The Presumption of Parental Involvement Is Set to Be Repealed. Here's What That Means for Your Case.

If you're currently going through child arrangements proceedings, or expect to, there's a legal change coming that you need to know about.

For over a decade, English family courts have started every child arrangements case from a fixed legal position. Section 1(2A) of the Children Act 1989 tells judges to presume that involvement from both parents will benefit a child, as long as it's safe. The government plans to remove that presumption.

What's Actually Changing

The government plans to repeal the presumption through the Courts and Tribunals Bill. The relevant clause removes subsections (2A), (2B), (6) and (7) of section 1 of the Children Act 1989, along with the related provision in the Children and Families Act 2014.

In plain terms: courts will no longer start from an assumption that contact with both parents is automatically a good thing. Instead, every case will be judged from a neutral starting point, based entirely on the child's individual circumstances.

The rest of the Children Act is untouched. The child's welfare remains the court's paramount concern. The principle against unnecessary delay stays. The "no order" principle, meaning courts won't make an order unless it's better for the child than making none at all, stays too.

Why This Is Happening

The presumption was introduced in 2014 to help children maintain relationships with both parents after separation. In practice, campaigners and a government review found it had a different effect. It contributed to what's been described as a "pro-contact" culture, where contact was sometimes ordered even when there were real safety concerns.

The case most closely linked to this reform involved two children killed by their father during court-ordered contact, despite warnings from their mother about his behaviour. That case, and the review that followed it, are widely cited as the reason this change is happening now.

What the Government's Review Actually Found

The repeal traces back further than the 2025 announcement. A 2020 government-commissioned panel report, "Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Children Cases" (referred to by practitioners as the "harm panel report"), recommended reviewing section 1(2A). The Ministry of Justice launched that review in November 2020, and its findings were published in October 2025, informing the government's decision to repeal.

The review drew on three separate research projects: a judgment analysis of 245 cases from eight courts (seven in England, one in Wales), led by the National Centre for Social Research; a literature review by Alma Economics covering 32 academic papers and 23 pieces of grey literature; and qualitative research by the Race Equality Foundation, interviewing 29 Black, Asian and minority ethnic parents about their experiences of the presumption.

According to researchers involved in the review, discussing the findings on the Resolution Podcast, the review identified a "no stone unturned" pattern: some form of involvement, often direct contact, was ordered in most cases, even where a risk of harm had been identified in the judgment or court record. At the same time, the presumption itself was rarely referenced explicitly in the judgments studied, so the review couldn't establish how much weight the presumption specifically carried, as opposed to a broader pro-contact approach in the system generally.

The review also looked at how much weight is given to what children say they want. Researchers reported a pattern they termed "selective listening": children's wishes were more likely to be reflected in the outcome when they aligned with the court's existing view, typically favouring contact, and less likely to be reflected when a child expressed a wish not to see a parent.

The review's own authors were upfront about its limits: it couldn't track the long-term impact of child arrangement orders on children, and it involved very limited direct engagement with children themselves.

How This Connects to Pathfinder

The presumption's repeal sits alongside the wider Pathfinder pilot, now called Child-Focused Courts, a reformed child arrangements process that started in Dorset and North Wales and was running in 10 of 43 court areas in March 2026. The first review of Pathfinder found a mixed picture: some parents found the process quicker and felt heard, while others, particularly domestic abuse survivors, felt it moved too fast to properly examine their allegations. A review hearing that was originally built into the Pathfinder process was removed from the practice direction in December 2024. Practitioners discussing the pilot on the Resolution Podcast also noted that its support model relies heavily on domestic abuse charities having the capacity to help, which isn't guaranteed everywhere.

The Concern About Parents Being Shut Out

Not everyone welcomes this change. Some family law commentators, fathers' rights groups, and practitioners working with separated parents have raised a different worry: that removing the presumption could make it easier for a parent to be shut out of their child's life without good reason.

Their argument runs like this. The presumption was already rebuttable. It never applied where there was a risk of harm to the child, and the court could already limit or refuse contact when the evidence justified it. On that view, the presumption wasn't the problem. It was simply a starting point that could always be displaced by evidence, and removing it doesn't add any real protection for children. What it does do, critics argue, is take away a parent's ability to point to a clear legal starting position when arguing for a relationship with their child, at a point in proceedings that can already feel weighted against them.

There's also a concern raised in written evidence to the Bill committee about parental alienation. Some practitioners who work with separated fathers argue that without a presumption in favour of involvement, it becomes easier for one parent's account of the other to go unchallenged early in a case, before the full picture of the family's history is tested.

The government's response to this is that the safeguards were always there in the welfare checklist itself, and that the presumption's practical effect in court was to tip cases toward contact even when the evidence didn't clearly support it. Removing it, on their view, doesn't stop good, safe contact from happening. It just stops contact happening as a default.

Both sides of this debate agree on one thing. The outcome in any individual case will still turn on the same welfare checklist factors, evidence of risk, the child's needs, and the child's own wishes and feelings. What's contested is whether removing the presumption shifts that balance in a way that's fair to parents who pose no risk to their children.

Practitioners interviewed on the Resolution Podcast, discussing their own case experience, suggested the practical, day-to-day impact of the repeal may turn out to be smaller than either side of that debate expects, on the basis that the presumption was already just one factor within a holistic welfare analysis, and courts already rarely cited it explicitly in their reasoning.

What This Means If You're Going Through Proceedings

Without the presumption, the court will rely fully on the Welfare Checklist under section 1(3) of the Children Act. That checklist asks the court to weigh things like:

• The child's own wishes and feelings, given their age and understanding
• The child's physical, emotional, and educational needs
• Any history or risk of harm, domestic abuse, or coercive control
• How capable each parent is of meeting the child's needs

If you're seeking contact, you'll need to show, with evidence, why the arrangement you're proposing is actually good for your child. You can no longer rely on an assumption doing that work for you.

If you have safety concerns about contact, this change is designed to give those concerns more room to be heard on their own merits, rather than being weighed against a starting presumption in favour of contact.

Where Things Stand Right Now

This isn't law yet. It's part of the Courts and Tribunals Bill, which is still making its way through Parliament. As of September 2026, the Bill is still in the House of Commons, with Report stage listed for 13 October 2026. It still needs to complete its remaining Commons stages and all of its Lords stages before it can receive Royal Assent.

That means the presumption is still technically in force today. But courts and lawyers are already adjusting how much weight they put on it, given the direction of travel is now clear.

What You Should Do

If you're currently negotiating child arrangements or preparing for a hearing, don't wait for the law to change before thinking about how you present your case. Whether you're asking for contact or raising concerns about it, focus on the welfare checklist factors now. That's what the court will be relying on regardless of exactly when this Bill passes.

If you're unsure how this might affect your specific situation, get advice early. An independent McKenzie Friend can help you understand the process and prepare your case, though for legal advice specific to your circumstances you'll need a solicitor or barrister. Bridge The Gap's directory can help you find an independent McKenzie Friend near you.

---

Further Reading

• C100 Application: A Complete Guide to Child Arrangements Orders
• Your Journey Map — Step-by-Step Case Pathways
• Community Insights — Real Gaps and Stories
• Find a McKenzie Friend

---

This article is general information only and is not legal advice. Family law is fact-specific, and how these principles apply to your situation will depend on your individual circumstances. For advice tailored to your case, speak to a family law solicitor.