A report by the UK government on the review of the so called ‘presumption of contact‘ is due soon. Awaited eagerly by women’s rights campaigners, who have done their best to convince politicians that there is a risk to children inherent in the relationship with their fathers after family separation, this report will show us whether this government is going to shift the position taken by the Conservative government in 2014, when they inserted a clause into the Children Act on the presumption not of contact, but of ‘involvement‘.
The presumption of parental involvement, states that a child’s welfare is generally furthered by the involvement of both parents, unless there is evidence to the contrary. This presumption is enshrined in section 1(2A) of the Children Act 1989. The legislation aims to ensure both parents are actively engaged in their child’s life post-separation, unless such involvement would be detrimental.
Summary
There is no presumption of contact in law, or in the operation of the law, in England and Wales. Part 1 of the Children Act 1989 is very clear. The presumption is of ‘involvement’ not ‘contact’ (para 2A), involvement may be ‘direct or indirect’ (2B) and only if involvement is not ‘contrary’ to ‘the child’s welfare’ (2A). The court is required to have ‘regard in particular’ to ‘any harm’ th atthe child ‘has suffered or is at risk of suffering’ (3e). A parent may only be involved in the child’s life ‘in a way that does not put the child at risk of suffering harm’ (6a). And a parent may not be involved in the child’s life if ‘there is some evidence before the court (…) to suggest that involvement of that parent in the child’s life would put the child at risk of suffering harm whatever the form of the involvement’ (6b).
On any reading of this clause, the women’s rights campaigners have created a straw man argument because ‘end the presumption of contact‘, which is currently their banner cry suggests that presumption of contact is a real thing, it isn’t. There is no ‘presumption of contact’ in the Children Act 1989, only a presumption of involvement and that presumption of involvement, will only occur where it is considered safe and can, if it is determined in Court, be limited to letterbox contact.
However, a whole lot of taxpayer’s money has been poured into the campaign to make the public believe that there is a presumption of contact which is putting countless numbers of children at risk of harm. Women’s Aid for example, in their recent campaign entitled ‘Hear the children or grieve them‘ sets out a new report in which they say that 19 more children have been killed by a parent due to unsafe contact ordered by the family courts. Some supporters, link these deaths of children, to the use of ‘parental alienation theory‘ in the family courts as well as a ‘pro contact’ culture.
The purpose of this Women’s Aid report appears to be to put pressure upon the government to make changes to an act which doesn’t actually have a ‘presumption of contact‘ within it. Now I don’t know what the ‘Hear them or grieve them campaign‘ cost Women’s Aid but the creative agency behind it is Hijinks, who apparently believe that ‘advertising should be fun‘ and whose launch of the Women’s Aid campaign was described as an ‘Ooh’ campaign on the website for creatives called Creative Moment. (What Women’s Aid don’t tell you in their campaign, is that they are also pressuring the government to increase funding for domestic abuse services to £502 million). Which leaves me wondering about the lives of those 19 children who were killed by their parents, and the manner in which they are being used to push a straw man argument for a cash reward.
In 2013, I sat on the committee which reviewed whether the so called ‘presumption of contact‘ should be inserted into the Children Act. Back then I was not a supporter of what is called 50/50 shared care (and I am still not), because my clinical experience shows me that children’s needs change over time and that their needs are best met by parents who understand the internal experience of the child in a changing world. Back then, my lack of support for 50/50 shared care got me into a lot of trouble with the men’s rights movement, because it was the banner cry of their campaign. The work of that committee ended with the insertion of a clause into the children act which remains to this day – that clause reads –
11Welfare of the child: parental involvement
(1)Section 1 of the Children Act 1989 (welfare of the child) is amended as follows.
(2)After subsection (2) insert—
“(2A)A court, in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (4)(a) or (7), is as respects each parent within subsection (6)(a) to presume, unless the contrary is shown, that involvement of that parent in the life of the child concerned will further the child’s welfare.
