Courts and Tribunals Bill — Written evidence submitted by The Family Services Foundation (CTB22)

Written evidence submitted by The Family Services Foundation to the Courts and Tribunals
Public Bill Committee (CTB22)

Clause 17 – Repeal of the Presumption of Parental Involvement (“the Presumption”) in the
Children Act 1989

1. Introduction to The Family Solutions Foundation (FSF)
1.1 The FSF is a charitable organisation committed to improving outcomes for children and
families experiencing separation, conflict, and change. Rooted in the belief that
children thrive when they are supported by stable, nurturing relationships, FSF works
to ensure that policy, practice, and public understanding reflect the needs and rights
of children whose family lives are undergoing transition.

1.2 FSF brings together experts, practitioners, and researchers to develop
evidence‑informed approaches that strengthen family relationships, reduce conflict,
and promote the wellbeing of children. The Foundation plays an active role in shaping
national conversations on family justice, delivering and supporting initiatives that focus
on early intervention, positive co‑parenting, and safeguarding children’s relationships
with those who play a meaningful role in their lives.

1.3 Through research, advocacy, and collaboration with partners across the sector, FSF
aims to influence the design of services and the development of policies that put
children’s welfare at the centre. Its work champions the principle that, wherever safe
and appropriate, children benefit from meaningful relationships with both parents and
wider family members, and that systems serving families should be accessible, fair, and
supportive.

2. Rationale for Submitting Evidence.
2.1 The Family Services Foundation (FSF) maintains that removing the presumption of
child contact in cases of parental separation , particularly where matters are resolved
through the legal system risks causing unintended harm to the wellbeing of children
and young people. While it is acknowledged that a small proportion of non ‑resident
parents (most commonly fathers) may pose risks to their children following separation,
there is limited evidence to suggest that abolishing the presumption of contact would
effectively address these concerns.

2.2 FSF recognises that there is an important opportunity to modernise and strengthen
the legal framework that protects children’s rights and safety. However, such reform
should focus on enhancing the protections available, rather than creating conditions
that may inadvertently prevent children from maintaining safe, meaningful
relationships with their parents.

2.3 On the contrary, a substantial body of evidence, indicates that children are more likely
to thrive after parental separation when both parents are safely involved in their lives,

when conflict is reduced, and when communication remains focused on the child’s
best interests.

3. Summary of the Evidence Submitted in this Response
This submission focuses specifically on Clause 17 of the Courts and Tribunals Bill, which
proposes to repeal the presumption of parental involvement. It seeks to provide an
evidence-informed perspective on

3.1 Removing the presumption of child contact after parental separation risks harming
children’s wellbeing, as existing laws already protect children’s safety while promoting
involvement from both parents when safe and appropriate.

3.2 Existing legal protections: Current law, including the Children Act 1989 and Practice
Direction 12J, prioritizes child welfare and allows courts to restrict contact if harm is
shown, ensuring safety in parental involvement. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 further
supports risk identification in family proceedings.

3.3 International obligations: The UK is bound by the UN Convention on the Rights of the
Child, which mandates that children maintain contact with both parents unless
contrary to their best interests and ensures children’s views are heard in decisions.

3.4 Ongoing reforms: The Pathfinder Pilot introduces a problem-solving model to identify
risks early and improve safety, with positive early outcomes that could be disrupted by
removing the presumption.

3.5 Risks of removing presumption: Starting from a position that both parents’
involvement is not beneficial may contravene the Convention and diminish children’s
rights and protections.

3.6 Importance of parental relationships: Safe, meaningful involvement with both parents
supports children’s identity formation and emotional resilience, while absence of one
parent can cause confusion, rejection, and identity gaps.

3.7 Impact on families and professionals: Changing the law may confuse professionals
supporting families outside court, disproportionately affect non -resident parents
(mostly fathers), and increase emotional strain and mental health risks for separated
parents.

3.8 Family court system strain: Removing the presumption could increase court workloads,
lengthen hearings, cause more disputes, and reduce motivation for out -of-court
resolutions, worsening delays harmful to children.

