Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement – Final Report (October 2025)

Review of the Presumption of
Parental Involvement
Final Report

October 2025

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement

i
Contents
Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement 1
Final Report 1
Contents i
Executive Summary iii
Introduction iii
The Review iii
How are the courts applying the presumption? iv
What is the impact on child welfare of the courts’ application of the presumption? v
Conclusions vi
Glossary of terms vii
1. Introduction 1
1.1. The presumption of parental involvement 1
1.2. The Expert Panel on harm in private law children cases 3
1.3. The Review 4
1.4. Report structure 4
1.5. A note on language in this report 4
1.6. Use of evidence in this report 6
2. How the Review was undertaken 7
2.1. Terms of Reference 7
2.2. Phase One 7
2.3. Phase Two 11
2.4. Access, availability and quality of family justice data 12
2.5. Robustness and limitations of the evidence 14
3. How are the courts applying the presumption? 17
3.1. Application of the presumption in final decisions 17

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement

ii
3.2. Nature of orders made by the courts 18
3.3. Impact of the presumption throughout proceedings 21
3.4. Impact of the presumption on different groups 23
3.5. Courts’ ability to understand the risk to children 25
3.6. Summary 26
4. What is the impact on child welfare of the courts’ application of the
presumption? 28
4.1. Frequency of involvement 28
4.2. Impact of risk of harm 30
4.3. Impact of restricted forms of involvement 32
4.4. No parental involvement 33
4.5. Children’s ability to shape child arrangements 34
4.6. Public law comparisons 35
4.7. Summary 36
5. Conclusion 38
6. Next steps 40
References 42

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement

iii
Executive Summary
Introduction
Most parents who separate make arrangements for their children between themselves.
However, for a variety of reasons, some parents use the support of the court to do so.
Private law children cases are court cases between two or more private individuals to
resolve a dispute relating to children. In some of these cases, the Children Act 1989
provides that the courts must presume that, unless the contrary is shown, the involvement
of a parent in a child’s life will further that child’s welfare. This is known as the presumption
of parental involvement (‘the presumption’). It only applies to a parent who can be involved
in the child’s life in a way that does not put the child at risk of suffering harm – and even if
it does initially apply to a parent, it can be rebutted (so it does not apply) if there is
evidence that the parent’s involvement will not further the child’s welfare.
The Expert Panel on Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law
Children Cases (‘the Harm Panel’) published a report in 2020 which looked at evidence
from those with personal and professional experience of the family court. The Harm Panel
recommended that the presumption be “reviewed urgently in order to address its
detrimental effects” (MoJ, 2020a, p. 175). In November 2020 the Ministry of Justice (MoJ)
officially launched the Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement (‘the Review’),
which focused on understanding how courts in England and Wales apply the statutory
presumption and the impact on child welfare of the courts’ application of these provisions.
Following the completion of the Presumption Review, the Deputy Prime Minister has
announced his intention, when parliamentary time allows, to amend the Children Act 1989
to remove the presumption of parental involvement.
The Review
The evidence gathering phase of the Review involved three externally commissioned
research projects, which are published alongside this summary:
• Literature review – considered 32 academic papers and 23 grey literature1
publications to produce a summary on the impact that harm and parental involvement
have on child welfare

1 Grey literature refers to a range of different information that is produced outside of traditional academic
publishing channels. It includes research produced by governments, charities and third sector
organisations, working papers etc.

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement

iv
• Qualitative research – explored the experiences of 19 Black, Asian and ethnic
minority parents who had been involved in child arrangement cases, and 10 parents
whose cases involved alleged child sexual abuse
• Analysis of court judgments – looked at the application and use of the presumption
in 245 unpublished court judgments and magistrates’ written facts and reasons
The Review team also ran several workshops with family justice stakeholders and carried
out some additional synthesis of published evidence. This was conducted in the summer
of 2023. No evidence or statistics published after April 2024 have been included in this
report.
Despite efforts to be as comprehensive as possible, there are limitations to the Review:
• The Review encountered several challenges regarding availability, access and quality
of data on the family justice system. These included the variable quality of data,
difficulty accessing administrative data, difficulty accessing electronic court files,
variable levels of detail in written judgments, and a lack of published judgments.
• Much of the evidence used reflected experiences that occurred before the publication
of the Harm Panel Report in 2020. More recent work to improve the experiences of
children and families who go to court was not well captured in the evidence.
• It was not possible to statistically estimate how the presumption was applied across all
decisions, or the role the presumption played in individual decisions.
• The Review involved only limited engagement with children, with the majority of the
evidence focused on adult’s views.
How are the courts applying the presumption?
The evidence gathered suggested that the presumption, and the exceptions to it, were not
routinely referenced by judges and magistrates when making decisions about contested
child arrangements orders. When it was referenced, the presumption was highlighted as
one of several factors the court must consider, while child welfare remained the central
consideration. The presumption may have factored into earlier decisions made by the
court that were not referenced in written or oral judgments at the end of a case. It may
have also played a role in cases where parents reached full or partial decisions by
consent.
There was a general consensus across the evidence gathered which supports the
following findings:
• The most likely outcome of child arrangements cases was for some form of
involvement between a child and both of their parents – generally unsupervised and
face-to-face. This was true even in cases involving allegations of domestic abuse or

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement

v
harm. Orders for no involvement or substantially restricted involvement (such as
supervised or indirect contact) were not routinely made by the courts.
• There was some evidence, largely from qualitative studies, that in cases with indicators
of high risk, including convictions, protection orders and findings of harm, courts still
pursued or ordered direct involvement between children and the ‘perpetrator’ parent.
• There was little evidence about the lives of children and families following proceedings,
or how orders worked for these families after they left court.
• The courts’ approach to allegations could result in a minimisation of domestic abuse,
especially where courts deemed the abuse less serious or historic.
Evidence suggested that the design and practice of the wider family justice system did, in
fact, promote parental involvement at every stage of a child arrangements case. The
courts’ approach to promoting involvement by seeking all possible avenues to support it –
referred to as the ‘no stone unturned’ approach by participants in the Review’s stakeholder
workshops – was embedded into the practice of the family justice system. The statutory
presumption of parental involvement was not the only relevant factor here. Case law
considering parties’ rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), for
example, was found to place a ‘positive duty’ on judges to promote contact between a
child and their parent and required the court to consider all alternatives before ordering no
involvement.
What is the impact on child welfare of the courts’ application of
the presumption?
The evidence reviewed was clear that, where there is no risk of harm to the child,
involvement of both parents following separation generally had a positive impact on child
welfare. Most of the evidence explored the involvement of non-resident fathers and
compared shared care and sole care arrangements. Studies generally found that lower
levels of father-child involvement were associated with worse child welfare outcomes.
However, many of these studies did not consider family characteristics or the experiences
of children. Where studies did control for relevant characteristics, such as family income,
exposure to parental conflict, or the quality of the parent-child relationship, the difference in
child welfare outcomes between children living in shared care arrangements and those
living in sole care arrangements disappeared.
Little evidence was identified in the Review about the impact on child welfare where the
outcome of a court order was that a child would have no involvement or substantially
limited involvement with a parent (such as indirect contact). The lack of a clear evidence
base about the long-term outcomes of different forms of involvement ordered by the court
was concerning.

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement

vi
Where a parent posed a risk, or had harmed a child, the evidence suggested that
involvement with that parent might not further the child’s welfare. Such involvement could
leave children at ongoing risk of harm, with both short- and long-term implications for their
lives. The high incidence of orders for direct contact, and qualitative evidence that courts
sometimes ordered direct involvement even in cases with indicators of high risk,
suggested that courts were ordering direct contact between children and parents who
caused, or posed a risk of, harm to their child. Such decisions can have lifelong negative
impacts on children.
The evidence in the Review indicated that children’s views were not always considered. If
children were engaged, it was often late in proceedings and the courts appeared to take a
‘selective’ approach to listening to children’s voices, where the voices of older children and
children supportive of parental involvement tended to be amplified more than those of
other children.
Conclusions
The evidence the Review identified suggested that courts take a ‘no stone unturned’
approach and are intrinsically geared towards fostering involvement for a child with both
their parents after separation. For some children, such decisions could further their
welfare. However, where a parent poses a risk, or has caused harm to a child, children’s
welfare was not always supported by parental involvement. The apparent high incidence of
orders where there were indicators of risk suggested that the courts were ordering direct
contact between children and parents who have caused or pose a risk of harm.
Evidence around judicial decision-making suggested that the presumption was not
routinely referenced by judges and magistrates when they made decisions about
contested child arrangements orders. When it was referenced, the presumption was
highlighted as only one of a number of factors the court must consider when making child
arrangements orders.
However, the Review’s evidence suggested that, in practical terms, assumptions about
child welfare could drive decision-making and an individualised focus on the welfare of
each child could be lost. Whilst family justice practitioners generally made every effort to
centre child welfare across their practice, the evidence of the Review suggested that
system practice and the resulting court decisions could leave children at ongoing risk of
harm.

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement

vii
Glossary of terms
This section provides a summary of key terms and definitions used in this report. The
terminology and definitions used here may differ from those used in the research reports
published alongside this Review. This reflects the differing nature of each report.
Cafcass: the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, which provides
independent advice to the family courts in England about what is safe for children and in
their best interests. The role of Cafcass’s Family Court Advisers is to:
• safeguard and promote the welfare of children
• give advice to the family courts
• make provision for children to be represented
• provide information, advice and support to children and their families.
In Wales this function is provided by Cafcass Cymru.
Child(ren): the Children Act 1989 defines a child as anyone under the age of 18.
However, provisions in the Children Act mean that courts will not usually make a Section 8
order (which includes a child arrangements order) for children who have reached the age
of 16. Therefore, this report uses the term ‘child’ broadly to mean children under the age of
16, though some references to children, or children and young people, may include 16-
and 17-year-olds.
Child arrangements orders: these are orders made under section 8 of the Children Act
1989. Child arrangements orders can regulate arrangements relating to (a) with whom a
child is to live, spend time or otherwise have contact and (b) when a child is to live, spend
time or otherwise have contact with any person. A specific division of time, which does not
have to be equal, may or may not be set out in such orders.
Child welfare: in this report, child welfare means a child’s physical, emotional, social and
psychological needs. It includes physical and emotional needs and wellbeing; safety,
including protection from abuse, neglect or other harm; domestic, family and personal
relationships; securing rights and entitlements; and educational, social and economic
wellbeing.
Domestic abuse: the most up-to-date definition of domestic abuse used in England and
Wales is provided in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. This states that domestic abuse is an
incident, or series of incidents, of abusive behaviour between two people who are aged 16
or over, and who have been in an intimate personal relationship with each other or are
family members (for example because they are, or have been, married to each other or

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement

viii
because they are relatives). Behaviour is abusive if it consists of physical or sexual abuse,
violent or threatening behaviour, controlling or coercive behaviour, economic abuse, or
psychological, emotional or other abuse. According to the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, a
child who sees, hears, or experiences the effects of domestic abuse involving a person (or
two people) to whom the child is related is a victim of domestic abuse in their own right.
Fact-finding hearing: this is a type of hearing where a judge or magistrate considers
allegations made by parties to determine if alleged incident(s) or pattern(s) of abusive
behaviour took place.
Harm: in this report (drawing on the Children Act 1989), harm means the ill-treatment or
the impairment of the health or development of the child including, for example,
impairment suffered from seeing or hearing the ill-treatment of another. ‘Ill-treatment’
includes sexual abuse and forms of ill-treatment that are not physical (such as emotional,
psychological, or financial).
Given its context, this Review is focused on harms that are caused to the child by the
actions of their parent(s).
Indirect contact: where contact between a child and their parent is not face-to-face
(which would be classed as direct contact) and is usually mediated by others, such as the
parent sending letters, cards and/or presents to the child, or to a third party to be passed
onto the child.
Judgment: this sets out the decision made by a judge and a summary of factors
considered by the judge when reaching their decision. Many judgments are made orally
(spoken) at the time of the hearing and can be transcribed (written down) at a later date if
a written record is required. Others may be issued only in writing, often at a later date than
the hearing date.
Parental involvement: drawing on the definition of parental involvement in the Children
Act 1989, this refers to any involvement of a parent in a child’s life, whether direct (such as
the child seeing the parent face-to-face) or indirect. Direct involvement might be
supervised or supported (such as via a contact centre) or unsupervised.
Parental responsibility: Section 3 of the Children Act 1989 states that ‘parental
responsibility’ means “all the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which by
law a parent of a child has in relation to the child and his property”. Some people
automatically have parental responsibility for a child. For example, where parents were
married or in a civil partnership at the time of the child’s birth, they both have parental
responsibility for the child. If they were not married or in a civil partnership, the mother has
parental responsibility, and the father can acquire parental responsibility in the ways set
out in the Children Act 1989. The court has various powers to make, vary or discharge

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement

ix
orders in relation to who has parental responsibility for a child. When the court is
considering whether to make such orders, it has to consider whether the presumption
applies.
Practice Direction: The Family Practice Directions lay out the procedures to be followed
in the Family Division of the High Court, the Family Court and family hearings in
magistrates’ courts. For example, Practice Direction 12J applies to family proceedings
where domestic abuse has been alleged or admitted.
Presumption of parental involvement (also referred to in this report as ‘the
presumption’): refers to Sections 1(2A), (2B) and (6) of the Children Act 1989 which
requires courts, in certain cases, to presume that, unless the contrary is shown, the
involvement of a parent (to whom section 1(6) applies) in a child’s life will further that
child’s welfare. The legal basis of the presumption is laid out in more detail in Section 1.1
and the flowchart that follows it.
Prohibited steps order: an order made under section 8 of the Children Act 1989, this
prevents a parent (in meeting their parental responsibility for a child) from taking a step, or
action of a kind specified in the order, without the consent of the court.
Private law children cases: these are court cases between two or more private
individuals who are trying to resolve a dispute in relation to a child. This is often where
parents have split up and there is a disagreement about with whom the children should live
and have contact or otherwise spend time. A range of different types of court order can be
applied for, including ‘Section 8’ orders (defined below), parental responsibility, financial
applications and special guardianship orders.
The vast majority of applications in private law children cases are brought by parents for
Section 8 orders. Private law children cases can also involve applications from
grandparents, siblings and other relatives or people connected to the child.
Public law cases: these are applications made to court, usually by local authorities, to
seek to protect a child and ensure they get the care they need. In these cases, the child is
automatically a party to the court application and is usually represented by a Children’s
Guardian appointed by Cafcass or Cafcass Cymru to represent their interests.
A range of different orders can be applied for. The main types are care or supervision
orders which determine whether the child should be looked after or supervised by the local
authority, and an emergency protection order which allows an individual or local authority
to take a child away from a place where they are in immediate danger to a place of safety.
Section 7 reports: (named after the relevant section in the Children Act 1989) these are
ordered by the court to provide information relating to a child’s welfare. They are usually

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement

x
produced by a Family Court Adviser from Cafcass or Cafcass Cymru, or sometimes by a
local authority social worker. The report, which is often informed by discussions with or
observations of the child in question, will explore the issues in dispute in some depth and
the impact they may have on the child’s welfare. The report often provides
recommendations to the court on what decisions would be in the best interests of the child.
In Pathfinder areas, the new Child Impact Report is usually ordered.2
Section 8 order: refers to all orders made under section 8 of the Children Act 1989.These
are child arrangements orders (defined above), specific issue orders (defined below) and
prohibited steps orders (defined above).
Specific issue order: made under section 8 of the Children Act 1989, this order can be
used to determine a specific question about a child's upbringing that has arisen, or may
arise, in connection with any aspect of parental responsibility for a child (such as whether
to change a child's surname, where the child should go to school or in connection with the
child undergoing medical treatment).
Supervised contact: where contact between a child and parent is observed on a one-to-
one basis, either by a trained professional (a qualified social worker or trained contact
supervisor) who makes detailed notes, or by another person agreed by the courts
(perhaps a family member) at an agreed location.
Supported contact: provides neutral ground for children to spend time with parents or
family members they do not live with. It is used in situations where the risk factors are low
and there is no requirement for detailed reports to be made, beyond recording the date
and time of the sessions. It usually takes place with other families in the room at a contact
centre but may also take place in another location such as a family member’s house or in
the community.
Written facts and reasons: this is the document that must be provided when magistrates
make decisions in the family court. It should include the decision itself and the information
or law on which any decision was based.

