The Courts and Tribunals Bill passed through the House of Commons on Tuesday 13th October. It is a momentous step in the right direction to tackle the pro-contact culture in the family courts that puts children and survivors at risk.
Clause 17 of the bill repeals the presumption that parental involvement, a dangerous presumption that put the rights of a parent, regardless of whether they are abusive, above the safety of a child.
Clause 17 is also known as Jack and Paul’s Law, in memory of Claire Throssell MBE’s sons, who were murdered by their father on a court-ordered contact visit. Congratulations to Claire for this incredible achievement, and thank you for your truly exceptional campaigning for children’s safety. We very much welcome Dr Marie Tidball MP’s strong rebuttal of the Conservative Party’s proposed amendment to remove Clause 17 from the bill.
Removing the presumption will help put children’s rights and welfare at the heart of family court proceedings. Right to Equality has campaigned for the repeal of presumption since our inception.
We also welcome tabled amendments from Josh Fenton-Glynn MP, Alison Hume MP and Jess Fuller-Brown MP, aiming to improve how family courts deal with domestic abuse.
Josh Fenton-Glynn MP’s amendment would require the government to report on post-separation abuse in decisions made by courts under the Children Act 1989. The family courts are often described as a “weapon” for post-separation abuse as perpetrators use family court proceedings to continue their campaign of emotional, psychological and financial abuse.
Jess Fuller-Brown MP’s amendment would require an assessment of legal aid provision, especially for victims of domestic abuse, and the family court’s capacity to carry out proper risk assessments and fact-finding under Practice Direction 12J. She also proposes that the assessment include plans to fix gaps in judicial training on coercive control, domestic abuse and child safeguarding. Right to Equality has long campaigned for judicial training around domestic abuse, and it is one of the key recommendations of our report on victim-blaming in the family courts.
Alison Hume MP suggests the courts adopt a presumption that a child’s reluctance or refusal to spend time with a parent, where there are allegations of domestic abuse against them, constitutes a reasonable and justified response to the domestic abuse. When children do not want to see an abusive parent, the protective parent is blamed and accused of “parental alienation”. Too often, protective mothers face punishment, sometimes prison and having their child removed, for not facilitating contact between their child and an abusive father. This proposed presumption would recognise children’s refusal to see an abusive parent as a direct response to the abuse.
We hope to see the bill pass through the House of Lords and to be made into law. While the presumption has been abolished, continued reform is necessary to ensure the family justice system prioritises children’s safety and wellbeing and protects survivors of abuse.
Our founder and director, Dr Charlotte Proudman, spoke to Sarah-Jane Mee on Sky News following the passage of the bill.