{"id":5982,"date":"2026-08-11T11:00:25","date_gmt":"2026-08-11T10:00:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\/blogs\/?p=5982"},"modified":"2026-08-11T13:46:32","modified_gmt":"2026-08-11T12:46:32","slug":"changes-to-child-arrangements","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\/blogs\/changes-to-child-arrangements\/","title":{"rendered":"A Landmark Shift in Child Arrangements: Saying Goodbye to the Presumption of Parental Involvement"},"content":{"rendered":"

For over a decade, anyone walking into an English family court to resolve a child arrangements dispute faced a specific legal starting point. Section 1(2A) of the Children Act 1989, <\/span>introduced in 2014, requires judges to start from the \u00a0presumption that the involvement of both parents in a child\u2019s life would be in the child\u2019s best interests , provided it was safe.<\/span><\/h4>\n

That is about to change. Through the new\u00a0Courts and Tribunals Bill<\/b>, the Government is proposing to repeal the presumption of parental involvement.<\/span><\/p>\n

As family lawyers, we are preparing clients for the most profound culture shift our justice system has seen in years. Here is what this historic reform actually means for parents and child arrangement proceedings.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Moving Away from a “Pro-Contact” Culture<\/h2>\n

While the 2014 amendment was originally designed to ensure children maintained healthy relationships with both parents after separation, the practical reality in court was often very different. A Ministry of Justice report, following the tragic case\u00a0of\u00a0the murder of Jack and Paul Throssell at the hands of their father after the court granted him unsupervised contact, concluded that court orders were being made for children to have direct contact with a parent despite evidence that they pose a risk to the child. The concern is that the legislation had inadvertently created a “contact at all costs” culture.<\/span><\/p>\n

As solicitors working with families, we frequently witness cases where genuine, credible safety concerns are unintentionally minimised or overshadowed by the presumption putting children and survivors of domestic abuse at risk.<\/span><\/p>\n

By removing the presumption, the law is shifting from a rigid starting position to an open-minded, evidence based decision making process.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

What Replaces the Presumption?<\/h2>\n

It is vital to understand that repealing the presumption does not mean the court suddenly opposes co-parenting. Safe, positive involvement from both parents will always be encouraged when it\u00a0is\u00a0genuinely best for a child.<\/span><\/p>\n

Instead, the change returns full discretion to our family judges. Without a statutory bias to overcome, the court will rely strictly on the established\u00a0Welfare Checklist<\/b>\u00a0(Section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989) from day one. Judges will evaluate each family entirely on its individual facts, focusing heavily on:<\/span><\/p>\n