2 The Pathfinder Pilots are a new approach to resolving child arrangements cases in court. In the Pathfinder
courts, the usual Child Arrangements Program is suspended and replaced with a revised process. This
process is outlined in Practice Direction 36Z.

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
1
1. Introduction
1.1. The presumption of parental involvement
When parents come to the court to make arrangements for their children, the court has
powers to make various orders under the Children Act 1989. The most common orders
made are child arrangements orders, in which the courts make decisions about the
involvement of a parent in a child’s life. When a court in England or Wales is considering
whether to make a child arrangements order, it must consider what is known as ‘the
presumption of parental involvement’, which is referred to in this report as ‘the
presumption’.
The presumption was inserted into legislation by the Children and Families Act 2014,
which amended section 1 of the Children Act 1989. It applies in certain types of court
proceedings, including those for a child arrangements order. This legislation states that the
court will presume that the involvement of a parent in a child’s life will further the child’s
welfare unless there is evidence to the contrary. The presumption only initially applies to a
parent who can be involved in a child’s life in a way that does not put the child at risk or
harm. Even if the presumption does initially apply to a parent, it can be rebutted if there is
evidence to show that the parent’s involvement would not further the child’s welfare. This
rebuttal is often referred to as ‘the exception’ to the presumption. This decision-making
process, which the court is required to follow, is outlined in figure 1.
The term ‘involvement’ is defined in section 1(2B) of the Children Act 1989 to mean
involvement of some kind, either direct or indirect, but not any particular division of a
child’s time. It follows that there is no absolute presumption that a child should live with
both of their parents, nor a presumption that there must be certain forms or amounts of
contact or time spent living with either parent.
As with all decisions about a child’s upbringing, the child’s welfare must be the court’s
paramount consideration – that is, it must take priority over any other factor in a case. This
is known as the ‘welfare paramountcy principle’ or ‘the welfare principle’ and is contained
within section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989. There are many factors which are relevant to
a child’s welfare, not just the rebuttable presumption that their welfare will be furthered by
parental involvement.

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
2
Figure 1: Presumption decision making flow chart

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
3
When deciding whether to make a section 8 order in a case where one party opposes the
making of the order, the court will consider a list of factors in section 1(3) of the Children
Act 1989, known as ‘the welfare checklist’. The factors on the checklist that must be taken
into account include the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned
(considered in light of the child’s age and understanding); the child’s physical, emotional
and educational needs; the likely effect on the child of any change in circumstances; how
capable each parent is of meeting the child’s needs; and any harm the child has suffered
or is at risk of suffering, which could include any harm from seeing or hearing the ill-
treatment of another.
Case law that has developed over time also reinforces the importance of children having a
relationship with both parents. It has placed a ‘positive duty’ on judges to promote
involvement between a child and their parent, requiring the court to consider all
alternatives before ordering no involvement (for further discussion of the various cases,
see Kaganas, 2018 and MoJ, 2020a). This includes judgments from the European Court of
Human Rights in relation to Article 8 of ECHR, which protects the right to private and
family life.
1.2. The Expert Panel on harm in private law children cases
In May 2019, following concerns about the experiences of domestic abuse survivors in the
family courts, the MoJ announced a public call for evidence that received over 1200
responses from individuals and organisations. MoJ convened an expert panel made up of
victims’ representatives, senior judiciary, legal practitioners and leading academics. The
findings of this panel (referred to in this report as the ‘Harm Panel’) were published in the
June 2020 report Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Children
Cases (MoJ, 2020a).
Although the presumption of parental involvement was supported by some professionals,
the panel received sufficient evidence to conclude that, in the cohort of cases described in
submissions, the presumption reinforced a “pro-contact culture” and detracted from the
court’s focus on the child’s individual welfare and safety (MoJ, 2020a, p. 174). Views were
expressed that the exception to the presumption was not being sufficiently considered,
with the effect that children and victim parents were being left at risk of, or actually
suffering, significant harm (MoJ, 2020a). The Harm Panel therefore recommended that
“the presumption of parental involvement be reviewed urgently in order to address its
detrimental effects” (MoJ, 2020a, p. 175).

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
4
1.3. The Review
In November 2020, MoJ officially launched the Review of the Presumption of Parental
Involvement (MoJ, 2020b). The Review was split into two phases. The first was an
evidence gathering phase. The second phase drew all of the evidence together to identify
key themes.
The evidence gathering phase involved three externally commissioned research projects,
the collection of additional evidence through engagement with frontline family justice
professionals and a wider review of the existing evidence on this topic.
The Review team extends its appreciation to all individuals and organisations who
contributed to the Presumption Review. Their insights and engagement were instrumental
in shaping the evidence base and informing the Review’s findings.
1.4. Report structure
This report is structured around the core questions of the Review and the key themes that
emerged during the evidence gathering phase. Chapter 2 provides a detailed account of
how the Review was undertaken. Chapters 3 and 4 present the main findings of the
Review.
Chapter 3 discusses the application of the presumption in final decisions of the court, the
nature of orders made by the court, the impact of the presumption throughout proceedings
on groups with different characteristics, and the court’s ability to understand risks to
children.
Chapter 4 considers the impact of parental involvement and harm on child welfare, the role
of children within proceedings and how this evidence can help understand the impact of
the court’s application of the presumption on child welfare.
1.5. A note on language in this report
As far as possible, this report uses the language outlined in the Children Act 1989 and
used routinely by the courts. However, attempts have also been made to reflect the
language used by those with lived experience where this is relevant.
Generally, this report uses the term ‘parental involvement’ rather than ‘contact’. This refers
to any involvement a parent can have with a child and includes face-to-face contact,
supervised/supported contact or ‘indirect’ contact, such as through electronic means or
letters. This reflects the definition of ‘involvement’ in section 1(2B) of the Children Act

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
5
1989. In some instances, the term ‘contact’ may, however, be used. This may be where
this term was used by participants or in evidence included in the Review. It may also be in
cases where the term ‘contact’ is more appropriate, such as in reference to direct or
indirect contact between a parent and child, child contact centres or supervised/supported
contact.
Reference is often made to ‘the court’s’ approach to decision making or to the ‘court’s’
practice’. Usually, ‘the court’ is used to refer to the family justice system as a whole, rather
than a specific part of the system. This does not mean the evidence applied to the whole
system equally, but rather that the theme discussed is systemic in some way. When the
report is referring to a specific part of the system such as the judiciary, Cafcass, Cafcass
Cymru or His Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS), this is clearly stated.
Whilst the presumption applies in a broader range of cases, in this Review, for simplicity,
reference is usually made to child arrangements proceedings. These form the majority of
private law applications, and the majority of evidence considered here is based on this
case type. At times, references to child arrangements proceedings in this Review will
encompass other types of private law applications (such as prohibited steps orders,
specific issue orders and orders for parental responsibility). However, the difference
between the various application types is not relevant to the conclusions about the
presumption being drawn.
When discussing harm, this report considers findings of harm (where a court has
determined a factual basis for the perpetration of harm), allegations of harm (where one
party has been accused of perpetrating harm), and risk of harm (where an incident of harm
may or may not have occurred but there is an ongoing likelihood of harm in the future).
These may be distinguished where relevant to the findings, or references to harm may
encompass any or all of these.
This report uses the terms ‘victim’ (to refer to those affected by domestic abuse or other
serious harm) and ‘perpetrator’ (to refer to those who have caused domestic abuse or
other serious harm). Generally, use of these terms refers to alleged victims/perpetrators as
well as those where a finding of fact or criminal conviction has been made by the court.
Using ‘victim’ and ‘perpetrator’ is not intended to disregard the legal process through which
all allegations should be addressed, or to assume that all allegations made are true.
Rather, their use seeks to reflect the language used in research studies and the
experiences of individuals who have taken part in research (including the research
commissioned for this Review). In some cases, the evidence does not specify whether
findings have been made by the court (where the allegation was made in family or civil
cases), or whether the individual was convicted of the alleged offence (where the
allegation relates to a criminal offence).

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
6
Whilst the use of ‘victim’ and ‘perpetrator’ is gender neutral in this report, the Review
recognises that domestic abuse is a gendered crime and, while both males and females
can perpetrate domestic abuse and both can be victims, substantial research and
statistical evidence demonstrates the higher prevalence and severity of abuse inflicted by
male against female intimate partners (see for instance, Office for National Statistics
[ONS], 2023).
When discussing ethnicity, this report generally refers to specific ethnicities and
communities. However, the term ‘ethnic minorities’ may be used to refer to all ethnic
groups except the White British group. This reflects current government practice on writing
about ethnicity.3 This may differ from the terminology used in the research reports
published alongside this report in support of the Review. Notably, in the qualitative
research, the Race Equality Foundation preferred to use the term Black, Asian and
Minority Ethnic (BAME) when referring collectively to all ethnic groups except the White
British group. When referring to the title of that research report, the language will reflect
that used by the authors, the Race Equality Foundation and We Stand.
1.6. Use of evidence in this report
This report is based on a range of evidence sources gathered during the course of the
Review (further details are provided in chapter 2). The report uses ‘the Review’s judgment
analysis’, ‘the Review’s qualitative research’ and ‘the Review’s literature review’ when
referring to findings from the three projects commissioned for the Review. When
discussing findings from the literature review, this report directs readers to relevant
sections of the published report. This report refers to ‘stakeholder workshops’ when
discussing findings from the workshops held with frontline stakeholders. When discussing
findings from the Harm Panel’s final report (MoJ, 2020a) and the accompanying literature
review (Barnett, 2020), reference is generally made to these reports rather than to
individual studies included within them. However, where one study is of particular
relevance, this is referenced individually to provide the necessary detail. The report draws
on a range of published research from both academic and ‘grey literature’. This is cited in
place as appropriate.

3 See: https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/style-guide/writing-about-ethnicity/

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
7
2. How the Review was undertaken
2.1. Terms of Reference
The Terms of Reference for the Review were set out by MoJ in November 2020. They
state that the Review was to consider:
How courts are applying sections 1(2A), (2B) and (6) of the Children Act 1989, which
together require courts to presume, in child arrangements and certain other private law
children proceedings, that involvement of a parent in the child’s life will further the child’s
welfare, unless there is evidence to suggest that involvement of that parent would put
the child at risk of suffering harm, and to define involvement as “involvement of some
kind, either direct or indirect, but not any particular division of a child’s time”; and the
impacts on children’s welfare of the courts’ application of these provisions (MoJ, 2020b).
The Review was split into two phases.
2.2. Phase One
Building on the evidence from the Harm Panel, Phase One gathered empirical evidence on
the court’s application of the presumption and explored evidence about child welfare in
different circumstances. Three research projects were commissioned to independent
research contractors to explore these themes. In addition, policy workshops were held with
frontline professionals and third sector organisations to capture insights, provide context
and consolidate empirical evidence from the formal research strands.
To guide this phase of the Review, MoJ appointed an Advisory Group, made up of diverse
representatives from across the family justice system, including those who work with
families, victims and children. The following organisations were represented on the
Advisory Group:
• Families Need Fathers (since renamed Both Parents Matter)
• Women’s Aid Federation of England (Women’s Aid)
• Cafcass
• Cafcass Cymru
• Her Honour Judge Michelle Corbett
• Nicole Jacobs, Domestic Abuse Commissioner
• Lord Justice Peter Jackson

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
8
• Welsh Children’s Commissioner’s Office (until July 2022)
• Resolution
The Review team are grateful for the Advisory Group’s input, while noting that the findings
presented in this report have not been endorsed by the Advisory Group and may not
represent individual members’ views. The Advisory Group did not provide advice on any
policy recommendations arising from the Review.4
Initial evidence gathering
Phase One of the Review took considerably longer than anticipated. Early in the Review,
the Covid-19 pandemic prevented in-person access to courts to conduct the planned
review of court files. This caused a delay to the research and meant that the three projects
had to be completed sequentially. Further delay was caused by unexpected challenges
accessing court files and the complexity of completing research with court files (for more
detail, see section 2.4).
Academic think pieces
Following early delays to the evidence-gathering phase, MoJ commissioned three teams
of academics to each present a ‘think piece’ to the Advisory Group on the scope of the
Review. The aim was to challenge MoJ’s research proposals and provoke further thought
on the issues the Review needed to address, the questions it should consider and the
proposed research methods. The think pieces provided challenge from the distinct
perspectives of human rights, child protection and family law. The think pieces were then
discussed with the Advisory Group and changes to the proposed scope and design of the
Review were agreed and taken forward by MoJ.
Externally commissioned research
Three research projects were commissioned from independent research contractors with
the relevant experience to complete each project.
A literature review was conducted by Alma Economics, exploring existing evidence on the
impact that harm and parental involvement have on child welfare across a range of
contexts. This was conducted between June and August 2021. In total, Alma Economics
reviewed 32 academic papers and 23 studies from grey literature. This evidence was
subsequently synthesised into a report authored by MoJ social researchers.
A qualitative research project was conducted by the Race Equality Foundation in
partnership with We Stand (formerly known as Mosac) to explore the experiences of two

4 Due to concerns of judicial independence, the judicial members of the Advisory Group did not advise on or
review the project “Private Family Court Cases: Experiences of Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic Parents and
Parents in Cases of Alleged Child Sexual Abuse”.

