The Presumption of Contact in Family Court 2025

The presumption of contact is being repealed. If you’re a parent considering separation or already living post-divorce, you will likely have heard about contact arrangements, the role of the family court in deciding how much a child spends with each parent, and what happens if there are allegations of abuse.

A major change is now on the horizon: in England and Wales, the long­standing legal presumption that it’s always in the child’s best interests to have involvement with both parents is being removed.

The Presumption of Contact

Since 2020, the Harm Panel has being looking at the issue of The Presumption of Parental Involvement and it’s final report was published on 22nd October 2025. The report found what was not in doubt in my mind as a former family court legal adviser, mediator and practising divorce coach – children are being ordered to have direct contact with an abusive parent, even when further harm was not only possible but likely.

The Human Rights Act, the belief that children should have a relationship with both parents, a lack of court time and resources, a lack of understanding about the nuances of abuse in all it’s forms has led to a ‘pro-contact’ culture in the family court.

Let’s step back for a moment, before we look at this in more detail to remember that when parents do co-parent well, when abuse is not an issue, children of separated parents can thrive, be happy and well adjusted. Parental involvement of both parents in these circumstances is shown by the research to be good for children.

Sometimes this adjustment takes time. That’s normal. Grief, anger sadness frustration with the other parent can play their part and with time and support, for many families, issues resolve themselves. This repeal of the presumption isn’t going to impact you. But what if your situation is abusive and your partner coercive and controlling?

For parents who have experienced domestic abuse, controlling behaviour or coercion, this reform could be life changing for them and their children. It means the starting point will no longer automatically favour “both-parent involvement” but will instead prioritise child safety and welfare.

In this blog I’ll walk you through:

• what the presumption of parental involvement has been;
• why the change matters;
• how this affects child arrangements and contact orders;
• what you should know and do.

I’ll also include a practical FAQ section at the end to help you get clarity on common questions.

Parental involvement

Under section 1 of the Children Act 1989 (as amended by the Children and Families Act 2014) there has been what’s known as the “presumption of parental involvement” – you probably know it as ‘contact’.  In essence it meant that, unless evidence showed otherwise, the court must presume that involvement of a parent in a child’s life will further that child’s welfare.

A few key things to note:

• The “involvement” doesn’t automatically mean equal time or shared living arrangements. It covers contact or arrangements of many kinds. How much time children spend with each parent can be decided between you or by a court if you cannot agree.
• If a parent can only be involved in their child’s life in a way that puts the child at risk, the presumption does not apply in the first place. This means that the court will need to consider all the evidence before it makes a decision. The Harm Panel found evidence that even in cases where the presumption was rebutted (that parental involvement was not the starting point), direct contact was frequently being ordered anyway.
• The welfare of the child remains the paramount consideration: that principle will remain unchanged.

 

In practice, however, the presumption often reinforced what is sometimes called a “pro-contact culture” — i.e., a strong default towards facilitating contact with both parents, even in cases where risk factors (including domestic or parental abuse) were present.

Following the deaths of Jack and Paul Throssell 11 years ago at the hands of their father, their mother Claire has been campaigning for this change. Speaking on BBC Woman’s Hour she said that the changes “would save so many children’s lives”.

Why this reform matters – especially for you

Putting child safety first

The recent announcement by the UK Government confirms that they will legislate to repeal the presumption of parental involvement when parliamentary time allows.

This matters because:

• When there are concerns about abuse, controlling behaviour or neglect – the old presumption risked placing children back into harmful contact simply because the law favoured involvement.
• The reform sends a clear message: being a parent is a privilege, not a right,  (Claire Throssel) and the child’s right to safety trumps automatic involvement.
• For survivors of domestic abuse, it offers the possibility of a fairer starting point in the family court system. As one campaigner noted: “children’s welfare will always be the priority and parents who undermine their welfare cannot use the system to continue to perpetrate harm.”

Challenging the “one size fits all” approach

The official Review of the presumption (October 2025) found that the presumption was not routinely referenced by judges in decisions – but in practice many decisions still followed the “no stone unturned” approach promoting involvement. This led to situations where even in cases with indicators of high risk (convictions, protection orders, significant abuse), courts sometimes still ordered unsupervised direct involvement.

Sadly but unsurprisingly, there was little evidence of long-term welfare outcomes for children having minimal or no involvement with a parent. Further work needs to be done of this but the instances of ‘no contact’ are rare.  But the Review raised concern: “where a parent posed a risk… involvement with that parent might not further the child’s welfare.”

The review noted that the availability of data to research was disappointingly low but with the implementation of the Transparency Project and a greater willingness to understand the impact of harmful parenting on children and young people, the data will be available in future to fully assess the outcomes of the diffeent types of court ordered outcomes.

