lives with and spends time with;
• Specific Issue Orders, resolving a particular question such as education, medical treatment or a change of name; and
• Prohibited Steps Orders, preventing a parent from taking a specified step, such as removing a child from the jurisdiction without consent.

When would the repeal take effect?

As at 21 September 2026, Clause 17 remains part of a Bill. It has not received Royal Assent, so section 1(2A) remains in force.

The repeal would only affect the law after the Bill becomes law and the relevant provisions take effect. The legislation and any commencement arrangements would need to be checked carefully once Parliament completes its consideration.

This means that family court cases taking place today continue under the existing framework. Parents should not delay making an urgent application on the assumption that the presumption will soon disappear. Delay can be harmful where arrangements are unsafe, unworkable or causing distress to a child.

What should parents do now?

Whether or not the repeal is enacted, careful preparation is important.

You should consider gathering:

• a clear chronology of key events;
• details of the child’s current routine and needs;
• relevant messages, emails or records of missed arrangements;
• evidence of any safeguarding concerns;
• details of proposed childcare, school and holiday arrangements;
• information about practical travel and handover arrangements; and
• any documents supporting your proposed plan.

A written parenting plan can also help. It should focus on the child rather than criticising the other parent. It may cover contact days, school holidays, birthdays, communication, healthcare, education and how disputes will be managed.

Before a first hearing, it is often helpful to obtain advice about the order you need and the evidence required to support it. This is particularly important where there are allegations of domestic abuse, a risk of abduction, substance misuse, mental health concerns or significant conflict.

Our family law solicitors in the UK advise on child arrangements, protective orders and representation in family court proceedings. You can also contact Tyndel Solicitors to discuss your circumstances.

Frequently asked questions

Has the presumption already been abolished?

No. As at 21 September 2026, the Courts and Tribunals Bill has not received Royal Assent. Section 1(2A) of the Children Act 1989 remains part of the current law.

Does the current presumption give a parent a right to equal time?

No. “Involvement” can be direct or indirect and does not mean equal time or a 50/50 care arrangement.

Will the repeal mean that children no longer see both parents?

No. The repeal would not create a presumption against contact. The court would still consider whether involvement with each parent is in the child’s welfare interests.

What if there are allegations of domestic abuse?

Domestic abuse and safeguarding concerns should be raised promptly and supported with relevant evidence. The court must consider any harm suffered or risk of harm. Urgent protective measures may be available depending on the circumstances.

Should I wait before applying to court?

Not usually. The current law remains in force, and delay may not be in the child’s interests. Obtain legal advice promptly if arrangements are unsafe, breaking down or preventing meaningful care.

The government’s A Fairer End to Relationships consultation closed in August 2026. That consultation is separate from the proposed repeal discussed here, and no financial remedies legislation has been enacted as a result.

This article provides general information about the proposed legal change in England and Wales. It is not a substitute for advice on the facts of an individual case.