(2B)In subsection (2A) “involvement” means involvement of some kind, either direct or indirect, but not any particular division of a child’s time.”
(3)After subsection (5) insert—
“(6)In subsection (2A) “parent” means parent of the child concerned; and, for the purposes of that subsection, a parent of the child concerned—
(a)is within this paragraph if that parent can be involved in the child’s life in a way that does not put the child at risk of suffering harm; and
(b)is to be treated as being within paragraph (a) unless there is some evidence before the court in the particular proceedings to suggest that involvement of that parent in the child’s life would put the child at risk of suffering harm whatever the form of the involvement.
(7)The circumstances referred to are that the court is considering whether to make an order under section 4(1)(c) or (2A) or 4ZA(1)(c) or (5) (parental responsibility of parent other than mother).”
When a change is no change at all
On any reading of the above clause it is apparent that the only change made was to add the word involvement and that involvement can mean letterbox contact. Back then, when the clause was announced, the government said in its notes to accompany the change that the purpose was not to actually make any change, but to change public perception.
In truth then, there is no presumption of contact, there is no presumption of equal time, there is no presumption of anything in fact, other than involvement in the child’s life where it is considered by the Court to be safe.
29 Child Homicides
Now one might say that 19 children being killed after contact was ordered by the Family Court, cannot be considered safe and it is self evident that the murder of 19 children is tragic and it is unacceptable. The reality of these 19 child homicides however, may look a little different when they are scrutinised carefully, as Lord Justice Wall, did when Women’s Aid launched their first report of this nature entitled 29 child homicides.
Back then in 2006, his report began with an introduction, which included the following statement –
One frequently has allegations, for example, that a woman
in a refuge is required to make her children see the person
whom she is fleeing. I would be interested to look at the file
on that case, to look at the evidence put before the judge
and to look at the judgment. What was the judge doing?
Did he make an order like that? If so, why? If that sort of
order is being made it is totally unacceptable; it is
dangerous to children and it should not happen. I think this
needs to be slightly more than anecdotal. I think it should
be investigated properly.
Lord Justice Wall did investigate and his findings are interesting. Reporting to the President of the Family Division he set out the following –
The first is that 29 Child homicides deals with a 10 year period. Eighteen of the twenty-nine children who were murdered were not subject to any form of court proceedings.
8.3 Of the eleven children who were the subject of court proceedings, I am satisfied that eight (the children of the families in Parts 3, 4 and 5) died as aresult of parental actions which could not have been reasonably foreseen orprevented by the court, and in which no criticism can be made of the judgeswho made the respective contact orders.
8.4 Of the remaining three (the children of the families in sections 6 and 7) it isarguable that the court should have taken a more proactive stance andrefused to make a consent order for contact. On the other side of theargument, however, is the case put forward by the judges for making thecontact orders, and the fact that the orders were made in what the judgesconcerned genuinely believed to be in the best interests of the children.
The 29 Child Homicides report and the investigation by Lord Justice Wall, suggest that it is not too far fetched to query whether the use of information which is not entirely conversant with fact, might be a pattern which is repeating itself in the current day. It is certainly the case for example that the pressure upon the government, which comes from many different quarters, includes reliance on articles which are based upon the self reports of mothers and that some of those reports are based upon mothers against whom findings of abuse have been made. Some of those articles are cited as having being relied upon by the BBC in the making of the documentary ‘Mums on the Run’, a claim which one author has recently resiled from, presumably because one of those ‘mums on the run’ has been imprisoned for child abduction.
So what are these campaigners are looking for in what is likely to be their last chance to achieve a long held goal before the UK ends up with a right of Tory government? Well the core goal is the removal of the notion that a father is necessary in a child’s life – ie; they are looking for a return to the days when fathers were considered to be a ‘secondary resource, best used when strategically deployed.‘ In a nutshell, a world where families need fathers only when they are under the control of mothers.