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
9
groups of parents who are less often heard in family justice research. This project aimed to
understand:
• how Black, Asian and minority ethnic parents’ personal and cultural characteristics
impacted their experiences of the Child Arrangements Programme5 and the court’s
application of the presumption in their case
• how allegations of child sexual abuse impacted parents’ experiences of the Child
Arrangements Programme and the court’s application of the presumption in their
case.
This research took place between June and November 2022. Interviews were conducted
with 19 parents from Black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds (10 mothers and 9
fathers) by the Race Equality Foundation and with 10 mothers who had been involved in
cases where sexual abuse had been alleged or proven in partnership with We Stand.6
Originally, this project also intended to understand the experience of D/deaf and disabled
parents. However, following engagement with organisations providing support to D/deaf
and disabled parents in family courts, it was not possible to identify a partner organisation
who supported enough parents in private law children cases. The organisations identified
at that time tended to support parents almost exclusively in public law cases.
The National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) undertook an analysis of unpublished
court judgments and magistrates’ written facts and reasons. This work explored the
application and use of the presumption and risk of harm exception in relevant private law
children cases. Data were collected from 245 judgments and written facts and reasons
from cases that closed between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2022 from seven
courts in England and one court in Wales.7 NatCen undertook a feasibility stage between
March and November 2022, followed by a full analysis between February and June 2023.
The reports for each research strand, including relevant technical reports, are published
alongside this Review. The findings of the feasibility study conducted by NatCen are also
published as an annex to the main research report for that project.

5 The Child Arrangements Program is the procedure the court follows in, for example, proceedings for a child
arrangements order. It is outlined in Practice Direction 12B. This procedure has now been suspended in a
small number of pilot courts who are operating a new process known as Pathfinder.
6 This sample were all female because the majority of non-abusing parents and carers supported by We
Stand are female. One male client was identified as a potential participant but due to ongoing
proceedings was unable to participate in the study.
7 Nine courts (one per region) participated in this study, although in one court, no eligible files were found.

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
10
Additional evidence gathering
Policy workshops
Alongside the formal research strands, seven online stakeholder workshops were held to
provide additional insight and context to the findings. They were recorded and the
transcripts and workshop notes were analysed. Workshops were held with members of the
judiciary, Family Court Advisers from Cafcass and Cafcass Cymru and barristers and
solicitors with experience of child arrangements cases. These workshops explored
professional experiences of the application of the presumption and their perspectives on
the impact this application has on child welfare. Workshops were also held with third
sector organisations providing support to: separating parents, D/deaf and disabled
parents, victims of child sexual abuse and victims of domestic abuse. The aim was to
collect evidence about the experience of court users who were not well represented in the
evidence base or formal research strands.
It was not possible to arrange frontline professionals’ workshops with local authority social
workers or magistrates with experience of child arrangements cases given competing
demands, resource and time pressures in those professions. The Review team reached
out to organisations supporting parents from LGBTQ+ backgrounds, young parents,
migrant parents and fathers but they did not participate in workshops.
As policy-focused events, these workshops were not formal research and so were not
subject to full thematic analysis and quality assurance. Whilst they are not discussed as an
evidence strand for this Review in their own right, they are used to contextualise the
findings from the research evidence with insight from frontline practice. The experiences
and views collected represent only the views of those involved in the workshops and not
necessarily the views of all individuals in those roles.
Identification of published judgments
The judgment analysis project completed by NatCen considered transcribed judgments
and written facts and reasons, most of which will not have been published. Existing
research has considered the use of the presumption in published judgments between June
2014 and June 2017 (Kaganas, 2018). To gain further insight into published judgments,
the Review team conducted a small-scale review of 20 reported judgments (referred to in
this report as “the small-scale review of published judgments”), which were identified
through a search of case law in the National Archives and engagement with the Review’s
Advisory Group. All were published between 2017 and 2023 and involved cases in which
the presumption should have been considered. This was not a systematic search and so
does not include all relevant judgments published within this timeframe. Therefore, no
conclusions were drawn solely from this analysis at any stage.
Additional evidence synthesis
Alma Economics completed the literature search in August 2021. Given the breadth of
questions that they were tasked with exploring, and the targeted nature of their approach,

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
11
some evidence gaps remained following completion of this project. Further evidence gaps
for the Review were identified by members of the Advisory Group and the Review team.
The main evidence gaps were distilled into a further set of research questions to be
addressed through additional evidence synthesis projects undertaken by the Review team.
These were:
• What is the existing evidence on how the courts are applying the presumption?
• How does the impact on child welfare differ depending on whether parental
involvement is ordered by the court or agreed outside the court?
• What is the impact on child welfare of different restrictive child arrangements orders
(including no involvement, supervised/supported contact, or indirect contact)?
• What works to understand the risk of harm a parent may pose to the child?
• What is the impact on a child’s welfare if their wishes and feelings are not appropriately
heard by the court?
• What is the impact on a child’s welfare if the court makes a decision on parental
involvement that is contrary to their wishes and feelings?
These evidence synthesis projects were small scale and targeted, involving searches of
academic and grey literature databases, supplemented with key papers identified by
members of the Advisory Group. Generally, the team focused on evidence from England
and Wales given the focus of the Review. However, some research has been included
from comparable jurisdictions where this is appropriate. Best efforts have been made to
ensure that no critical piece of evidence has been missed. Whilst the Review team had
access to a wide range of academic journals, they did not have access to the complete
array of publications, meaning that this is not a fully exhaustive review of academic
literature on these subjects. These projects were undertaken over the summer of 2023.
Some additional papers and statistics were added during the drafting process, but this did
not involve further detailed searches of the literature. No evidence or statistics have been
included since April 2024. Any research or statistics published after this date have not
been included in this report.
2.3. Phase Two
The second phase of the Review drew together the findings of the primary research with
the additional evidence gathered. Using the Terms of Reference for the Review, key
themes emerging from the evidence were identified, interrogated and developed into the
findings presented here.
Following completion of the evidence-gathering stage, the Review team held two
‘challenge panel’ events. The aim of these events was to explore the findings of the
research and challenge the Review team’s interpretation of the evidence from different

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
12
perspectives. The first was held on 17 July 2023 with members of the Advisory Group and
the second was held on 9 August 2023 with members of the Family Justice Young
People’s Board (FJYPB). These panels provided further evidence and different
perspectives which helped refine the findings outlined in this report.
Members of the FJYPB included in the second challenge panel all had personal
experience of child arrangements cases where there were issues of domestic abuse or
other harms. Given the experiences of these children and young people, it is possible that
they were engaging with this work at least a few years following the conclusion of their
cases. This means that some of the experiences described by members may refer to court
practice prior to the introduction of the presumption in legislation in 2014 or practice that is
considered out of date. Nevertheless, the children and young people involved in this event
provided vital insight into the experiences of children and young people in these types of
family court cases.
2.4. Access, availability and quality of family justice data
The Review encountered several challenges regarding the availability, access and quality
of data on the family justice system. These challenges resulted in significant delays to the
completion of the Review and, in some areas, have limited the conclusions drawn. This
section discusses these challenges and the impact they had on completion of the Review.
Most relate to completion of the judgment analysis project and this section should be read
alongside the research report and the accompanying feasibility study and technical annex.
Data access
Initially, access to data was a significant barrier to completion of the judgment analysis
project. Due to the sensitivity of case files and the information held within them, access to
these documents is protected by legislation and internal HMCTS and MoJ security
policies. According to family court rules (Practice Direction 12G), it is not a potential
contempt of court to disclose any documents contained within case files for the purposes
of ‘approved research projects’.8 Despite this, it was difficult to identify a clear process for
requesting permission and gaining access to electronic case files.9 When trying to access
electronic case files, there were several instances where advice and instructions changed.
This resulted in delays, with multiple avenues and approaches being explored before it
was possible to identify an appropriate and secure mechanism for access. These access

8 This project was first designated an approved research project by the President of the Family Division in
March 2022, and again in January 2023 to reflect the revised approach.
9 Access to paper court files was found to be more straight forward. However, since the COVID-19 pandemic
most private law children case files are held electronically. Although this move pre-dated the pandemic in
some courts, a clear process for agreeing access to electronic files did not exist when this research
began.

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
13
challenges resulted in the project initially concluding after the feasibility stage, before being
re-scoped to include analysis of judgments and written facts and reasons only.
Access to family justice administrative data was also a challenge when beginning this
research. FamilyMan, the courts’ administrative data system, was used as the primary
sampling frame for the judgment analysis project. Initially, NatCen were going to request
access to this dataset to complete the sampling analysis themselves and to conduct
analysis at the end of the project to compare the achieved sample to the national
population of cases. However, family court data that could be accessed by external
researchers through the Data First program did not include case numbers and so it could
not be used as a sampling framework. As a result, MoJ analysts were required to create
an anonymised case database that could be shared with NatCen to create the sample.
Timescales to access FamilyMan data through Data First also meant it was not possible to
compare the achieved sample to the total population of cases as intended.
Due to the sensitive and personal information relating to court users, family justice data is
rightly difficult to access. However, there are instances in which it is beneficial to the public
for data to be accessed and used, such as for audits and research, providing that
principles such as confidentiality and anonymity are preserved. The trade-off between
transparency and confidentiality was clearly laid out by Sir Andrew McFarlane, President
of the Family Division, following a review of the family justice system (McFarlane, 2021)
and subsequent guidance for judges was published in 2024.10 It is crucial to improve the
availability and quality of data so that proper evidence can inform developments to the
family justice system, while maintaining the confidentiality of parties and children in court
files and data, and restricting information to those with legitimate reasons for accessing it.
Data availability and quality
There has been a push in recent years to use administrative data in research to evidence
policy questions, particularly with the partnerships between Administrative Data Research
UK (ADR), the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), UK Research and
Innovation (UKRI) and the government. Using administrative data for research has huge
potential but also limitations (Bedston et al., 2019; Broadhurst et al., 2021; Johnson et al.,
2020). One key limitation which affected this Review is that administrative data is, by
nature, not designed for research. It is data used for organisational purposes, and as such,
often does not contain information needed to answer research questions.
A main challenge was the absence of data about the nature of cases. Whilst FamilyMan
included information on what happened during a case (such as the applications and orders
made), it did not include all the information on cases that was of interest to the
researchers. For example, whilst FamilyMan included the legal order made at the end of a
case, it did not contain accessible information on the order’s content and the specific child

10 Publication-of-Judgments-Practice-Guidance-JUNE-2024-1.docx

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
14
arrangements made. As a result, it could not be used to calculate the proportion of all
private law cases that ended with certain outcomes, such as orders for no parental
involvement, nor the case features which were associated with these outcomes.
These challenges, whilst not unique to family court data, make it challenging for
researchers to address core policy questions about the family justice system. For many of
the research questions the Review sought to address, the researchers had to rely on
documentary data within the court files. However, court files also created many of the
same problems for the researchers as administrative data sets. They are not designed or
stored with research in mind. This problem was borne out in the judgment analysis project,
which faced challenges due to the inconsistent filing practices between courts. The project
faced difficulties in locating relevant case files and locating the required documents,
despite using FamilyMan to identify cases in which required documents should be
expected.
Similarly, documents within files can vary in their usefulness for research. For example,
when reviewing judgments and written facts and reasons, the NatCen team found that
documents varied substantially in their detail and quality. As noted in the final report, these
documents are purposively written and are not designed as detailed summaries of the
case, rather, as explanations of the decisions made at a hearing. Often judgments are
handed down orally and, whilst some are subsequently transcribed and published, many
more are not. This makes quantifying and analysing these documents difficult and
resource intensive and ultimately resulted in a patchy dataset.
These challenges, which are not unique to the Review or to the family justice system,
prevented the Review from being able to comprehensively address core questions.
2.5. Robustness and limitations of the evidence
The Review drew on a wide range of evidence to inform its conclusions, including
empirical research commissioned specifically for this Review alongside wider evidence
already in the public domain. There are, however, key limitations with the evidence
collected.
It was not possible to statistically quantify, at a population level, the proportion of cases in
which the presumption, or the exception to it, were discussed in judgments or written facts
and reasons. Nor was it possible to explore statistically how harm (allegations or findings)
related to the application of the presumption or the outcome for children of court decisions.
The judgment analysis research is strongly limited by the sample NatCen were able to
generate. The final sample is very small compared to the total number of private law
children cases going through the system each year. Additionally, over half of the
judgments/written facts and reasons included were written facts and reasons from one

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
15
court, meaning the findings largely represent the decisions of one bench of magistrates.
This creates a sample bias and limits the extent to which findings can be extrapolated from
this research to all private law children cases. For further discussion of this issue, see the
final report and feasibility study for the MoJ judgment analysis project.
In addition, much of the research included in the Review is based on point-in-time studies
that review a small number of cases, or the experience of a small number of participants.
Only a limited number of studies consider data on the total population of private law
children cases over a number of years (for example Cusworth et al., 2020 and Cusworth et
al., 2021a provide insight into the population of court users in private law across Wales
and England, respectively).11 Therefore, it is generally not possible to draw conclusions
about the exact proportion of cases, children or families, that experience a certain issue.
However, by drawing on a range of different studies that have approached the same issue
from different angles, this report can reliably comment on the nature of an issue.
Partly as a result of this lack of data, much of the research on this topic is qualitative in
nature and draws on the experiences of parents, children and young people, or
professionals. The qualitative research completed for the Review was based on the
experiences of a small number of parents (19 ethnic minority parents and 10 parents
involved in cases involving allegations of child sexual abuse). Despite best efforts, it was
only possible to engage one Welsh parent in this research, and so this study can only
comment on the experience of a small number of parents in English courts.
Qualitative research is a vital tool that allows for an in-depth exploration of how the family
justice system is experienced by different people. However, individual qualitative studies
are often based on the experiences and perceptions of a small number of people and do
not represent the views or experiences of all individuals who have been through the family
court. In addition, they reflect participants’ perceptions of their experiences at a moment in
time with a researcher; they may not reflect the ‘facts’ of the case as understood by the
court, nor the views of all individuals involved in the case. Not all individuals are equally
likely to take part in research – individuals with particularly negative or, conversely,
positive views of the system may, for instance, be more or less willing to participate.
Much of the evidence included in the Review is based on cases, or experiences of court
proceedings, prior to the publication of the Harm Panel report. Some referenced cases
prior to the introduction of the presumption into legislation and other significant changes
brought about by the Children and Families Act 2014. This limitation largely reflects the
challenge of completing ethical and robust research on complex issues and the timescales
required to complete and publish such research. Whilst the Review included the most up-

11 Most of these studies have been completed by the Family Justice Data Partnership on behalf of the
Nuffield Family Justice Observatory (NFJO) as part of their “Uncovering Private Family Law” series. See
Saied-Tessier (2023) for a summary of this work.