3.9 Need for careful evaluation: Major legislative changes should undergo impartial impact
assessments incorporating children’s perspectives to avoid unintended consequences
and ensure reforms are evidence-based and child-centered.

4. Current Protections that already exist.

4.1 Introduced in 2014, the presumption holds that both parents' involvement benefits a
child, unless it poses a risk of harm. This presumption as it currently stands does not
require equal contact or shared care and does not override safeguarding concerns. The
court’s primary concern remains the child’s welfare.

4.2 Under current law, courts begin with the idea that a child has a right to involvement
from both parents where it is safe, and the welfare of the child remains the paramount
consideration. Removing the presumption risks undermining that child ‑centred
starting point.

4.3 Section 1(2A) of the Children Act 1989 (hereafter referred to as the act) states that
involvement of both parents “will further the child’s welfare unless the contrary is
shown” — a safeguard that already allows courts to depart from involvement where
harm is evidenced.

4.4 Section 1(3), of the act necessitates consideration of any harm which the child has
suffered or is at risk of suffering as part of the Welfare Checklist, which the court must
have regard to when deciding issues concerning a child’s welfare. The checklist already
requires consideration of children’s emotional needs, risk of harm, parental capability,
and wishes/feelings.

4.5 Section 1(6) of the act expressly ensures the presumption applies ‘if the parent can be
involved in the child’s life in a way that does not put the child at risk of suffering harm’.

4.6 Practice Direction 12J (PD12J) provides the family court with a framework where
allegations are made and domestic abuse has been raised as an issue in the
proceedings and necessitates consideration of risk of harm to the child and other
parent when making both interim and final orders for contact.

4.7 While PD12J already references domestic abuse, the Domestic Abuse Act 2021
provides the legal definition that family courts must apply. The Domestic Abuse Act
2021 forms the basis for identifying abuse and ensuring protective measures in family
court proceedings.

4.8 The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) was ratified in the
UK in 1991. Therefore, the UK must uphold the rights in the Convention, and UK laws
should be compatible with the Convention.

i. Article 3 of the Convention sets out that
In all decisions affecting children, including contact arrangements, the best interests
of the child must be a primary consideration.

ii. Article 9 sets out that
a. Children should not be separated from their parents against their will, unless it
is necessary for the child’s best interests (e.g., due to abuse or neglect).

b. When parents separate, children have the right to maintain regular contact with
both parents, unless that is contrary to the child’s best interests.

c. The child and both parents have the right to express their views and be heard
in decisions about separation.

4.9 There are already reforms of Private Family Law currently being rolled out, but not fully
implemented, most notable the Pathfinder Pilot. This u ses a more investigative,
problem‑solving model to identify risk early , and aims to improve safety for children
and parents experiencing domestic abuse. Whilst the early stages of the process seem
to be wielding positive outcomes, changing the law in such a fundamental way so early
in the development of the Pathfinder is likely to fundamentally reshape practice on the
ground, risking the improvements being reported by those in pilot areas.

4.10 Starting from a position whereby a relationship with both parents is not in the best
interests of children is likely to place the UK outside of the convention, which will not
only harm the rights and protections of children, but is also likely to undermine the
Convention itself which can only lead to diminishing the rights and protections of
children in the UK.

5 Reframing the focus.
5.1 Removing the presumption seems primarily focused on addressing the risks associated
with the children having relationships with non -resident parents , rather than
evaluating the potential consequences of denying children relationships.

5.2 The concept of a ‘pro -contact culture’ is anticipated to feature prominently in
discussions regarding reform of the presumption. Notably, this term originated from
organisations with particular and narrow objectives. There is a concern that the term
may be misused by parents who do not act in the best interests of their children,
potentially to restrict contact with non -resident parents as a punitive measure,
resulting in adverse long-term emotional effects for their children.

5.3 The fact the removing the presumption is flows from the same people that could be
accused of weaponi sing the term ‘pro -contact culture’ makes it a priority of adults,
particularly those who are in positions whereby they are able to lobby government
and members of parliament. However, the consequences most heavily impact on
children and young people. Whilst it will always be the case that adults need to play a
fundamental role in the protection of children; it is important that their voices are
meaningfully included in any process.

