On the 22nd October 2025, it was announced that the government is going to repeal the presumption of parental involvement in s1(2A) of the Children Act 1989.  Our hosts Simon Blain and Anita Mehta, ask Mary McKaskill (National Centre for Social Research), Natalie Sutherland (International Family Law Group LLP) and Sarah Williams (Forsters) about what the research to support that change shows and what it means in practice.

Natalie reminds us that the recommendation to review this section appeared in the Harm Report from June 2020. The MOJ announced that there would be a review in November 2020 and this is the report.

The review of the presumption of parental involvement involved three research projects commissioned by the MOJ. Mary was the Lead Researcher in the team that undertook the judgment analysis. They reviewed 245 judgments from eight courts including one in Wales. There was also a literature review of academic papers and grey literature by Alma Economics and qualitative research in the form of interviews with Black, Asian and Ethnic minorities by the Race Equality Foundation. The MOJ report Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68f5f5c206e6515f7914c7e3/Review_of_the_Presumption_of_Parental_Involvement_Final_Report_.pdf

Mary was clear that the judgment analysis had to grapple with challenges such as variability of data, lack of accessibility, struggling to find records of the actual judgment, the detail of the specifics of the order or how a specific decision was reached.  There is also always a risk of bias or that certain experiences were not captured given this was a sample. Nevertheless, the report does find:

1. More times than not, some form of child arrangement is ordered.  The report found that the courts did follow a ‘no stone unturned’ approach to foster involvement with both parents even where there was found to be a risk of harm.
2. That it was not possible to understand from the study what weight the presumption had in decision making.
3. However, involvement was almost always ordered, even where there were risks, so the report expresses concern that this is in contradiction with the child’s welfare.

The report was unable to explore the long-term impact of the orders that are being made, which would require a longitudinal study.

Natalie and Sarah go on to discuss the impact of this report, together with the review of the first pathfinder pilot, ‘Understanding the Experience of Children and Families’ https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/695544d06a4ea67a402a839c/Private_Law_Pathfinder_Pilot.pdf

Natalie noted that in the review of Pathfinder, there were parents who appreciated the efficiency of Pathfinder, but others who felt they had not been heard.  Sarah was concerned that Pathfinder is dependent on support being provided from charitable partners and that is dependent on their availability.  Natalie considered whether the removal of review hearings has had an impact on outcomes, and whether this should have remained part of Pathfinder.

Mary concludes by telling us that the report found that the voice of the child is not heard in private law proceedings. The finding was that children’s voices were amplified when they agreed with the Court, i.e. wanting contact but diminished when they did not.

In/Fertility in the City – Natalie’s podcast with Somaya Ouzzani, can be accessed on their webpage: https://infertilityinthecity.com/.