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
16
to-date evidence available during the summer of 2023 when the main body of evidence
was gathered, procedures and practice have developed in recent years, the impact of
which may not be fully reflected in the evidence presented in the Review. Any research or
statistics published after April 2024 when this report was drafted have not been included in
this report.
Moreover, neither the literature review, nor the additional evidence considered by this
research, were based on a fully systematic search approach. Best efforts have been made
to ensure that no critical piece of evidence has been missed, including consideration of
research gaps by the Advisory Group and peer reviewers. However, not all relevant
evidence will have been included in the Review.
A final limitation is the extent of direct engagement with children and young people about
whom these decisions are made. This is because of the challenges of engaging children
and young people with experience of these issues in research. Much of the research
considered as part of the Review was conducted with adults and focuses on their
perception of the views, feelings and best interest of children and young people. However,
in the time available, efforts were made to give weight to the voice of children and young
people through engagement with the FJYPB, and to seek out research that was based
upon direct engagement with children and young people.
There are limitations to the Review, and not all questions were fully answered. Throughout
the Review, conclusions are not based on a single piece of evidence but rather consider
the evidence presented as a whole. This does not mean that every piece of evidence
reviewed confirmed these conclusions, nor is every piece used to confirm every conclusion
reached. But it does mean, that the Review presents a comprehensive overview of how
courts were applying the presumption, and its exception, and the impact this can have
upon child welfare.

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
17
3. How are the courts applying the
presumption?
3.1. Application of the presumption in final decisions
Evidence on judicial decision-making in private law children cases was found to be scarce.
Many cases did not involve a written judgment. Of those that did, judgments were not
routinely published except in the higher courts (the High Court, Court of Appeal and
Supreme Court), which represent only a tiny proportion of private law children cases.
Therefore, work considering published judgments, or any written judgment, reflected only a
small proportion of all decisions or orders made.
The Review located only a small number of studies, including the Review’s judgment
analysis project, that considered how judges and magistrates use the presumption when
making decisions in child arrangements cases. The evidence gathered for the Review
suggested that the presumption and its exception were not routinely referenced by judges
and magistrates when making decisions about contested child arrangements orders.
When it was referenced, the presumption was highlighted as one of several factors the
court must consider, and child welfare remained the central consideration.
Studies that analysed published and unpublished judgments found that reference to the
presumption by judges and magistrates was not routine. The judgment analysis project
found that only 56 of 233 judgments and written facts and reasons for final hearings
referenced the presumption or risk of harm exception directly or indirectly.12 Similarly,
Kaganas (2018) found that only one-third (10 out of 30) of the published judgments
examined referred to the presumption or its exception. Both studies had significant
limitations. The samples were very small and are not representative of the total number of
private law children cases going through the system each year.
When the presumption was mentioned in decision making, studies suggested that it was
only mentioned briefly and usually when the court was setting out the legal framework on
which it made its decision (Kaganas, 2018; Presumption Review Judgment Analysis;
small-scale review of published judgments). At this stage, the presumption was referenced
in conjunction with the court’s other duties to consider the welfare principle, the ‘welfare
checklist’, Practice Direction 12J, and case law. At the same time, the Review found
evidence of cases where courts have clearly noted that the presumption is ‘rebuttable’,

12 NatCen considered an indirect reference to the presumption to include a discussion of involvement with
both parents being beneficial to a child’s welfare and upbringing, or nearly always being in a child’s best
interest.

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
18
having regard to ‘the totality of evidence before the court’ (see, for example D v E
(Termination of Parental Responsibility) [2021] EWFC 37) and that the court chiefly
considered the child’s welfare, in particular whether there is a risk of harm to the child.
Qualitative evidence found similar conclusions. These studies explored the experiences of
professionals and parents involved in family court cases. They consistently reported a
perception from participants that the presumption was rarely mentioned and had little
material impact on the outcomes of final hearings (Harwood, 2021; MoJ, 2020a;
Presumption Review Qualitative Research). On the other hand, studies with professionals
reported that the presumption acted as a helpful reminder to parents and the court of the
importance of both parents’ involvement in a child’s life (Harwood, 2021; MoJ, 2020a). The
workshops with family justice professionals found a similar mix of perspectives; however,
there was general agreement that the presumption has had little effect on decision-making
since its introduction.
As discussed, this research is not necessarily representative. Moreover, the Review was
unable to explore how the presumption may have influenced decisions earlier within the
case. Nevertheless, piecing together the research outlined above suggested that the
presumption, and the associated decision-making process outlined within sections 1(2A),
(2B), (6) and (7) of the Children Act 1989, were not routinely expressly referenced by
judges and magistrates when making decisions about contested child arrangements
orders. When it was referenced, it appeared that the presumption was, appropriately,
highlighted as one of a number of factors the court must consider when making child
arrangements orders and that child welfare remains the central consideration.
3.2. Nature of orders made by the courts
In 2023, over 90,000 child arrangements orders were granted as final orders in England
and Wales along with a further 21,000 prohibited steps or specific issue orders and over
1000 orders for parental responsibility (MoJ, 2024).13 Whilst there were data on the type of
order made, data about the content of the order, and what actual arrangements are made
in court, was not routinely recorded.
To understand the nature of orders granted, studies have reviewed court case files and
files held by other partners, such as Cafcass or Cafcass Cymru.14 There was broad
consensus across these studies that the most likely orders were for some form of
involvement between a child and both of their parents – generally unsupervised and face-
to-face (Cafcass & Women’s Aid, 2017; Harding & Newnham, 2015; Hunt & MacLeod,

13 Multiple orders, including multiple child arrangements orders, can be made within a case. So, data on the
number of orders made will not reflect the number of cases disposed.
14 For a summary of these studies, please see the literature review supporting the Harm Panel (Barnett,
2020).

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
19
2008; Perry & Rainey, 2007). This finding was also supported by the research and
stakeholder workshops undertaken for this Review. The Review’s judgment analysis found
that the most common order described was for unsupervised and overnight involvement.
In contrast, research suggested that final orders that restricted parental involvement (such
as orders for supervised/supported contact or indirect contact) or orders that resulted in a
child having no contact with one of their parents were rare (Cafcass & Women’s Aid, 2017;
Choudhry, 2019; Harding & Newnham, 2015; Hunt & MacLeod, 2008; Perry & Rainey,
2007). This was supported by the judgment analysis project and stakeholder engagement
events. Cafcass and Cafcass Cymru both confirmed that regular internal audits largely
supported the finding that final orders for no involvement are very rare. Although the
research was clear that orders for no contact were rare, research with case files found that
orders for only indirect contact were more common than orders for supervised contact
(Cafcass & Women’s Aid, 2017; Hunt & MacLeod, 2008; Review’s Judgment Analysis).
During the stakeholder workshops, frontline staff suggested this was due to challenges
with accessing and funding such services or concerns that supervised contact is not an
appropriate solution in the long-term (see also, Cordis Bright, 2023).
Studies found that restricted forms of involvement or no involvement were more likely to be
ordered where domestic abuse and/or another risk of harm was a factor within a case than
in cases without such risks (Cafcass & Women’s Aid, 2017; Harding & Newnham, 2015;
Hunt & MacLeod, 2008; Perry & Rainey, 2007). However, they also found the most
common outcome for cases involving allegations of domestic abuse and/or other risk of
harm was still for unsupervised involvement to be ordered. Even in cases where there
were indicators of high risk, including convictions, protection orders and findings of harm,
studies found that courts still pursued or ordered direct involvement between children and
the perpetrator parent (Barnett, 2020; Choudhry, 2019; Coy et al., 2015; Harding &
Newnham, 2015; MoJ, 2020a; Review’s Qualitative Research). This finding was also
supported by some of the parents who participated in the qualitative research led by the
Race Equality Foundation as well as frontline professionals at the stakeholder workshops.
The findings presented above are based on small scale studies that are not statistically
representative and represent a fraction of cases that come through the courts. In
particular, the sample from the Review’s judgment analysis project was largely based on
the decisions of a single bench of magistrates. Therefore, the studies discussed in this
section cannot be used to determine the statistical proportions of cases that ended with
different child arrangements. Nevertheless, the consistent narrative across a range of
studies, over time and using different methods, can be used to conclude that the outcome
of court cases was usually for children to spend time with both parents and that orders
placing very strict restrictions on parental involvement permanently were relatively
uncommon.

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
20
It is important to note that research using court case files found that the majority of child
arrangements cases ultimately ended with an order made with the agreement of all parties
or where the most pertinent issues – such as whether or not the child would have
involvement with both parents – were agreed by the parties (Cafcass & Women’s Aid,
2017; Harding & Newnham, 2015; Hunt & Macleod, 2008; Perry & Rainey, 2007). When
the court is invited to make an order by consent, the presumption does not apply.
However, the detail of the order should be reviewed by a judge or magistrate, who must
have the child’s welfare as their paramount consideration when deciding whether to make
the order sought. Therefore, any consent order granted by a judge or magistrate would
suggest the court believed the outcome was supportive of the child’s welfare.
Research found, however, that courts may not have always scrutinised the nature of
consent orders fully (Barnett 2014, Hunter & Barnett 2013). Other research reported that
parents could feel coerced by the system or the other parent to agree to arrangements
they did not necessarily feel were safe (Barnett, 2020; MoJ, 2020a; Reviews Qualitative
Research). Some evidence suggested that the presumption may have played a role in this
coercion or in earlier decisions made by the courts. For example, Harwood (2021) found
that judges felt the presumption could support litigants in person to reach agreement and
that they would often mention it to parties and professionals at the start of a case to stress
the importance of children having a relationship with both parents. However, the Review
was unable to identify conclusive evidence about the role the presumption played earlier in
proceedings including where cased resolved by consent.
Some stakeholders involved in the Review suggested that no involvement between a child
and their parent was more common than research on final orders suggested. They
suggested that this could be a result of the parent who was seeking involvement
subsequently disengaging with the court process for a variety of reasons. The Review
identified very little evidence about the proportion of cases in which this occurred. One
study that did consider this issue found that, of a total of 39 (out of 308 cases analysed)
cases that ended with the child having no contact at all with their parent, half were
withdrawn and two fifths were effectively abandoned by the parent seeking contact (Hunt &
Macleod, 2008).
Concern is sometimes raised that, whilst the court may order involvement between a child
and their parent, it might not happen. The evidence base covering post-court outcomes for
children was found to be limited. Whilst the evidence was clear that arrangements can and
do break down, the Review found no evidence to suggest that child arrangements orders
were routinely disregarded by the resident parent. Rather orders appeared to be followed
initially until some issue or crisis forced the order to break down or the case to return to
court (Cafcass, 2016; Halliday, Green & Marsh, 2017; Hunt & Macleod, 2008; Trinder et
al., 2013).

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
21
3.3. Impact of the presumption throughout proceedings
The Review found that the presumption was not expressly referenced on a regular basis
when judges and magistrates made decisions about contested child arrangements orders.
However, there was also clear evidence that court practice, culture, case law and
legislation came together to create an approach that was focused on facilitating the
involvement of both parents in a child’s life. The term ‘no stone unturned’ was used at a
stakeholder workshop to describe this approach. Similar ideas were expressed elsewhere.
The Harm Panel referred to this as the ‘pro-contact culture’ and found that courts had a
‘deep-seated’ and ‘systematic’ commitment to maintaining contact between children and
their parents (MoJ, 2020a).
In making any decision about a child’s upbringing, the court must balance different
legislative provisions (such as the presumption), as interpreted by the courts over time
(case law), and apply them to the facts of the case in order to reach a conclusion, with the
child’s welfare as its paramount consideration. Legal research has found that these
factors, alongside the presumption, have developed over time to reinforce the role of the
court in supporting children to have a relationship with both parents. This research found
that case law has placed a ‘positive duty’ on judges to promote involvement between a
child and their parent (Barnett, 2020; Kaganas, 2018; MoJ, 2020a) and that human rights
discourse has resulted in the family court positioning its role as protecting a ‘perpetrator’s’
right to family life (Choudhry, 2019).
Research and engagement with professionals identified that the culture of the family court
created a system that defined child welfare as almost invariably requiring contact with the
non-resident parent (MoJ, 2020a). For instance, practitioners interviewed by Harwood
(2021) discussed the importance court professionals placed on ensuring children had a
relationship with both parents. Many professionals engaged by Harwood were opposed to
a presumption against involvement in cases of domestic abuse as they felt this would run
contrary to children’s rights and children’s welfare. During the Review’s stakeholder
workshops, frontline professionals and organisations supporting parents felt that the court
always worked towards contact between a child and their parents.
Research with parents, often mothers who were victims of domestic abuse, found that they
felt pressured and coerced by professionals into agreeing to contact irrespective of the
circumstances in their case (Barnett, 2020; Birchall & Choudhry, 2018; Review’s
qualitative research; Thiara & Gill, 2012). Similarly, research with legal representatives
found they would often advise mothers to agree to some form of contact to appear
‘reasonable’ or to avoid ‘losing’ their case (Barnett, 2014). Research with mothers also
reflected this (Birchall & Choudhry, 2018; Choudhry, 2019; Review’s qualitative research;
Thiara & Gill, 2012). Professionals at the Review’s stakeholder workshops discussed how
‘systematic pressure’ on parents to agree to contact, even in risky situations, shifted the

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
22
focus of the case away from the child towards brokering an agreement with the parents to
get some form of involvement.
Research consistently reported that mothers felt the pursuit of contact, or a father’s right to
contact, dominated their case (Barnett, 2014; Birchall, 2022; Birchall & Choudhry, 2018;
Choudhry, 2019; Review’s qualitative research). Mothers reported feeling, from the outset,
that the outcome of their case was presumed to be involvement for both parents,
regardless of their situation. They saw this as the court prioritising the involvement of a
father, or the ‘right’ for him to see his children, over concerns about child welfare. This
caused a lot of fear and anxiety for mothers who had raised concerns about harm.
At the same time, a small volume of research reported the experiences of fathers who felt
they had to ‘fight’ for contact with their children and that the court process itself
undermined the presumption. Research by Hine and Roy (2023, p. 8) described fathers’
“all-encompassing despair” at having to “fight” for time with their children in the family
courts. Other research found fathers felt their needs as a father and the importance of their
involvement were not always considered equally in the court process (Review’s qualitative
research).
Although experiences differed, and some parents felt that the court process did not
support children spending time with both parents, the evidence reviewed points towards a
court system geared towards fostering involvement for children with both parents after
separation. For some families, this can be positive. Some professionals and parents
engaged in research have reported the positive impacts of a firm reinforcement that
involvement with both parents is in the child’s best interests (MoJ, 2020a; Harwood, 2021;
Review’s qualitative research). However, where there were concerns or allegations about
a risk of harm within a case, the ‘no stone unturned’ approach could be detrimental to the
child’s welfare in some cases.
Numerous socio-legal studies, summarised by Barnett (2020), identified how the courts’
strong focus on parental involvement led to domestic abuse being marginalised within
child arrangements cases and created a negative perception of mothers who raised
concerns about contact. In particular, research found that the court tended to disregard
older, or what they viewed as less serious, incidences of domestic abuse (often non-
physical forms of abuse) and deemed them irrelevant to orders on parental involvement
(Barnett, 2014; Birchall & Choudhry, 2018; MoJ, 2020a). This led to victims of domestic
abuse feeling disbelieved and afraid through court proceedings (Domestic Abuse
Commissioner, 2023; MoJ, 2020a; Review’s qualitative research).
The evidence did raise instances of good practice, where parents and victims of domestic
abuse felt supported, understood, and heard by the court. For example, one mother who
participated in the Review’s qualitative research described how the judge had seriously
considered the domestic abuse she and her children faced and the positive impact this