5.4 As children become young people, understanding their identity becomes increasingly
important, as a normative part of their development. Children’s sense of identity,
including who they are, where they belong, and how they understand themselves
develops through their relationships, experiences, and the messages they receive from
the adults who care for them. After parental separation, maintaining meaningful
relationships with bo th parents can play a vital role in supporting that identity
formation, provided it is safe and appropriate.

5.5 When a child does not have access to one parent, they often experience:
a) Confusion about their origins
b) Feelings of rejection (“Why aren’t they here?”)
c) Idealisation or demonisation of the absent parent
d) Gaps in understanding their background, family, and heritage

5.6 To further complicate this issue, the presumption not only runs the risk of children not
being able to spend time with one of their parents, but the impact of this flows across
the wider family of the non -resident parent, meaning that children are not affo rded
opportunities to enjoy safe and loving relationships with effected aunts, uncles,
cousins, grandparents and so on.

5.7 It is commonly accepted that children learn about their identities from the people
around them, particularly wider family where they are afforded the opportunity to
have relationships with them, and by removing the presumption of contact, it is likely
that contact with all family members will be reduced.

5.8 In a paper published by the Nuffield Foundation C. Bryson et al (2017) wrote about a
gap in research relating to the impact of parental separation in terms of wider family
members, and it seems that little has changed since. However, they do note that family
members (including wider family members) provide children with crucial emotional,
social, and financial support in any family unit, but especially following separation.

5.9 Conversely, regular, positive contact helps children form a cohesive narrative about
their life and identity, something strongly linked to emotional resilience.

5.10 When children grow up without meaningful contact with one of their parents, it affects
their psychological, emotional, and social development in several interconnected
ways. The impacts of this can be lifelong when left unsupported.

5.11 A review of 54 studies undertaken by Neilson (2017), found that children in shared -
parenting families had better outcomes than children in sole physical custody families.
The measures of well -being included: academic achievement, emotional health
(anxiety, depression, self -esteem, life satisfaction), behavioural problems
(delinquency, school misbehaviour, bullying, drugs, alcohol, smoking), physical health
and stress -related illnesses, and relationships with parents, stepparents, and
grandparents.

5.12 Evidence indicates that when fathers are supported, included, and acknowledged by
services, their participation yields substantial positive outcomes for children's
wellbeing, stability, development, and future prospects.

5.13 Research on Separated Fathers (Milius et al., 2025) show that the quality of father –
child relationships and coparenting positively influences:
a) Children’s emotional regulation
b) Behavioural outcomes

c) Parental mental health (with joint‑custody fathers reporting significantly lower
depression than non‑custodial fathers).

5.14 Nielsen (2018) reviewed 60 studies that have compared children in these two types of
families during the past 25 years and found that shared parenting is best for children
in separated and divorced families. Kids who share time between both parents’ homes
approximately equally have better outcomes related to:
a) Academic achievement
b) Drug, alcohol and cigarette use
c) Mental and physical health
d) Less early sexual activity and teen pregnancy
e) Higher employment and earnings later in life
f) Greater likelihood of family stability in their own adulthoods
g) Better relationships with parents, stepparents and grandparents.

6 The wider impacts of changing the law.
6.1 Major legislative changes that impact vulnerable groups should undergo evaluation by
impartial experts through a comprehensive assessment process, incorporating diverse
perspectives, with particular attention given to the views of children and young people.

6.2 A well written impact assessment could help the government to envisage the way that
the law will be implemented and what this will mean in a practical sense. Such a
document would be well placed to consider the needs of children and their families
and whether these needs would be met by the proposed changes.

6.3 To facilitate such change, it is essential to analyse existing research to ensure that
government decision -making and planning are informed by current thinking and
evidence-based knowledge.

6.4 Research could be well placed to review whether current plans are adequate in
achieving the governments intended aims and whether safeguards in place will be
adequate.

6.5 In the absence of thorough assessment and supporting research, there is a risk that
new legislation may lack clarity, fail to achieve its intended objectives, harbour
unintended loopholes, or be misinterpreted. This could inadvertently increase the
vulnerability of children and require additional government intervention and resources
for future revisions.

