Repeal of presumption that contact with both parents is best

[newsandblues]

I made a thread on news linked below, would be very grateful for perspectives from those who understand family law and how this will impact?

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/in_the_news/5431736-family-courts-no-longer-to-presume-contact-with-both-parents-is-in-childs-best-interests?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=app_share

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/oct/21/family-law-shift-hailed-as-victory-for-children-facing-domestic-abuse

The existing presumption means the courts start from the position that a parent's involvement is a good thing unless there is evidence it would cause harm. Unfortunately, this has led to contact being promoted even when there is evidence of domestic abuse. The courts are supposed to prioritise safety in cases involving domestic abuse, but a review last year suggested that the presumption was getting in the way of that. This change, when it is enacted (and we don't yet know when that will be), means that every case will be looked at on the facts with the child's welfare and any risk of harm being the primary consideration.

Only time will tell if this achieves the desired change in the way contact is handled in domestic abuse cases. There is good reason to believe it will, but we can't be certain until it is in operation.

Fingers crossed this means the safety of children will always come first. The story of the lady who has fought hard to get this is beyond heartbreaking.

Thank you.
I’ve now read this report:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68f5f5c206e6515f7914c7e3/Review_of_the_Presumption_of_Parental_Involvement_Final_Report_.pdf
and I feel heard about my experience of the court process for the first time.

It felt like the outcome of 50/50 was predestined throughout my case and anything that would have detracted from that was ignored. Will it be worth going back to court once this comes in? The abuse was “only” controlling behaviour and high conflict, alongside not great parenting. Child was not listened to as “too young”. Lies were listened to where they supported 50/50. Settled before fact finding due to running out of money and fear of even worse outcome. Child is frequently distressed on going to see parent, but still too young to be listened to and is becoming anxiously attached where they were secure before. I knew in my gut 50/50 was not good for them but no-one would listen. If I go back it will be self representing as I have no money left and am sick of not being heard. I appreciate a solicitor would need to know more to advise properly but maybe someone could give me an inclination if this change might give me any hope of a change where the child is not at risk of attack, just of being psychologically messed up by spending half their home life with a messed up parent.

Yes I absolutely agree. I cried just reading the outline of her awful story.

I had the same judge in family court who allowed that murderer access to his children and she was vile. She doesn’t personally believe in parental alienation, ignored my support from IDAS due to abuse from my ex and now I haven’t seen my daughter for over 3 years with no further investigation of the alienation. I hope karma gets her.

Thank you so much for linking! I couldn't find this extremely important piece of legislative change. I was in a DV relationship for 10 years, violence, financial, emotional, coercive control. He wants access to child unsupervised and I've pushed back but now has a gf on the scene and wants to play happy families. He's a terrible father I can't list what he's done but it's awful. I'm so worried but today, I feel like the clouds may have parted. I hope this makes a huge impact on families for the better. Keeping abusive parents away from their children and in the care of their loving parent.

Removing the presumption of contact will not change anything on its own. It is a step in the right direction, but real change requires systemic reform, a cultural shift within the family courts in England and genuine accountability and transparency. Practice Direction 12J already exists, yet courts regularly ignore or downplay it, labelling cases as “parental conflict” and prioritising quick resolutions over evidence, just to clear the court list. Allegations of abuse are often not investigated, fact-finding hearings aren’t ordered. Whilst this continues, children’s emotional and physical safety will remain compromised.

Real change will only come from amending the Overriding Objective in the Family Procedure Rules 2010 to prioritise the safeguarding of children over efficiency, resource allocation, and procedural convenience