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
23
had on her case. Further, since the publication of the Harm Panel’s report, significant
changes in practice and guidance have been introduced (for further information see the
Harm Panel “Implementation Plan: Delivery Update” (MoJ, 2023)). However, there was
limited evidence about the impacts that these changes have had on the experience of
children and families.
3.4. Impact of the presumption on different groups
This section explores the evidence identified from cases involving parties with different
characteristics and focuses on gender, ethnicity and disability. Whilst effort was made to
explore other characteristics, sufficient evidence was not available. Due to a lack of data, it
was not possible to quantify the impact of characteristics on court outcomes. The research
described in this section explores the experiences of family court users and outlines the
perspectives of organisations that provide support to parents.
Gender
Research with women identified the different and sometimes contradictory expectations
that were placed on them as mothers by the court system. Findings suggested that
women’s emotions were heavily scrutinised by the court, with women being criticised for
being too emotional or not emotional enough depending on their demeaner (Barnett, 2020;
Birchall, 2022; Choudhry, 2019; MoJ, 2020a; Review’s qualitative research). Female
victims of domestic abuse faced a similar contradiction in treatment. Mothers who were
resistant to the involvement of the child’s father could be seen by the system as
‘implacably hostile’ or ‘alienating’, whilst also being chastised for failing to leave an abusive
partner and thus failing to protect their children from abuse (Barnett, 2020; MoJ, 2020a).
This contradiction appeared to create suspicion of mothers who raised allegations of harm:
“the default position of many of the professionals, including children’s social care,
Cafcass/Cymru and the courts in child arrangements cases, was to treat allegations with a
high level of suspicion” (MoJ, 2020a, p. 49). In contrast, qualitative evidence suggested
that fathers seeking contact were seen in a sympathetic light and received more leeway
than mothers, especially when unrepresented (Barnett, 2020; Birchall, 2022; Birchall &
Choudhry, 2018; Choudhry, 2019; Thiara & Gill, 2012). The treatment of mothers in court
led to some feeling that the court superseded their right to safety and any concerns for the
safety of their children in favour of a father’s ‘right to contact’ (Choudry, 2019; Review’s
Qualitative research; Thiara & Gill, 2012).
The Review also found that fathers felt subject to stereotypes and gender bias, although
research that explored fathers’ experiences of child arrangements cases was more limited.
Research with fathers found that some felt there was a systematic bias towards resident
parents and against them as fathers (Hine & Roy, 2023). In the Review’s qualitative
research, fathers reported feeling that the stereotypes they faced in general society – for

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
24
instance, that fathers are less important as carers than mothers – were reflected in the
court process. Research and engagement with male victims of domestic abuse has also
identified challenges men can face when bringing allegations to court. This included
disbelief by courts and other justice system organisations, especially as a result of
assumptions about what a ‘typical’ victim looks like (Domestic Abuse Commissioner, 2023;
Hine & Roy, 2023; MoJ, 2020a).
Ethnicity
Research with mothers and fathers from ethnic minority backgrounds reported racial
stereotypes being used by family court professionals (Thiara and Gill, 2012 and the
Review’s qualitative research). Across both studies, South Asian women felt that they
were stereotyped by family court practitioners as subdued and submissive, and therefore,
vulnerable parents. African-Caribbean women, on the other hand, felt that that they were
viewed by the court as strong and independent and, as a result, could not be victims of
domestic abuse. Women and men from African-Caribbean backgrounds also reported that
professionals normalised domestic abuse in Black relationships due to stereotypes about
violent Black men and normalised a lack of Black fathers’ involvement with their children
due to stereotypes about how Black men behave in marriages. South Asian mothers
reported that South Asian fathers were viewed more sympathetically by the family court,
seeing them as family-minded and committed to family culture.
Disability
The Review team engaged a small number of organisations who support D/deaf and
disabled parents in family court (in both public and private law proceedings) in a
stakeholder workshop. Participants at this event raised concerns with how disability was
viewed by the wider family justice system, suggesting that disabled parenting was more
heavily scrutinised and judged. They felt that this would often result in parents being
involved in public law proceedings, such as care proceedings, rather than parents being
able to remain in or enter the private law system where the presumption applies.
For disabled mothers who were also victims of domestic abuse, the organisations reported
that a perpetrator parent was often seen as the safer parent compared to a mother with a
disability. In cases where children were removed from their mother’s care, the
organisations flagged that mothers could struggle to remain meaningfully involved in their
child’s life due to the additional challenges they faced. The organisations also raised
issues of women’s medical records being used against them by both the court and the
perpetrator. They reported that victim mothers’ concerns about the use of their medical
records could lead to them being afraid to share their disability. This included fear around
asking for appropriate special measures to be made to assist their participation in the court
proceedings, for fear of their disability being used against them.
For parents (both mothers and fathers) with a learning disability, the support organisations
argued that the system started from an assumption that they cannot parent. They felt that

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
25
the bar of being a ‘good enough parent’15 was set much higher for parents with a learning
disability and that parents who required support were seen as unable to care for their
children. This meant children were taken straight into the public law system with no
support offered to parents for the child to remain in their care.
3.5. Courts’ ability to understand the risk to children
In order to make the decisions outlined in the preceding sections, courts must make
challenging decisions that can involve understanding allegations of harm and potential
risks children. In many cases, allegations are made by one party about the other and those
allegations are disputed. The task for the court is to decide whether the allegations have a
direct bearing on the child welfare decisions that must be made, and if so, whether the
party has provided sufficient evidence for those allegations to be found by the court to be
true (that is, for the court to make “findings of fact”).
The evidence explored in the Review identified significant challenges for parties to prove
allegations of domestic abuse and other risk of harm to children. The Harm Panel found
the courts’ approach to allegations results in a ‘systematic minimisation’ of domestic abuse
(MoJ, 2020a). This could lead to domestic abuse not being seen as an issue relevant to
the court’s decision on child arrangements, with fact-finding hearings not being ordered
(Barnett, 2020; Domestic Abuse Commissioner, 2023; MoJ, 2020a). This was particularly
the case where the court deemed the domestic abuse to be ‘less serious’ or ‘historic’ and
therefore not an issue that would affect decisions on child arrangements (Barnett, 2014;
MoJ, 2020a; Burton, 2021; also supported by views from some stakeholder workshops).
The studies reviewed suggested that the courts focused on recent incidents of serious
physical abuse but overlooked more hidden forms of abuse, such as coercive controlling
behaviours, financial or emotional abuse.
Where a fact-finding hearing was ordered, it could be very challenging for parties to prove
their allegations. This was particularly the case where parties alleged ‘hidden harms’, such
as coercive and controlling behaviour or sexual abuse (including child sexual abuse), or
where parties were unrepresented or had to fund evidence gathering (such as reports or
testing) themselves (see for instance Trinder et al., 2014 or Organ and Sigafoos, 2018).
Evidence suggested that courts expected victims to provide corroborating evidence of
abuse, such as police reports (MoJ, 2020a; Harwood, 2018; Review’s qualitative
research). This was found to be a significant obstacle to proving abuse, as, for a variety of
reasons, many victims do not report it (MoJ, 2020a). In the case of child sexual abuse, the
Harm Panel suggested “courts impose even higher corroboration requirements” (MoJ,

15 Good enough parenting is a term sometimes used within child protection cases to refer to parenting that,
although not perfect (as no parent is perfect) it is good enough to prevent the child from suffering serious
harm.

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
26
2020a, p. 96). They found that courts generally did not accept expert opinion or disclosure
by the child to the parent making the allegation. Yet, research was clear that very little
child sexual abuse comes to the attention of statutory authorities (Allnock, Miller & Baker,
2019; Scott, 2023). This suggested that many families would not have access to the sort of
evidence expected by the court.
Unless you have it in black and white, which I’m sure many sexual abuse cases don’t
have, or you have that police evidence, things like that, even at that stage, you know, I
was told that even if they have a certain amount of evidence, because he has PR
[parental responsibility], because he’s their father, he may still get contact anyway.
Mother – Presumption Review Qualitative Research, child sexual abuse strand
Research has also identified challenges that parents can face in defending themselves
against allegations, especially when not represented (Hine and Roy, 2023; MoJ, 2020a;).
Fear of false allegations was often reported as a reason for which victims did not raise or
withdrew allegations in child arrangements cases (see for instance Barnett, 2020; MoJ,
2020a).
Where findings were not made, or not pursued by the victim, the Harm Panel found that
this could leave children and victim parents at risk (MoJ, 2020a). The Panel stated that
while the court proceeded on the basis that the alleged abuse had not occurred, the
absence of findings did not necessarily mean the absence of risk. This concern was also
raised by frontline professionals who attended the Review’s stakeholder workshops, as
they felt it could leave the court without a full understanding of the child’s circumstances
and could result in practitioners and the court being closed off to new risks.
3.6. Summary
Evidence around judicial decision-making suggested that the presumption was not
expressly referenced by judges and magistrates on a routine basis when making decisions
about contested child arrangements orders. When it was referenced, it appeared that the
presumption was highlighted as only one of a number of factors the court considered when
making a child arrangements orders, and that child welfare remained the central
consideration. The Children Act 1989 is clear that child welfare should be the court’s
paramount consideration. From the Review evidence, it did appear that the decision-
making steps inherent in section 1(2A) and (6)) of the Children Act 1989 were not
expressly referred to by courts when they made final decisions, though it may have
factored into earlier decisions made by the court (or the parties) that were not referenced
in written or oral justifications.

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
27
Although limitations in the evidence meant it was not possible to robustly comment on the
proportion of cases that resolved with different forms of child arrangements, the evidence
was consistent in finding that most cases resolved with some form of involvement between
children and both of their parents. Most often, this was unsupervised and allowed parents
and children to spend time together. Orders for highly restrictive forms of involvement, or
no involvement were, in contrast, rare.
In line with the presumption, where there was a risk of harm (generally the studies
available were not able to establish if findings had been made by the court), more
restrictive forms of parental involvement, or no involvement, were more likely to be
ordered. However, whilst these orders were more likely to be made in cases involving a
risk of harm, the most likely order remained unsupervised direct contact. There was
evidence that even in cases where there were indicators of high-risk, parental involvement,
including direct contact, was often still pursued. This raises a concern about whether
courts are sufficiently considering the risk of harm to which children may be exposed.
The evidence highlighted that the court system was intrinsically geared towards fostering
children’s involvement with both parents after separation. The ‘no stone unturned’
approach permeated proceedings, and evidence suggested this can have a negative
impact on parents (particularly mothers) and children in cases where there was a risk, or
allegations, of harm. The courts’ approach to risk, and the requirements established by law
and practice to make findings on allegations, did not appear to align with the reality of
harms many children and victim parents face. The Review was not able to firmly
distinguish the role of the presumption within the ‘no-stone unturned’ approach. In
particular, the Review could not establish whether decisions earlier in a case, or
professionals discussing the presumption with parties at earlier stages of the case,
influenced the parties when reaching an agreement. Nevertheless, the presumption did
appear to be part of a system and structure that prioritised involvement between children
and both parents.

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
28
4. What is the impact on child welfare of
the courts’ application of the
presumption?
This section outlines the evidence identified on the impact parental involvement has on
child welfare in different circumstances. Much of the evidence is drawn from the literature
review conducted by Alma Economics and drafted by MoJ government social researchers.
Where this is the case, the relevant section of the literature review is cited rather than
repeating the citations included in the report.
4.1. Frequency of involvement
In general, the evidence identified was clear that the involvement of both parents following
separation has a positive impact on child welfare (literature review, section 5.1). Much of
this evidence came from studies about the post-separation involvement of non-resident
fathers, with lower levels of involvement from fathers (such as ‘sole care’ arrangements)16
generally associated with worse child welfare outcomes, and higher levels of involvement
from fathers (such as ‘shared care arrangements’)17 generally associated with better child
welfare outcomes (literature review, section 5.1, see also Steinbach & Augustijn, 2022;
Steinbach, Augustijn & Corkadi, 2020). This suggested that court orders providing for
children to spend substantial time with both of their parents furthered their welfare.
A key limitation of this evidence was the lack of a consistent definition of ‘shared care’.
Some studies defined children spending 25 per cent of their time with the non-resident
parent as ‘shared care’, which, by other definitions, was considered ‘sole care’. This made
it difficult to establish the amount of time children were required to spend with each parent
to ensure the most positive welfare outcomes. In addition, many studies lacked
consideration of socioeconomic and ethnic diversity and did not control for child and family
characteristics (literature review, section 5.3). Where studies did control for relevant
characteristics, such as parental conflict and family income, the difference between
outcomes for children living in shared care arrangements and children living in sole care
arrangements disappeared (Steinbach & Augustijn, 2022; Steinbach, Augustijn & Corkadi,

16 Sole care arrangements: where the child lives with one parent for most of their time and spends a limited
amount of time or no time with their other parent (sometimes referred to as the ‘non-resident parent’).
17 Shared care arrangements: the child spends time living with each of their parents separately. In practice
the child may spend more time living with one parent, but most definitions require the child to spend at
least 25 per cent of their time with each parent to be considdered ‘shared care’.

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
29
2020). This suggested that the positive outcomes for child welfare seen in many studies on
shared care arrangements may have related more to the characteristics of families that
chose and were able to successfully implement these arrangements, rather than the
inherent welfare benefits of the arrangements.
This is particularly relevant when thinking about court-ordered parental involvement.
Research exploring the characteristics of families who come to court has found:
• Families in private law proceedings were more likely to live in more deprived areas of
England and Wales (Cusworth et al., 2020, 2021a)
• Adults who are Black or who have mixed or multiple ethnicities were overrepresented
in private law proceedings (Alrouh et al., 2022; North et al., 2022)
• Adults in private law proceedings were more likely to experience or develop mental
health problems (Cusworth et al., 2021b; Griffiths et al., 2022)
• The prevalence of allegations of domestic abuse in child arrangements cases was
considerably higher than in the general population (see Barnett, 2020 and ONS, 2023)
Therefore, children with court-ordered parental involvement may not see the same
outcomes as children living in families who do not need to use the courts.
Whilst the amount of time that children and parents spend together was clearly important,
the quality of a parent and child’s relationship appeared to have a larger impact on welfare
outcomes for children. Studies found high-quality father-child relationships were
associated with positive outcomes for child welfare across a range of measures (literature
review, section 5.1).18 Children and young people reported higher levels of satisfaction
when contact was child-focused and enjoyable (Fortin, Hunt & Scanlan, 2012; Lapierre,
Côté, & Lessard, 2022). When a child felt their parent was not focused on them, this could
be seen as an absence of that parent’s emotional involvement in their relationship, which
could have negative impacts on children’s welfare (see also MoJ, 2020a).
I go to my dad’s Wednesday night and Friday night. Daddy always tells us how much he
fought for us or how much money he paid someone called a barrister. He doesn’t get up
in the morning to make us breakfast. The courts didn’t really seem to care about that.
Young person – In Our Shoes (FJYPB, 2021: 35)

18 High quality father-child relationships were those characterised, among other things, by reliability,
closeness, warmth, involvement in daily activities, and setting boundaries (literature review, section 5.1).