6.6 Most families never access the Private Family Law system, however changing the law
in this regard is likely to have an impact far wider than those formally accessing the
courts.

6.7 According to the Family Justice Council briefing paper (2021) written by Professor
Rosemary Hunter, the best available evidence is that around 10% of separated families
make use of the courts in arriving at child arrangements.

6.8 Of the remaining 90% of families, it is likely that a significant number of these may
access earlier level support such as that provided by teachers, social workers, family
hubs, children's centres or other similar professionals. Others may access informal
family support, and the remainder are likely to be isolated from any reliable support.

6.9 The presumption as it currently stands is an effective way to ensure that the roles of
both parents is valued, by families and professionals alike. Removing the presumption
is likely to promote the roles of resident parents over those who are not living with the
children. This is obviously problematic in terms of the increased barriers that non -
resident parents face and runs the risk of being emotionally harmful to children.

6.10 According to statistics published by the Department for Work and Pensions (27.03.25)
following separation children remain with their mothers 88% of the time, meaning that
any potential change in the way that the law is currently written is going to
disproportionately impact upon fathers, a nd their children's ability to have the
experience of children experiencing positive male role models.

6.11 The basis of the support offered to these families is going to be based on
understanding of the law, and research about what is best for children post separation.
The current position that the law sets make clear that children have rights to
relationships with both parents where this is safe and in their best interests. If the law
were to set out a different position this is likely to complicate the understanding of
these professionals and influence the support they can offer families.

6.12 The strain of being separated from children, prolonged conflict, and navigating the
family courts is something which is likely to have a significant emotional toll on the
parents that are trying to get to see their children. Conditions like depression and
anxiety are likely to be particularly prevalent for those accessing such systems and it is
reasonable to expect therefore that there is a genuine risk of this feeding into (male)
suicide rates. Making the system increasingly complicated by removing something that
many non-resident parents are likely to see as a safeguard is likely to further increase
vulnerability in this regard.

6.13 Family breakdown is a significant life stressor and can have profound mental health
consequences. Men are already disproportionately affected by suicide in the UK. Data
from the Samaritans indicates that approximately three -quarters of suicide deaths in
the UK occur among men.

6.14 Relationship breakdown, separation, and family conflict are frequently identified as
major risk factors for male suicide. Research examining suicide deaths among middle-
aged men in Britain has found that many of those who died were separated, divorced,
or living alone. These findings highlight the role of relationship breakdown and social
isolation in suicide risk. Surveys of separated fathers experiencing difficulties
maintaining contact with their children have reported particularly high levels of
psychological distress and suicidal ideation.

6.15 While safeguarding children must always take precedence, policymakers should
recognise that legal frameworks affecting parental contact may have significant
impacts on parental mental health.

7 Role of Presumption in Professional Practice
7.1 Professionals within the family justice system frequently rely on the presumption
when working with separating parents. Family court advisers from CAFCASS,
mediators, and social workers often use the principle of parental involvement as a
framework for encouraging cooperative parenting.

7.2 In cases where one parent seeks to restrict the other parent’s involvement without
clear safeguarding concerns, the presumption provides a neutral reference point
emphasising the child’s need for relationships with both parents.

7.3 Removing the presumption may weaken the ability of professionals to challenge
attempts to marginalise one parent.

8 Perverse Incentives and Alienating Behaviours
8.1 Legal frameworks influence behaviour. Removing the presumption risks creating
unintended incentives within the family justice system. Where the law no longer
clearly recognises the importance of both parents, it may become easier for one
parent to attempt to exclude the other from the child’s life.

8.2 In high-conflict separations, behaviours sometimes described as parental alienation /
alienating behaviours or non -appropriate gatekeeping may occur. These behaviours
can involve obstructing contact, undermining the child’s relationship with the other
parent, or discouraging communication. The current presumption signals that
attempts to exclude a parent without legitimate safeguarding concerns are unlikely to
succeed.

