Threads / Courts and Tribunals Bill / Courts and Tribunals Bill — Supplementary written evidence …
Bill Published 21 Apr 2026 Ministry of Justice ↗ View on Parliament

Courts and Tribunals Bill — Supplementary written evidence submitted by Claire Throssell MBE (CTB33)

Parliament bill publication: Written evidence. Commons.

Attachments
▤ Verbatim text from source document

Supplementary written evidence submitted by Claire Throssell MBE (CTB33)

To all this concerns

Paragraph 1

My name is Claire Throssell MBE, a grieving mother, survivor of Domestic Abuse, Women's
Aid Ambassador, Campaigner, Author and at the forefront of the Childfirst Campaign. A
campaign to ensure children remain at the heart of every decision made through the family
courts. To put an end to the culture within the family justice system of “contact at any
cost” and we call upon the government to repeal the presumption of contact between
domestically abusive parents and their children.

Paragraph 2

Within this document, please see enclosed, two photographs that I wish to submit as
evidence in regards to Clause 17 of the Courts and Tribunals Bill to remove the harmful
practice of presumption of parental contact from the Children's Act. These two
photographs have already been seen by the Committee when I gave evidence in regards to
Clause 17 on the 25th March and I can confirm that they are the photographs shown that
day. Paul David Sykes aged 9 was murdered on the 22nd October, his brother, Jack Graham
Sykes aged 12 was also murdered but died on the 27th October 2014. He lost his life
believing that he had saved the life of his brother because I never told him different.

Paragraph 3

Jack and Paul were murdered because a Family Court presumed that they would be safe in
the hands of their father - a known perpetrator of Domestic Abuse despite clear evidence
that he abused Jack and Paul mentally and physically and clear warning from me that he
would kill. He also displayed threatening, abusive behaviour towards Cafcass and Social
Services. I was attacked and threatened both outside and inside the Family Court. Despite
all of this the judge issued an order of 5 hours unsupervised contact per week despite the
danger 2 children were clearly in. And on a 2 hour unsupervised access visit, ordered by
the court he lured 2 innocent children up to the attic with a promise of a new train set and
sweets, while he barricaded the property, set 14 separate fires with petrol and my
possessions and locked the doors to make absolutely certain that Jack and Paul could not
escape.

Paragraph 4

Women's Aid has credible, proven evidence that 67 children have been murdered - that we
know of due to judges, Cafcass and Social workers presuming that it's in the best interest of
the child to see both parents. I say again that presumption has no place when it comes to
children's safety and no place when it comes to children's lives. After Women's Aid
published their latest report the tragic statistics rose again to 68 children murdered with
Sara Sharif.

Paragraph 5

The House of Lords had the opportunity in 2021 with the introduction of the Domestic
Abuse Bill to debate removing the presumption of contact from the Children's Act and
failed to do so. We know, and can sadly prove that children continued to be murdered and
remain unprotected in the Family Courts to this day.

Paragraph 6

That is why I ask for my evidence to be submitted alongside my oral evidence given on the
25th March. Family Courts have failed to protect children for over 30 years. They must not
be allowed to fail them for 30 more. Clause 17 will save children's lives not just today and
tomorrow, but for generations of children to come. So no more children should have to do
what my son Jack did and try to tell as many people as possible that he and Paul had been
hurt on purpose by an abusive parent. His final words - "My dad did this and he did it on
purpose" was taken as his dying testimony by the police and read out at his inquest. Every
child deserves a childhood. Every child deserves to live and that life should not be taken
away from them because a court has made a presumption that they will be safe in the care
of a abusive parent. Presumption of contact was not in the Children's Act when it was first
written and should not be in it now. It's the right thing to do to remove it and protect all
children at risk of harm. Now and always.

Claire Throssell MBE

April 2026