So this reform is not a small tweak – it seeks to rebalance how courts approach child arrangements and contact, giving greater weight to individual child welfare rather than assuming that involvement always promotes the welfare of the child.

What the change means in practice for child arrangements & contact

The starting point is shifting

• Previously: court begins with the assumption that unless shown otherwise, involvement of both parents will further child welfare.
• Going forward: court will assess from the outset whether involvement does further welfare, without automatically starting from the default of “yes”.
• Good news: this means that if you raise concerns about risk, abuse or controlling behaviour, you are less likely to be battling an automatic presumption of involvement.

 

Risk & harm modelling

• The Review highlighted that courts must robustly consider harm and risk of harm – including the impact of domestic abuse, emotional, psychological harm and the child’s voice.
• The change emphasises that contact arrangements must be genuinely safe – supervised or indirect contact may be appropriate instead of automatic unsupervised contact with a parent.

 

Your evidence matters

1. If you are dealing with abuse, coercive control or risk to a child, you will need to ensure that factual evidence, safeguarding concerns, protective orders or social work involvement are clearly presented. This has always been the case. The shift means that you are now on stronger ground to argue that the child’s welfare cannot assume involvement with the other parent. It’s not always easy. The culture of some organisations in my experience is still poor and it’s a post code lottery. Some clients have had exceptional support and others have faced dismissive professionals who talk them into ‘co-parenting’ because in reality, they don’t know how to handle the abusive parent themselves. The Family Courts, Cafcass,  Social Services Schools asked for report all need to do better. Fear doesnt just keep victims stuck, it keeps the professionals stuck too.

 

The law hasn’t changed yet but the signal has

At time of writing the presumption remains in statute (Children Act 1989) but the Government has committed to repeal it as parliamentary time allows. Courts will continue to apply the welfare checklist under S.1(3) Children Act 1989 and make decisions on child arrangements accordingly. The presumption does not automatically vanish overnight in every case. Remember, collate your evidence and find people who will listen.

A client of mine after first experience with Early Help said “I feel like I’m going mad. She suggested I buy books on co-parenting and read books to our daughter about mum’s house and daddy’s house, despite me telling her that our 6 year-old is spouting vitriol about me stealing daddy’s house and all his money” Fortunately the next Early Help worker totally understood. The lesson – keep going even if you aren’t understood at first.

Until repeal, you may still face the legacy culture of the presumption. But you should use this announcement as leverage for change—courts and practitioners will increasingly recognise the shift?

What this means for contact arrangements

The court may order a range of child arrangements: living (residence) orders, spending time/contact orders, or neither.

• With the presumption removed, the court is more likely to focus on whether contact is safe and beneficial – rather than assuming it should happen unless shown otherwise.
• You may see increased focus on forms of contact such as supervised contact, supported contact, or indirect contact (letters, digital communication) when risk concerns exist, though how this will be funded remains to be seen.
• For parents with no evidence of risk, the traditional benefits of involvement may still apply. The key shift is the mindset of the system: one size no longer fits all.
•  

Conclusion

If you need tailored guidance, coaching or help preparing for court/arrangements in light of these changes — I’m here to support. This reform may be happening at system level, but the change becomes real for women and children when it is part of your lived experience. You’re not alone. You can navigate this. And you will unlock a future that honours your child’s welfare and your own voice.

• You’re not alone – thousands of women have faced similar battles. This reform recognises the system needs to better protect children and survivors.
• Child welfare is always THE priority – and rightly so. As you navigate decisions, keep your children’s safety, feelings, development and emotional welfare central.
• Your voice matters – this new landscape gives you a stronger foundation to speak out about risks, harmful behaviours and the truth of the situation.
• Be prepared – document, gather evidence, seek legal advice, liaise with your coach/support network.
• Don’t accept the status-quo if it’s unsafe – if your gut says that contact with the other parent is risky for your child or for you, the law is evolving in your favour.
• Support your children in understanding change – Transparent, age-appropriate discussion with your children about what’s happening can reduce fear and confusion.

 

About Emma

Emma Heptonstall, the Divorce Alchemist is the author of the Amazon best-selling book How to be a Lady Who Leaves, the Ultimate Guide to Getting Divorce Ready. A former lawyer, Emma is a family mediator and founder of Get Divorce Ready, the online self-study programmes, and the newly released ‘Should I be a Lady Who Leaves?’. For More Information on Should I be a Lady Who Leaves? click here.

Emma has been featured on BBC Radio, The Telegraph, the iPaper and in Marie Claire Magazine. Emma is also the host of  The Six Minute Divorce Podcast. To find out more visit www.emmaheptonstall.com