8.3 Removing this principle may alter incentives in ways that increase parental conflict and
reduce cooperation.

9 Risks to the Family Courts
9.1 If there is no clear statutory starting point, courts may need longer hearings, gather
more evidence, and face increased disputes between parties. There is limited
information on what would take the presumption’s place if it were removed, making it
hard to predict government intentions and possible consequences. Any significant
legal change should be carefully planned and clearly explained so impacted parties can
prepare and understand the outcomes.

9.2 The law relies heavily on examples from Case Law, but after changes are made, courts
will have few direct precedents showing how these rules are applied. This could
lengthen proceedings and increase the risk of decisions being overturned on appeal.

9.3 Removing the presumption would likely result in greater workloads and longer delays
in the family court system. Since the removal of Legal Aid courts face longer hearings,

increased backlogs, and additional strain on judicial time. It is argued that one of the
reasons for this is that there are fewer professionals working with the courts because
some families have no way of paying them, resulting in a higher percentage of Litigants
in Person. This has been observed in local studies, such as the 2025 review in
Basingstoke, which highlights “significant strain” on the family courts due to L itigants
in Person.

9.4 The adversarial court process is known for escalating conflict that can persist over time.
While court intervention will always be necessary for certain cases, prioritising out-of-
court dispute resolution among parents may offer faster and more community-based
solutions.

9.5 Strengthening the out of court pathways are also likely to reach a wider cohort of
people, potentially improving safety for those families who never would have accessed
court in the past, but may have needed support with child arrangements.

9.6 Without the presumption guiding negotiations, parents might be less motivated to
resolve their disputes outside of court.

9.7 Delays in ongoing court proceedings are known to be harmful to children. The work of
Pires and Martins (2021) found that the ongoing custody process was found to
contribute to increased interparental conflict. Harsh parenting and interparental
conflict were identified as predictors of poor early child adjustment.

10 Conclusion
10.1 In conclusion it is argued that removing the legal presumption that children benefit
from involvement with both parents where this is safe and in their best interests, after
separation could unintentionally harm children’s wellbeing.

10.2 Although a minority of non ‑resident parents may pose risks, the current law already
provides safeguards allowing courts to restrict or deny contact where harm is
established. Instead of abolishing the presumption, it is recommended that
strengthening existing protections and ensuring reforms remain aligned with children’s
rights.

10.3 Under the Children Act 1989, the child’s welfare is paramount. Section 1(2A) states
that parental involvement furthers welfare unless evidence suggests otherwise, while
the Welfare Checklist (s.1(3)) already requires courts to consider risks of harm,
emotional needs, parental capability, and children’s wishes. Section 1(6) ensures the
presumption only applies when safe. Additional layers of protection include Practice
Direction 12J, which governs cases involving domestic abuse, and the Domestic Abuse
Act 2021, which defines abuse and guides courts in identifying and responding to risk.
The UK is also obligated under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)
to uphold children’s rights to safety, meaningful parental relationships, and
participation in decisions affecting them.

10.4 Removing the presumption could undermine national and international obligations
and disrupt ongoing reforms such as the Pathfinder Pilot, which aims to improve safety
and early risk identification through a problem ‑solving, investigative model. Early
indications show positive outcomes, and a sudden legislative shift could destabilise
progress.

10.5 The discussion around a “pro‑contact culture” is highlighted as potentially misleading.
Framing reform around this narrative risks centring adult agendas rather than
children’s needs.

10.6 Children’s identity formation is significantly shaped by safe, meaningful relationships
with both parents, and wider family interactions. The absence of one parent may lead
to confusion, feelings of rejection, or identity gaps. Research consistently shows that
shared parenting, when safe, supports better academic, emotional, behavioural, and
physical outcomes (Neilson 2017; Nielsen 2018).

10.7 Evidence also shows benefits when fathers are supported and involved, including
improved outcomes for children and reduced depression among jointly involved
fathers (Milius et al., 2025).

10.8 Major legislative change should undergo robust, impartial impact assessments,
ensuring reforms are evidence ‑based and child ‑centred. Without such scrutiny,
unintended consequences may emerge, including confusing frontline professionals
who support families outside the court system. Only around 10% of separated families
use the courts, but a much wider group relies on teachers, social workers, and family
support services whose guidance often reflects legal norms and expectations.