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
30
4.2. Impact of risk of harm
Domestic abuse and other safeguarding concerns were identified as significant factors in
child arrangements cases. Estimates suggested that at least half of cases involved some
concern or allegation about domestic abuse, with many also including other risks of harm
to children (Barnett, 2020; Cafcass & Women’s Aid, 2017). Whist this Review included a
focus on domestic abuse as one of the most cited risks of harm to children, it also
examined a range of other harms that children involved in child arrangements cases may
face. Many of the harms considered are perhaps more readily associated with child
protection. However, research has identified blurred boundaries between the public and
private law systems, with many cases found to involve similar risks or hybrid elements of
both systems (Bainham, 2013; Harding & Newnham, 2017).
Child abuse and neglect
Where a parent posed a risk, or caused harm to a child, the evidence collected suggested
that parental involvement did not necessarily further child welfare and could leave children
at ongoing risk of harm, with both short- and long-term implications for their life course.
The Review’s literature review found that involvement with abusive and/or neglectful
parents could lead to the continuation of abuse/neglect and to the development and
escalation of internalising and externalising symptoms in the child (literature review,
section 5.2).
Previously it had been accepted that some forms of harm, such as sexual and physical
abuse, resulted in worse child welfare outcomes than others, such as neglect. However,
evidence identified during the Review challenged this ‘hierarchy of harm’ and suggested
instead that all child harms have the potential to have significant negative impacts on child
welfare (see for instance Coughlan et al., 2022). The impact of harm on child welfare could
be affected by several factors, including the severity of harm and length of time the child is
affected by the harm. However, this relationship was not found to be straightforward.
Severe acts of harm, such as physical violence, severe acute stress or trauma, or severe
neglect were found to have significant effects on child welfare. At the same time, less
immediately severe but long-lasting harm, such as chronic neglect, were also found to
have a substantial impact on child welfare and, in some cases, could be more damaging
than isolated incidents of physical abuse (for full discussion, see literature review, section
4.2). Research has found that the impact of harm on children can mitigated by other
characteristics such as support networks (for example, familial bonds beyond parents) or
worsened by increased vulnerabilities (Asmussen et al., 2020).
Domestic abuse
Historically, it was assumed that domestic abuse was a risk factor for other forms of child
maltreatment, or that only physical acts of violence to children posed a risk to their welfare
(Katz, 2016). Many studies have found the family courts have relied on this understanding

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
31
(see for instance Barnett, 2020 and MoJ, 2020a). However, more recent evidence has
concluded that children are harmed directly by domestic abuse, even if they do not see or
are not physically affected by violence (literature review, section 4.1). This understanding
is now reflected in law in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and in Practice Direction 12J,
supplementing the Family Procedure Rules 2010.
Rather than domestic abuse ceasing when parents separate, the evidence reviewed found
that ongoing parent-child involvement, and sometimes court involvement to make child
arrangements, could become a site of ongoing abuse for both the victim parent and
children for many families (Barnett, 2020; Katz, Nikupeteri & Laitinen, 2020; Lapierre,
Côté, & Lessard, 2022). Research identified that involvement with an abusive parent can
result in a range of negative outcomes for children, including negative effects on their
development, their behaviour and their mental and physical health, including the risk of
homicide (literature review section 5.2; Barnett, 2020).
Whilst the evidence concluded that domestic abuse poses a risk of harm to children
directly, a number of studies identified in the literature review also explored the co-
occurrence of domestic abuse and other forms of harm to children (literature review,
section 4.2). Although the studies reviewed differed in the extent of this overlap, all agreed
that children who experienced domestic abuse were at greater risk of direct physical
assault, child homicide, emotional abuse and sexual abuse, as well as being more likely to
have a family member with a history of mental illness, substance abuse and/or
imprisonment. Given the extent of agreement in the literature they reviewed, Barnett
(2020) went on to argue that that domestic abuse and child abuse should not be
considered discrete categories.
Parental conflict
The Review also found a large body of literature that considered the impact of parental
involvement on child welfare in situations where there were high levels of parental conflict.
Disagreements in relationships are normal, especially around separation, and not
necessarily problematic when resolved constructively. However, the evidence identified
across the Review found that when parents were entrenched in conflict that was “frequent,
intense, and poorly resolved”, it was likely to have a negative impact on child welfare
(Harold et al., 2016, p. 6). Nonetheless, the evidence differed on whether shared care
arrangements in situations of high inter-parental conflict resulted in better or worse welfare
outcomes for children (literature review, section 5.2).
The main limitation in the literature on parental conflict was that most studies did not use a
single definition of parental conflict or adequately distinguish it from domestic abuse
(literature review, section 5.3). It has become increasingly understood that a central
component of domestic abuse is the power and control a perpetrator seeks to establish
over the victim, which may or may not involve the use of violence (Stark, 2007; Katz,
Nikupeteri & Laitinen 2020; Katz, 2016). Many studies defined conflict as a series of

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
32
conflictual behaviours (such as shouting, becoming withdrawn or physical fighting) that
were ‘not domestic abuse’. However, they did not define how conflict behaviours were
distinguished from patterns of behaviour that seek to assert and maintain control over a
victim. Such studies may have included coercive and controlling behaviour within their
definition of parental conflict, presenting a significant limitation in understanding the impact
of conflict on child welfare.
These definitional discrepancies also created challenges for the courts when making
decisions on parental involvement. The Harm Panel found that family court professionals’
ability to identify power and control dynamics were highly inconsistent, and this, alongside
other factors, could result in domestic abuse being misidentified, or ‘reframed’, by the court
as ‘high conflict’ or ‘mutually abusive relationships’ (MoJ, 2020a). They found that this
resulted in courts focusing on encouraging co-operation between parents rather than on
the protection of the child and victim-parent, which could leave children and parents at risk.
4.3. Impact of restricted forms of involvement
Supervised and supported contact
The Review found a mixed picture on whether contact centres19 were able to support safe
and good quality contact between children and their parents. Studies in England and
Wales, as well as internationally, found that contact centres enabled some children to
develop positive relationships with parents they did not live with. For other children,
however, these studies found that despite contact being supervised or supported, children
continued to experience ongoing abuse (Aris, Harrison & Humphreys, 2002; Cordis Bright,
2023; literature review, section 6.3; Sheehan et al., 2005). The differences identified may
relate to differing levels of supervision and safeguarding across contact centres. Research
found that safeguarding levels at contact centres could be mismatched to the needs of the
families that used them, especially those with a history of coercive control and other forms
of ‘less visible’ abuse (literature review, section 6.3 and Cordis Bright, 2023).
Other factors that affected children’s experiences of contact centres related to how
children were involved in decision making and the facilities available. Research suggested
that children’s ability to decide whether and how contact visits occurred significantly
affected their welfare (Cordis Bright, 2023; Sheehan et al., 2005), and they experienced
stress and anxiety when their views were disregarded (Sheehan et al., 2005). Research
also found facilities within contact centres can impact upon children’s welfare. Generally,
contact centres catered to younger children, including toys and activities designed to

19 Contact centres provide a place or service to enable children to spend time with parent(s) and/or family
members they do not live with. They can be run privately, by local authority children’s services, or by a
charitable organisation. Many contact centres are accredited by the National Association of Child Contact
Centres (NACCC) and any contact ordered by the court should be in a NACCC accredited centre.
However, there is no requirement for contact services to be accredited.

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
33
entertain children and facilitate child-focused involvement during visits (Aris, Harrison &
Humphreys, 2002; Perry & Rainey, 2007). These facilities tended to enhance the
experience for younger children but often did not meet the needs of older children and
young people (Fortin, Hunt & Scanlan, 2012; Sheehan et al., 2005; Perry & Rainey, 2007).
Indirect parental involvement
Little research was identified that focused specifically on the impact of indirect parental
involvement on children (literature review, section 5.3). The lack of attention to this topic
likely reflected the very rare use of these orders by the courts (as discussed in chapter 3).
However, a small number of papers did note that the practical arrangements of indirect
parental involvement could be very difficult to maintain, with children not necessarily
receiving letters or gifts sent from their non-resident parent nor having access to telephone
or video calls with them as the court intended (Perry & Rainey, 2007; Harwood, 2018).
Research on the use of digital contact in both public and private law settings found that
online communication supported some children and parents to maintain a relationship
when they did not live together and could support non-resident parents to be more
involved in their child’s day-to-day activities (Iyer et al., 2020b). This evidence suggested
that children and young people were generally used to digital forms of communication, and
many were better able to engage naturally by online means (Iyer et al., 2020a; b; Neil,
Copson & Sorensen, 2020). However, the research evidence also identified challenges
with this sort of involvement. For example, children could find digital contact distressing or
emotionally challenging, especially where relationships with family members were poor,
emotional abuse continued or conflict existed between their parents (Iyer et al., 2020b;
Neil, Copson & Sorensen, 2020). In some cases, research suggested that children were
left feeling unsafe due to concerns that digital clues could be used to find where they live
(Neil, Copson & Sorensen, 2020).
4.4. No parental involvement
Little evidence was found that focused specifically on welfare outcomes for children where
the effect of a child arrangements order is that they have no involvement with a parent.
The research included in the literature review tended to focus on comparisons between
children cared for primarily by one parent (such as sole care arrangements) and children
cared for either in intact families or in shared care arrangements (see literature review
section 5.1 for detailed discussion). Therefore, the Review did not have evidence about
the long-term welfare outcomes of children in different circumstances where the effect of a
court order is that they have no involvement with a parent.
The Review did consider research on children and young people’s experience of unwanted
parental involvement. One study found that where children and young people had contact
with a parent they did not want, or that was not on their terms, some reported negative

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
34
experiences including bedwetting and nightmares before the contact (Holt, 2018). Another
found that whilst the children and young people interviewed held the ideal that contact with
both of their parents was very important for children, where there was an abusive parent-
child relationship, they felt contact should not take place and no contact was better for
child welfare than bad contact (Fortin, Hunt and Scanlan, 2012). Both studies found that
some children wanted to, or indeed did, end their contact with an abusive parent. Similarly,
some of the children who participated in research with Lapierre, Côté, & Lessard (2022)
were pleased to have limited or no contact with their abusive fathers.
The Review was unable to identify any longitudinal studies that explored the outcomes for
children following child arrangements cases and the different outcomes that may be
associated with different forms of court and non-court ordered parental involvement.
Without such longitudinal research, the system is left without a clear understanding of the
potential outcomes for children’s welfare, where the effect of a court order is that they have
no involvement with a parent.
4.5. Children’s ability to shape child arrangements
The research identified was clear that many children and young people wanted to have
their voices heard when their parents separated (Barnett, 2020; Jones, 2023; Roe, 2021;
Symonds et al., 2022). These studies reported that children whose voices were heard, and
who had their views respected, were left feeling empowered and were generally happier
with their lives and arrangements following separation or court. On the other hand, they
suggested that children who felt they had not been listened to were left feeling distressed.
Evidence on children’s participation in proceedings was limited, but, over time, has
consistently pointed to the frequent exclusion of children from decision-making processes
(Barnett, 2020; Hargreaves et al., 2024; May & Smart, 2004; Holt, 2018; Roe, 2021). In
evidence given to the Review, many frontline professionals felt that the culture in family
courts was changing and there was increasingly a focus on how children can be involved
in proceedings, including in the Pathfinder courts. Research by Jones (2023) did suggest
that there have been some improvements in the Pathfinder courts but that children
reported wanting more choice about how they engaged in proceedings.
When children were engaged in proceedings, they did not always feel ‘heard’. Studies
suggested that older children, or children who wanted involvement with both of their
parents, were most likely to have their voice heard and for their views to correlate to the
decision of the court (literature review, section 6.2). On the other hand, the voices of
younger children or children who were reluctant to have contact with a parent were more
hidden (Barnett, 2020). In particular, research found that children’s descriptions of abuse
(both as witnesses and direct victims) were often minimised or ignored (Macdonald, 2017).

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
35
Decisions on whether children should participate in proceedings were largely taken for
them by adults. Generally, evidence pointed to concerns about involving children in
parental disputes, manipulation of the child’s voice by an adult – usually the parent they
spend the most time with – and the child’s age as the main reasons that adults may be
concerned about children’s views influencing the outcome of the court process (Barnett,
2020; Bell, 2016; Cashmore & Parkinson, 2008; Holt, 2018; Jones, 2023; Macdonald,
2017; May & Smart, 2004; Toros, 2021).
Ascertaining children’s wishes and feelings, particularly those of younger children, is
challenging. Children’s views are usually relayed to the court by a professional (such as a
Family Court Adviser or social worker). It can take time for professionals to build a
relationship with children to allow them to feel comfortable and able to express their views,
something that was found to be not always available in a stretched court system (MoJ,
2020a; Jones, 2023; Roe, 2021). The Review found limited evidence about what works in
terms of listening to the voices of children in proceedings. This was one of the key
objectives of the literature review, but no evidence was identified by the literature review
team (literature review, section 6.2). Young people who participated in the Review’s
challenge panel event suggested that professionals should not jump straight into
discussions but start by drawing or listening to music; something to help build a
relationship of trust and get to know the child.
4.6. Public law comparisons
The Review found very little evidence about the impacts that specific types of court-
ordered involvement had on child welfare. To provide wider context, the Review also
explored the impact of contact (or ‘family time’) on children in public law contexts (such as
those in foster care, kinship care arrangements or adopted children). Given its focus, the
Review has not conducted an extensive review of this literature. Rather, a small number of
papers were identified through engagement with stakeholders to provide additional insight.
Similar to the research on private law discussed in the preceding sections, research with
children in a public law context found that contact with birth families was important and
often wanted by children (Iyer et al., 2020a; Neil, Beek & Ward, 2013). Contact with birth
families could have a positive impact on children and young people, including supporting
them to understand their sense of self, self-worth and their heritage (Iyer et al., 2020a;
Neil, Beek & Ward, 2013). The latter was found to be particularly important for ethnic
minority children, or children from mixed ethnic backgrounds (Iyer et al., 2020a). However,
there was no simple causal relationship identified between the frequency of contact with
birth families and children’s welfare (Iyer et al., 2020a; Neil, Beek & Ward, 2013). Instead,
the reviewed evidence indicated that the quality of contact, rather than quantity, was the
key consideration in promoting and protecting child welfare (Iyer et al., 2020a; Neil, 2018;

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
36
Neil, Beek & Ward, 2013). Like the evidence on private law cases, the evidence on contact
for children in public law placements generally concluded that children wanted a choice
about who they maintained contact with and when that contact happened, although it
found they did not want to be entirely responsible for decisions (Iyer et al., 2020a).
However, the evidence also found that children were less comfortable with, or even,
opposed to, contact with hostile or abusive relatives, or those they had no connection with
(Neil, Beek & Ward, 2013). Across all of the studies reviewed on contact in a public law
context, there was a consistent finding that contact should be focused on the individual
needs and wishes of the child involved and that generalised approaches were not good at
supporting child welfare (Barnett-Jones & Manning, 2021; Iyer et al., 2020b; Neil, 2018;
Neil, Copson & Sorensen, 2020).
4.7. Summary
As discussed in chapter 3, most child arrangements cases ended with orders that provided
for children to spend time with both of their parents. The evidence suggested that, for a lot
of children, such decisions could further their welfare, with higher levels of involvement
generally associated with better child welfare outcomes. At the same time, evidence
pointed to quality, rather than quantity, of time spent between parent and child as the
factor that mattered most for improving child outcomes. This did not always appear to be a
focus of court decisions.
Where a parent posed a risk of harm, however, the evidence was clear that child welfare
was not always supported by parental involvement. Ongoing involvement with a parent
who posed a risk of harm could lead to a range of negative consequences over the child’s
life course. The apparent high incidence of orders for direct parental involvement in the
context of allegations of domestic abuse and other indicators of harm, as discussed in
chapter 3, suggested that decisions made by the court in some cases did leave children at
risk of negative welfare outcomes. Unfortunately, the evidence and data were not robust
enough to estimate the proportion of children this affected, or the extent of risk faced by
children.
Whilst the potential for negative outcomes of harm was clear, there was no single defined
child welfare outcome of individual harms, or of different types of parental involvement.
The impacts on child welfare was found to be affected by a range of different situations
and factors. The impact of harm on children could be mitigated by characteristics such as
support networks (for example, familial bonds beyond parents), and the impacts of certain
arrangements could be worsened by increased vulnerabilities. This highlighted the
importance of decisions that are tailored to the individual needs of a child, as opposed to a
‘one-size-fits-all' approach.

