We are a collection of organisations working with, or on behalf of, victim-survivors of abuse. We are concerned that children are being forced into contact with abusive parents as a result of private law family proceedings.
We support the Government’s decision to repeal the presumption of parental involvement which we believe contributes to unsafe decision making and the pro-contact culture that puts children at risk of harm. Repealing this presumption would mean the family courts will no longer start from the assumption that involvement of both parents will further the child’s welfare, and instead adopt an open-minded inquiry into what is in their best interests. This would mark the first step in changing the culture of the family courts.
Research indicates that up to 93% of child arrangement cases involve domestic abuse. Yet despite the likelihood of abuse being raised and the resulting risks to children of continued contact with an abusive parent, domestic and sexual abuse are frequently minimised and poorly assessed within family law proceedings.
The victims and safe parents we encounter face significant challenges in proceedings. They struggle firstly to evidence that involvement with an abusive parent will not further the welfare of their children and, secondly, that this abusive parent represents a risk of harm. This is the double burden placed on victim-survivors by section 1(2A) and Section 6(a) and (b) of the Children Act 1989, known as the presumption of parental involvement. Fact-finding hearings are also rare, estimated to be held in only around 4% of cases. This limits the opportunity for victim-survivors to evidence abuse and the harms posed by contact, especially when many victim-survivors are litigants in person. In the absence of fact-findings, courts rely on risk assessments of variable quality, leading to decisions which place a child at risk of further trauma and abuse.
Survivors of abuse, or safe parents of children who have disclosed abuse, are often given contradictory messages about how to safeguard their children after separation. Police and social services advise victim-survivors to exit abusive relationships and obtain protective orders to safeguard their children. In private law proceedings, victim-survivors are told that a ‘child-focused’ approach is one which is supportive of shared care and continued contact. This creates disincentives to report abuse and pushes safe parents into facilitating contact against their protective instincts. The response of our child protection systems should be consistent and centre child safety.
When safe parents are steadfast in their objection to child contact with an abusive parent or presents a risk to the child, they are easily perceived as ‘hostile’, ‘emotionally abusive’ or accused of ‘alienating’ their child. Victim-survivors and safe parents have been told by professionals that if they do not soften their objections and compromise, they risk their child being transferred to live with the abusive parent. Right to Equality and Survivor Family Network survey research found that 81.1% of mothers who reported having their child removed via private proceedings were accused of not facilitating or supporting the relationship between the father and the children.
Allegations of ‘alienation’ or similar pseudoscientific concepts appear to be particularly prevalent when children disclose child sexual abuse. The national review into child sexual abuse in the family environment identified cases where children were given unsupervised contact with the parent or carer who was sexually abusing them. The presumption of parental involvement upholds this approach, as it leads professionals to view facilitating contact as evidence of positive parenting.
Women’s Aid’s ‘Child First’ campaign has powerfully demonstrated that children’s lives are at stake when contact is prioritised over children’s safety. There are also thousands of children and safe parents being forced into traumatic contact each week, with serious impacts for children’s wellbeing, mental health, education and experience of day-to-day safety and stability after experiences of domestic or sexual abuse.
The introduction of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, Practice Direction 12J and now the introduction of the Child Focused Courts have brought welcome improvements in private law family proceedings. However, the pro-contact culture identified in the Harm Panel Report remains steadfast and further change is needed for these developments to be successful.
We have campaigned for mandated judicial training but this call is repeatedly dismissed because of the principle of judicial independence. We acknowledge that repealing the presumption of parental involvement is not the only change needed to create a fair and safe family justice system. However, legislative change is an important step that the Government can take to address the long-held and dangerous pro-contact culture.
The repeal of the presumption of parental involvement resets the law to focus on the welfare of the child and we wholeheartedly support it.
Signed by
Lucy Hayton, CEO, Right to Equality
Kiran Dhami, Head of Policy and Research, Women’s Resource Centre
Angie Herrera, Latin American Women’s Aid
Ciara Bergman, CEO, Rape Crisis England & Wales
Sarah Hill, CEO, Independent Domestic Abuse Services (IDAS)
Farah Nazeer, CEO, Women’s Aid
Ian Dean, Director, Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse
Natasha Rattu, CEO, Karma Nirvana
Emma Robinson, Associate Director of Practice, Learning and Standards, SafeLives
Dr Elizabeth Dalgarno, SHERA Research Group
Natalie Page, Director of Survivor Family network
Legal Services Manager, Luci Coffey, Solicitor, We Stand
Nicola Douglas, European Regional Manager, Safe & Together Institute