10.9 Removing the presumption may unintentionally elevate the status of resident parents,
typically mothers (88% of cases per DWP , 2025) , while marginalising non -resident
parents, potentially harming children’s access to positive parental role models. It may
also exacerbate emotional strain on non‑resident parents who already face challenges
with separation, conflict, and court processes, potentially heightening mental ‑health
risks.

10.10 The family courts are already under considerable strain, particularly since the
reduction of legal aid. Eliminating the presumption could lead to longer hearings, more
evidence gathering, greater appeals, and fewer out ‑of‑court resolutions, ultimately
increasing delays that are known to be harmful to children.

10.11 A more balanced approach would be to retain the presumption while strengthening
safeguarding measures and support services for families experiencing separation. Such
an approach would better promote the welfare of children while addressing legitimate
concerns about safety and abuse.

11. References

Bryson, C. et al. (2017). Understanding the lives of separating and separated families
in the UK: what evidence do we need?. [Online]. BPSR - Bryson Purden Social Research.
Last Updated: May 2017.
Available at:
https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/files/Family%20Separation%2
0Scoping%20Study%2 [Accessed 10 March 2026].

Department for Work and Pensions. (2025). Separated families statistics: April 2014 to
March 2024. [Online]. Gov.uk. Last Updated: 27.03.2025. Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/separated-families-statistics-april-2014-
to-march-2024/separated-families-statistics-april-2014-to-march-2024 [Accessed 8
March 2026].

Find A McKenzie Friend. (2025). The Impact of Legal Aid Cuts – 15 Years Later in
Basingstoke. [Online]. Last Updated: 06.06.25. Available at:
https://www.findamckenziefriend.com/articles/sakkeena-sultan/the-impact-of-legal-
aid-cuts-%E2%80%93- [Accessed 8 March 2026].

Hunter, R (2021). Statistics on Private Law Applications. [Online]. Family Justice Council
briefing paper. Last Updated: March 2021. Available at:
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/110556/pdf/ [Accessed 7 March
2026].

Milius, H.L., Cho, B.O. & Klingman, A.M. Fatherhood After Separation: Implications for
Parent and Child Outcomes. J Child Fam Stud 34, 1241 –1258 (2025).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-025-03064-5. [Accessed 7 March 2026].

Neilson, L. (2017). 10 Surprising Findings on Shared Parenting After Divorce or
Separation. [Online]. Institute for Family Studies. Last Updated: 20.06.2017. Available
at: https://ifstudies.org/blog/10-surprising-findings-on-shared-parenting-after-
divorce-or-separation. [Accessed 7 March 2026].

Nielsen, L (2018)Joint versus sole physical custody: Outcomes for
children independent of family income or parental conflict , Journal of Child Custody.
Available at:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5154a075e4b08f050dc20996/t/5a6a58370d9
297962b6ef1fd/1516918840631/2018+Child+Custody+60+studies+.pdf. [Accessed 7
March 2026].

Pires, M and Martins, M (2021)Parenting Styles, Coparenting, and Early Child
Adjustment in Separated Families with Child Physical Custody Processes Ongoing in
Family Court . Published in Children (Basel, Switzerland). Available at:
https://doi.org/10.3390/children8080629. [Accessed 7 March 2026].

Uk Government. (1989). Children Act 1989. [Online]. Legislation.gov.uk. Last Updated:
08.03.2026. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/contents
[Accessed 8 March 2026].

UK Government. (2014). Practice direction 12j – child arrangements & contact orders:
domestic abuse and harm . [Online]. Justice.gov.uk. Last Updated: 28.04.2024.
Available at: https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-
rules/family/practice_directions/pd_part_12j [Accessed 8 March 2026].

UK Government. (2021). Domestic Abuse Act 2021. [Online]. Legislation.gov.uk. Last
Updated: 29.04.2021. Available at:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2021/17/contents [Accessed 8 March 2026].

United Nations. (1991). How we protect Children's rights with the UN Convention on
the Rights of the Child. [Online]. UNICEF. Last Updated: 16.12.1991. Available at:
https://www.unicef.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/UNCRC_summary-1_1.pdf
[Accessed 8 March 2026].

March 2026