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
37
Evidence further pointed to a systematic approach of ‘selective listening’ to children, where
their voices were amplified if they aligned with the court’s view (usually when they wanted
contact with a parent), but were dismissed or minimised when their views differed (usually
when they did not want contact with a parent). This appeared to be based on a general
assumption that children need involvement with both parents and are likely to change their
minds as they get older.
The lack of clear evidence about the child welfare outcomes of different forms of parental
involvement ordered by the court was concerning. Courts are required to make complex
decisions and, in many cases, judges and magistrates are forced to weigh the potential
harm of involvement with a parent who poses a risk of harm against the potential harm of
not being able to have a relationship with that parent. Without a clear understanding of the
potential impacts of their decisions, the courts’ application of the presumption may rely on
an understanding which does not capture the nuances of potential for harm.

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
38
5. Conclusion
The Review has drawn on a wide range of evidence to inform its conclusions, including
empirical research commissioned specifically for this Review, wider evidence already in
the public domain and engagement with family justice stakeholders. Whilst there are
important limitations to its findings, the Review has developed a picture of how the
statutory presumption was used in decision making. Nevertheless, given the volume and
complexity of decisions made every day in the family courts, the Review could not, nor did
it seek to, reflect the experiences of all those who have come to court.
The evidence the Review has identified around judicial decision-making demonstrated that
the presumption was not routinely expressly referenced by judges and magistrates when
making decisions about contested child arrangements orders. When it was referenced, the
presumption was highlighted as one of several factors the court had considered. It did not
appear to be the core determining factor. Rather, child welfare remained the central
consideration. Whilst the Children Act 1989 is clear that child welfare should be the court’s
paramount consideration, the decision-making steps inherent in section 1(2A) and (6) of
the Children Act 1989 were not routinely expressly referred to by courts when they made
final decisions.
Nevertheless, the Review found evidence that courts took a ‘no stone unturned’ approach
and were intrinsically geared towards fostering involvement for a child with both parents
after separation. Most cases resolved with an order for some form of involvement between
a child and both of their parents, most often direct unsupervised contact. Significant effort
was made across proceedings to encourage this, and many cases appeared to resolve, at
least partially, by agreement of the parties. The statutory presumption appeared to play a
role in this ‘no-stone unturned’ approach but was not the only relevant factor here. Rather,
court practice, culture, case law and legislation have come together to create an approach
focused on facilitating the involvement of both parents in a child’s life.
The evidence identified on child welfare suggested that, for a lot of children, such
decisions could further their welfare. However, where a parent posed a risk, or had caused
harm to a child, children’s welfare was not always supported by parental involvement. The
apparent high incidence of orders where there were indicators of risk, alongside qualitative
evidence that cases with indicators of high risk still ended with orders for direct
involvement, suggested that courts were ordering direct contact between children and
parents who caused or posed a risk of harm.
Judges and magistrates are required to make complex decisions that weigh the potential
risk of harm to a child posed by a parent’s involvement against the potential long-term

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
39
impacts of growing up without a relationship with that parent. The Children Act 1989
outlines multiple stages for the courts to consider the risk of harm a parent can pose and
requires the court to consider the individual circumstances of the child. However, the
Review’s evidence suggested that decision-making in the family court was driven by
assumptions about child welfare being furthered by the involvement of a parent, meaning
that an individualised focus on the specific child’s welfare could be lost.
Whilst the Review made clear that many children benefitted from contact with both of their
parents, this stance was not appropriate when a child was at risk. Moreover, children at
risk of harm from one or both parents were significantly over-represented in the family
court. Decisions about their welfare must be made on the basis of the individual
circumstances of the child, including an understanding of the potential harms to their
physical and emotional wellbeing. The evidence of the Review suggested that practice in
the family justice system and the decisions made by courts could leave children at ongoing
risk of harm.
The research considered during this Review suggested that practices and procedures
created a barrier to courts having the required information at the right time to understand
the risk children face. Evidence of clear risk could be hard for parties to establish,
especially where they are unrepresented or have additional vulnerabilities. ‘Hidden’ harms,
such as domestic abuse or child sexual abuse, were identified as particularly hard for
parties to establish and court practitioners may not have always fully understood the
impacts these harms can have on child welfare. Evidence on child participation in private
law proceedings pointed to a lack of routine participation of children in proceedings and a
selective approach to hearing and responding to their views. The evidence suggested that
courts were then left with a partial picture of the child’s life when determining the type and
frequency of parental involvement, and potentially risked the court being unable to
effectively assess potential harms.

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
40
6. Next steps
Since the publication of the Harm Panel report in 2020, the MoJ has been committed to
improving the ways in which the family justice system assesses risk to the child and
determines the role that a child’s parents play in their life. This is an enormously important,
and complicated, project.
Having considered the evidence in this Review, the Government has made the decision to
repeal the presumption of parental involvement in the Children Act 1989. This Review
makes clear that the presumption is not the driving force behind the ‘no-stone unturned’
culture of the family court, and it is important to note that, irrespective of the statutory
presumption, caselaw relating to Article 8 of the ECHR (rights to a private and family life)
requires the court to consider all alternatives before ordering no involvement between a
child and their parent(s).
Nevertheless, the Government considers that repeal of the presumption is an important
step in addressing the pro-contact culture. The child’s welfare will remain the court’s
paramount consideration, and the welfare checklist in section 1(3) of the Children Act
1989, with its focus on the individual needs and specific family circumstances of each
child, will continue to be a central pillar of court decision-making.
Since the Review was launched, the new Pathfinder approach has significantly changed
private family law proceedings in some areas, with a particular focus on putting children as
individuals, and their safety, at the heart of family court proceedings. The Pathfinder courts
launched as a pilot in Dorset and North Wales in February 2022 before being expanded.
They are now operating across all family courts in Wales, and in England are operating in
Dorset, Birmingham and West Yorkshire.
In these areas the Pathfinder model replaces the Child Arrangements Programme (CAP).
Delivering a more investigative and less adversarial approach, with a key focus on
supporting domestic abuse victims and enhancing the voice of the child, Pathfinder
fundamentally amends the way that the court gathers information on risk from the initial
application. Early research and evaluation of the pilots has been positive, suggesting that
courts are listening more to children, and early information gathering is improving case
progression.20 The re-shaping of how the family court operates under the Pathfinder model
is a significant step towards supporting the court to fully receive information and
understand risk in child arrangements proceedings. The model currently operates in six

20 See Private Law Pathfinder Pilot: process evaluation and financial analysis - GOV.UK and Children and
young people’s experiences of participation in private proceedings in the family courts | GOV.WALES

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
41
court areas, which will be expanded to four further areas by Spring 2026, including
Wolverhampton, Stoke-on-Trent, Worcester, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.
As Chapter 2 makes clear, the Review encountered several challenges regarding the
availability, access and quality of data on the family justice system. Specifically, a lack of
available information from transcribed judgments and written facts and reasons prevented
the Review from being able to understand how risk was associated with different levels
and types of parental involvement. The Review also identified a lack of evidence about the
child welfare outcomes of different forms of parental involvement ordered by the court.
Greater transparency and access to data are key to being able to analyse the workings of
the family court system and evaluate changes and improvements. The approach to
transparency in the family courts is committed to promoting open justice while ensuring the
anonymity of those involved to enable effective public scrutiny and strengthen confidence
in judicial decisions. Since January 2025, new measures have been introduced across
England and Wales encouraging courts to make Transparency Orders, where journalists
or legal bloggers have attended hearings. These orders provide a clear framework for
journalists and legal bloggers to know what they are able to report on, balancing enhanced
transparency with the protection of vulnerable children and families. The Government has
also begun work to support the judiciary on increasing the number of family court
judgments that are published in anonymised form.
Family courts play a critical role in the lives of children – and in the lives of the adults that
those children become. We hope that, taken together, these measures will provide the
courts with clearer evidence and enable them to make safer decisions.

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
42
References
Allnock, D., Miller, P. & Baker, H. (2019) Key messages from research on identifying and
responding to disclosures of child sexual abuse. Ilford: Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual
Abuse. https://www.csacentre.org.uk/research-resources/key-messages/disclosures-csa/
(Viewed 17 April 2024)
Alrouh, B., Hargreaves, C., Cusworth, L., Broadhurst, K., North, L., Griffiths, L., Doebler,
S., Akbari, A., Farr, I., & Cowley, L. (2022) What do we know about ethnicity in the family
justice system in England? London: Nuffield family Justice Observatory.
https://www.nuffieldfjo.org.uk/resource/what-do-we-know-about-ethnicity-in-the-family-
justice-system-in-
england#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20Cafcass%20data,in%20public%20and%20pri
vate%20law (Viewed 17 April 2024)
Aris, R., Harrison, C. & Humphreys, C. (2002) Safety and child contact: an analysis of the
role of child contact centres in the context of domestic violence and child welfare
concern. London: Lord Chancellor’s Department.
https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/pdf/1274.pdf/ (Viewed 7 May 2024)
Asmussen, K., Fischer F., Drayton, E. & McBride, T. (2020) Adverse childhood
experiences: What we know, what we don’t know, and what should happen next. London:
Early Intervention Foundation. https://www.eif.org.uk/files/pdf/adverse-childhood-
experiences-report.pdf (Viewed 17 April 2024)
Bainham, A. (2013) Private and public children law: an under-explored relationship. Child
and Family Law Quarterly, 25(20): 138-158. https://fourteen.co.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2014/02/CFLQ_CFLQ_2013_2_Articles_2_sys.pdf (Viewed 17 April 2024)
Barnett, A. (2014) Contact at all Costs? Domestic violence and children’s welfare. Child
and Family Law Quarterly, 26(4), 439-472. http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/10241
(Viewed 18 April 2024)
Barnett, A. (2020) Domestic abuse and private law children cases: A literature review.
London: Ministry of Justice.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5ef3dd32d3bf7f7142efc034/domestic-
abuse-private-law-children-cases-literature-review.pdf (Viewed 17 April 2024)
Barnett-Jones, B. & Manning, C. (2021) Modernising post-adoption contact: findings from
a recent consultation. London: Nuffield Family Justice Observatory.
https://www.nuffieldfjo.org.uk/resource/adoption-connections (Viewed 17 April 2024)

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
43
Bedston, S. J., Pearson, R., Jay, M. A., Broadhurst, K., Gilbert, R. & Wijlaars, L. (2019)
Data Resource: Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) public
family law administrative records in England. International Journal of Population Data
Science, 5(1): 1-17. https://doi.org/10.23889/ijpds.v5i1.1159
Bell, F. (2016) Barriers to Empowering Children in Private Family Law Proceedings.
International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 30(3), 225-247.
https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebw009
Birchall, J. (2022) Two years, too long: Mapping action on the Harm Panel’s findings.
Bristol: Women's Aid. https://www.womensaid.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Two-
Years-Too-Long-2022.pdf (Viewed 17 April)
Birchall, J. & Choudhry, S. (2018) “What about my right not to be abused?” Domestic
abuse, human rights and the family courts. Bristol: Women’s Aid.
https://www.womensaid.org.uk/domestic-abuse-human-rights-and-the-family-courts/
(Viewed 18 April 2024)
Broadhurst, K., Cusworth, L., Harwin, J., Alrouh, B., Bedston, S., Trinder, L., Jones, K.,
Ford, D. & Griffiths, L. (2021) Scaling up research on family justice using largescale
administrative data: an invitation to the socio-legal community. Journal of Social Welfare
and Family Law, 43(3), 237-255. https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2021.1953856
Burton, M. (2021) What can go wrong in child arrangement proceedings where there are
allegations of domestic abuse? Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 43(4), 471-474.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2021.1999109
Cafcass (2016) What happened next? A study of interim outcomes following private law
proceedings as reported by parents six to nine months on. London: Cafcass.
https://www.cafcass.gov.uk/sites/default/files/migrated/What-happened-next-A-study-of-
interim-outcomes-following-private-law-proceedings-2016.pdf (Viewed 17 April 2024)
Cafcass & Women's Aid (2017) Allegations of domestic abuse in child contact cases.
London and Bristol: Cafcass and Women's Aid.
https://www.cafcass.gov.uk/sites/default/files/migrated/Allegations-of-domestic-abuse-in-
child-contact-cases-2017.pdf (Viewed 18 April 2024)
Cashmore, J. & Parkinson, P. (2008) Children's and Parent's Perceptions on Children's
Participation in Decision Making After Parental Separation and Divorce. Family Court
Review, 46(1), 91-104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2007.00185.x
Choudhry, S. (2019) When women's rights are not human rights – the non-performativity of
the human rights of victims of domestic abuse within English family law. Modern Law
Review, 82(6), 1072-1106. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12474

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
44
Cordis Bright (2023) Research into safeguarding processes in child contact centres in
England: Final report. London: Ministry of Justice.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6436b349877741000c68d865/research-
into-safeguarding-processes-in-child-contact-centres-in-england.pdf (Viewed 29 April
2024)
Coughlan, B., Duschinsky, R., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M., Bakkum, L., Skinner, G.,
Markham, A., Beckwith, H. & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2022) Sequelae of Child
Maltreatment: Umbrella synthesis on mental health correlates in over 11 million
participants. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/zj7kb (Viewed 17 April 2024)
Coy, M., Scott, E., Tweedale, R. & Perks, K. (2015). ‘It’s like going through the abuse
again’: domestic violence and women and children’s (un)safety in private law contact
proceedings. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 37(1), 53-69.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2015.1004863
Cusworth, L., Bedston, S., Trinder, L., Broadhurst, K., Pattinson, R., Alrouh, B., Doebler,
S., Akbari, A., Lee, A., Griffiths, L & Ford, D. (2020) Uncovering private family law: Who’s
coming to court in Wales? London: Nuffield Family Justice Observatory.
https://www.nuffieldfjo.org.uk/resource/private-family-law-whos-coming-to-court-wales
(Viewed 17 April 2024)
Cusworth, L., Bedston, S., Alrouh, B., Broadhurst, K., Johnson, R. D., Akbari, A., &
Griffiths, L. J. (2021a) Uncovering private family law: Who’s coming to court in England?
London: Nuffield Family Justice Observatory.
https://www.nuffieldfjo.org.uk/resource/private-family-law-whos-coming-to-court-england
(Viewed 17 April 2024)
Cusworth, L., Hargreaves, B., Alrouh, B., Broadhurst, K., Johnson, R., Griffiths, L., Akbari,
A., Doebler, S. & John, A. (2021b) Uncovering private family law: Adult characteristics and
vulnerabilities (Wales). London: Nuffield Family Justice Observatory.
https://www.nuffieldfjo.org.uk/resource/uncovering-private-family-law-adult-characteristics-
and-vulnerabilities-wales (Viewed 17 April 2024)
Domestic Abuse Commissioner (2023) The Family Court and domestic abuse: achieving
cultural change. London: The Domestic Abuse Commissioner for England and Wales.
https://domesticabusecommissioner.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/DAC_Family-Court-
Report-_2023_Digital.pdf (Viewed 18 April 2024)
Family Justice Young People’s Board (2021) In Our Shoes: experiences of children and
young people in the Family Justice System.
https://www.cafcass.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2023-06/In-our-shoes-full-book-for-
download.pdf (Viewed 18 April 2024)

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
45
Fortin, J., Hunt, J. & Scanlan, L. (2012) Taking a longer view of contact: the perspectives
of young adults who experience parental separation in their youth. Brighton: University of
Sussex.
https://sussex.figshare.com/articles/report/Taking_a_longer_view_of_contact_the_perspec
tives_of_young_adults_who_experience_parental_separation_in_their_youth/23395454
(Viewed 18 April 2024)
Griffiths, L. J., McGregor, J., Pouliou, T., Johnson, R. D., Broadhurst, K., Cusworth, L.,
North, L., Ford, D. & John, A. (2022) Anxiety and depression among children and young
people involved in family justice court proceedings: longitudinal national data linkage
study. BJPsych Open, 8(2): e47. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2022.6
Halliday, E., Green, R. & Marsh, B. (2017) Private law cases that return to court: a Cafcass
study. London: Cafcass.
https://www.cafcass.gov.uk/sites/default/files/migrated/private_law_cases_that_return_to_
court_-_cafcass_research_november_2017.pdf (Viewed 18 April 2024)
Harding, M. & Newnham, A. (2015) How do county courts share the care of children
between parents? Full Report. Coventry: University of Warwick.
http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/67826 (Viewed 17 April 2024)
Harding, M. & Newnham, A. (2017) Section 8 orders on the public-private law divide.
Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 39(1): 83-101.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2016.1177256
Hargreaves, C., Cusworth, L., Alrouh, B., Broadhurst, K., Griffiths, L., Cowley, L. &
Doebler, S. (2024) Uncovering private family law: How often do we hear the voice of the
child? London: Nuffield Family Justice Observatory.
https://whttps://www.nuffieldfjo.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Child_participation_08-
02-24.pdf (Viewed 17 April 2024)
Harold, G., Acquah, D., Chowdry, H., & Sellers, R. (2016) What works to enhance parental
relationships and improve outcomes for children? London: Early Intervention Foundation.
https://www.eif.org.uk/report/what-works-to-enhance-interparental-relationships-and-
improve-outcomes-for-children (Viewed 18 April 2024)
Harwood, J. (2018) Child arrangements orders (contact) and domestic abuse – An
exploration of the law and practice. Coventry: University of Warwick.
http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/135023 (Viewed 17 April 2024)
Harwood, J. (2021) Presuming the status quo? The impact of the statutory presumption of
parental involvement. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 43(2), 119-142.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2021.1917713

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
46
Hine, B. & Roy, E. (2023) Lost dads: The fathers and family breakdown, separation and
divorce (FBSD) Project. London: University of West London.
https://www.uwl.ac.uk/sites/uwl/files/2023-10/FBSD Project Report - accessible_0.pdf
(Viewed 17 April 2024)
Holt, S. (2018) A voice or a choice? Children’s views on participating in decisions about
post-separation contact with domestically abusive fathers. Journal of Social Welfare and
Family Law, 40(4), 459-476. https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2018.1519653
Hunt, J. & Macleod, A. (2008) Outcomes of applications to court for contact orders after
parental separation or divorce. London: Ministry of Justice.
https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/id/eprint/9145/1/outcomes-applications-contact-orders.pdf (Viewed
18 April 2024)
Hunter, M. & Barnett, A. (2013) Fact-finding hearings and the implementation of the
President’s practice direction: residence and contact Orders: Domestic violence and harm.
Project Report. London: Family Justice Council. https://kar.kent.ac.uk/35678/ (Viewed 18
April 2024)
Iyer, P., Boddy, J., Hammelsbeck, R. & Lynch-Huggins, S. (2020a) Contact following
placement in care, adoption, or special guardianship: implications for children and young
people’s well-being. Evidence review. London: Nuffield Family Justice Observatory.
https://www.nuffieldfjo.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/nfjo_contact_well-
being_report.pdf. (Viewed 17 April 2024)
Iyer, P., Albakri, M., Burridge, H., Mayer, M. & Gill, V. (2020b) The effects of digital contact
on children’s wellbeing: evidence from public and private law contexts. Rapid evidence
review. London: Nuffield Family Justice Observatory. https://www.nuffieldfjo.org.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2021/05/nfjo_digital_contact_rapid_evidence_review_20200521_final-3-
.pdf.
Johnson, R. D., Ford, D. V., Broadhurst, K., Cusworth, L., Jones, K.H., Akbari, A.,
Bedston, S., Alrouh, B., Doebler, S., Lee, A., Smart, J., Thompson, S., Trinder, L. &
Griffiths, L. J. (2020) Data Resource: population level family justice administrative data
with opportunities for data linkage. International Journal of Population Data Science, 5(1),
1-14. https://doi.org/10.23889/ijpds.v5i1.1339
Jones, R. (2023) Children and young people’s experiences of participation in private
proceedings in the family court. Cardiff: Welsh Government. GSR report number
114/2023. https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/statistics-and-research/2023-
12/children-and-young-peoples-experiences-of-participation-in-private-proceedings-in-the-
family-courts-report.pdf (Viewed 18 April 2024)

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
47
Kaganas, F. (2018) Parental involvement: A discretionary presumption. Legal
Studies, 38(4), 549-570. https://doi.org/10.1017/lst.2018.16
Katz, E. (2016) Beyond the physical incident model: How children living with domestic
violence are harmed by and resist regimes of coercive control. Child Abuse Review, 25(1):
46-59. https://doi.org/10.1002/car.2422
Katz, E. Nikupeteri, A. & Laitinen, M. (2020) When coercive control continues to harm
children: Post-separation fathering, stalking and domestic violence. Child Abuse Review,
29 (4): 310-324. https://doi.org/10.1002/car.2611
Lapierre, S., Côté, I. & Lessard, G. (2022) “He was the king of the house” - Children’s
perspectives on the men who abused their mothers. Journal of Family Trauma, Child
Custody & Child Development, 19(3-4), 244-260.
https://doi.org/10.1080/26904586.2022.2036284
Macdonald, G. S. (2017) Hearing children’s voices? Including children’s perspectives on
their experiences of domestic violence in welfare reports prepared for the English courts in
private family law proceedings. Child Abuse and Neglect, 65, 1-13.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2016.12.013
May, V. & Smart, C. (2004) Silence in court? – hearing children in residence and contact
disputes. Child and Family Law Quarterly, 16(3), 305-315.
https://ssrn.com/abstract=2029897 (Viewed 17 April 2024)
McFarlane, A. (2021) Confidence and confidentiality: Transparency in the family courts.
https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/transparency-in-the-family-courts-report-
3/ (Viewed 17 April 2024)
Ministry of Justice (2020a) Assessing risk of harm to children and parents in private law
children cases: Final Report. London: Ministry of Justice.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5ef3dcade90e075c4e144bfd/assessing-
risk-harm-children-parents-pl-childrens-cases-report_.pdf (Viewed 18 April 2024)
Ministry of Justice (2020b) Press release: Child protection at heart of courts review.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/child-protection-at-heart-of-courts-
review#:~:text=A%20review%20launching%20today%20(9,protections%20for%20domesti
c%20abuse%20victims (Viewed 17 April 2024)
Ministry of Justice (2023) Implementation plan: delivery update. London: Ministry of
Justice.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_
data/file/1158906/harm-panel-delivery-update.pdf (Viewed 17 April 2024)

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
48
Ministry of Justice (2024) Family Court Statistics Quarterly: October to December 2023,
(28 March 2024). https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/family-court-statistics-quarterly-
october-to-december-2023/family-court-statistics-quarterly-october-to-december-2023.
(Viewed 17 April 2024)
Neil, E. (2018) Rethinking adoption and birth family contact: is there a role for the law?
Family Law, 2018 (September), 1178–1182. https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/68360/
(Viewed 17 April 2024)
Neil, E., Beek, M. & Ward, E. (2013) Contact After Adoption: A Follow up in Late
Adolescence. Norwich: University of East Anglia
https://www.uea.ac.uk/documents/96135/4796949/D2+Contact_report_NEIL_dec_20_v2_
2013.pdf/109c28b2-f434-543c-eec0-f66b26fc6511?t=1619533262463 (Viewed 17 April
2024)
Neil, E., Copson, R., & Sorensen, P. (2020) Contact during lockdown: How are children
and their birth families keeping in touch? London: Nuffield Family Justice Observatory
https://www.nuffieldfjo.org.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2021/05/nfjo_contact_lockdown_rapid_research_briefing_paper_2020052
0_final.pdf (Viewed 18 April 2024)
North, L., Akbari, A., Cowley, L., Alrouh, B., Hargreaves, C., Cusworth, L., Broadhurst, K.,
Farr, I., Doebler, S., Aboueleninm, M., Smart, J., Ford, D. & Griffiths, L. J. (2022) What do
we know about ethnic diversity in the family justice system in Wales? London: Nuffield
Family Justice Observatory. https://www.nuffieldfjo.org.uk/resource/what-do-we-know-
about-ethnic-diversity-in-the-family-justice-system-in-wales (Viewed 17 April 2024)
Office for National Statistics (2023) Domestic abuse in England and Wales overview:
November 2023.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/domestic
abuseinenglandandwalesoverview/november2023 (Viewed 18 April 2024)
Organ, J. & Sigafoos, J. (2018) The impact of LASPO on routes to justice. Equality and
Human Rights Commission Research Report 118.
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/f iles/the-impact-of-laspo-on-routes-
to-justice-september-2018.pdf (Viewed 17 April 2024)
Perry, A. & Rainey, B. (2007) Supervised, supported and indirect contact orders: research
findings. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 21(1), 21-47.
https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebl020
Roe, A. (2021) Children’s experience of private law proceedings: Six key messages from
research. London: Nuffield Family Justice Observatory. https://www.nuffieldfjo.org.uk/wp-

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
49
content/uploads/2021/10/Childrens-experience-of-private-law-proceedings.pdf (Viewed 17
April 2024)
Saied-Tessier, A. (2023) What do we know about adults in private law proceedings?
London: Nuffield Family Justice Observatory. https://www.nuffieldfjo.org.uk/resource/what-
do-we-know-about-adults-in-private-law-proceedings-spotlight-series (Viewed 17 April
2024)
Scott, S. (2023) Key messages from research on intra-familial child sexual abuse. Second
edition. Ilford: Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual abuse.
https://www.csacentre.org.uk/research-resources/key-messages/intra-familial-csa/
https://www.csacentre.org.uk/app/uploads/2023/09/Key-messages-from-research-on-intra-
familial-child-sexual-abuse-2nd-edition.pdf >(Viewed 17 April 2024)
Sheehan, G., Carson, R., Fehlberg, B., Hunter, R., Tomison, A., Ip, R. & Dewar, J. (2005).
Children’s contact services: expectation and experience. The Australian Government.
https://webarchive.nla.gov.au/awa/20050906042012/http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/52122/
20050906-
0000/www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/rwpattach.nsf/viewasattachmentPersonal/final+report.pdf
(Viewed 17 May 2024)
Stark, E. (2007) Coercive Control The Entrapment of Women in Personal Life. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Steinbach, A. & Augustijn, L. (2022) Children's well-being in sole and joint physical custody
families. Journal of Family Psychology, 36(2), 301–311.
https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000875
Steinbach, A., Augustijn, L. & Corkadi, G. (2020) Joint physical custody and adolescents’
Life satisfaction in 37 North American and European countries. Family Process, 60(1),
145-158. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12536
Symonds, J., Dermott, E., Hitchings, E., Staples, E. & Ottaway, H. (2022) Separating
families: Experiences of separation and support. London: Nuffield Family Justice
Observatory. https://www.nuffieldfjo.org.uk/resource/separating-families-experiences-of-
separation-and-support (Viewed 17 April 2024)
Thiara, R. & Gill, A. (2012) Domestic violence, child contact and post-separation violence -
issues for South Asian and African-Caribbean women and children - A report of findings.
London: National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Domestic violence,
child contact, post-separation violence: issues for South Asian and African-Caribbean
women and children: a report of findings (nspcc.org.uk) (Viewed 18 April 2024)

Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement
50
Trinder, L., Hunt, J., Macleod, A., Pearce, J. & Woodward, H. (2013) Enforcing contact
orders: problem solving or punishment. Exeter: Exeter Law School.
http://hdl.handle.net/10871/16765 (Viewed 18 April 2024)
Trinder, L., Hunter, R., Hitchings, E., Miles, J., Moorhead, R., Smith, L., Sefton, M.,
Hinchly, V., Bader, K. & Pearce, J. (2014) Litigants in person in private family law. London:
Ministry of Justice.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7e2218ed915d74e33f0448/litigants-in-
person-in-private-family-law-cases.pdf (Viewed 17 April 2024)
Toros, K. (2021) A systematic review of children’s participation in child protection decision-
making: Tokenistic presence or not? Children & Society, 35(3), 395-411. DOI:
10.1111/chso.12418

© Crown copyright 2025

This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government
Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence,
visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3

Where we have identified any third party copyright information you
will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.