I should self disclose here and say that I was a single mother back in the late eighties and far from not needing a partner or father for my child, I experienced solo parenting as physically and psychologically demanding and often desperately lonely. I should also self disclose and say that the men in my childhood were less than safe, in fact I would characterise them as being controlling and abusive. In every respect these experiences should make me a prime supporter of the campaign to ‘end the presumption of contact’ (even though there is no such thing), but it doesn’t. I neither support ending the right of children to have safe contact with their father, nor do I support 50/50 shared care. I guess that makes me neither a mother’s rights advocate or a father’s rights advocate although on reading some conspiracy theories on the internet, you would be forgiven for believing I am both.
What I am is an advocate for children to have the right to an unconscious experience of childhood. For them to be supported through divorce and separation and to be protected from the worst harms which can befall them when they are in the care of a parent who is abusive, controlling, coercive, frightening, unpredictable or psychologically or psychiatrically disordered. And its that respect, in my view, the Children Act 1989, as it stands, does a good enough job of supporting that right.
The Children Act 1989 as it reads now
“105. The purpose of this amendment to section 1 of the Children Act 1989 is to reinforce the importance of children having an ongoing relationship with both parents after family separation, where that is safe and in the child’s best interests. The new subsection (2B) of section 1 is explicit that it is not the purpose of this amendment to promote the equal division of a child’s time between separated parents. The effect is to require the court, in making decisions on contested section 8 orders, the contested variation or discharge of such orders or the award or removal of parental responsibility, to presume that a child’s welfare will be furthered by the involvement of each of the child’s parents in his or her life, unless it can be shown that such involvement would not in fact further the child’s welfare. Involvement means any kind of direct or indirect involvement but not any particular division of the child’s time. . (A “section 8 order” is one of the orders defined by section 8 of the Children Act 1989 – child arrangements orders (which replace contact orders and residence orders), prohibited steps orders and specific issue orders.)
106.The presumption can only apply in the case of a parent falling within the new section 1(6)(a) of the Children Act 1989. A parent falls within section 1(6)(a) if that parent can be involved in the child’s life in a way that does not put the child at risk of suffering harm. A parent is to be treated (by virtue of the new section 1(6)(b)) as someone whose involvement will not give rise to a risk of harm to the child unless the court has evidence before it that involvement of that person would give rise to such a risk, whatever the form of the involvement.
107.If a parent can be involved in the child’s life in a way that does not put the child at risk of suffering harm (whether that be through direct, indirect or supervised contact) the presumption applies to that parent and the court must then go on to consider whether the presumption is rebutted on the basis that it is shown that the involvement of that parent would not in fact further the child’s welfare.
108.Therefore, even where a parent can be involved without posing a risk of harm to the child, the presumption will be rebutted if the court believes that the parent’s involvement is not consistent with the child’s welfare.
109.In a case where the presumption stands in respect of either or both of the child’s parents, the court will be required to presume that the child’s welfare will be furthered by the involvement of that parent (or those parents) in the child’s life. This will be a consideration for the court to weigh in the balance when deciding whether to make an order (and if so what order to make) in a particular case, along with the other considerations in section 1 of the Children Act 1989, subject to the overriding requirement that the child’s welfare remains the court’s paramount consideration.
No return to ideology in the family courts
I don’t want to return to a time when mothers were gatekeepers of the relationship that fathers had with their children and I don’t want to return to a time when it was considered normal that families didn’t need fathers. Whilst there are some protections that I would put in place for children, for example, the over reliance on their wishes and feelings, which arguably led to the death of Sara Sharif when the social workers listened to her wishes and feelings and recommended she be placed with her father.
Ironically, the underlying ‘listen to the children‘ message that Women’s Aid are trying to convey in their ‘hear them or grieve them‘ campaign is the very thing that put Sara Sharif in such danger because she was in fact heard and she was placed with her father because she said that’s where she felt safe. Sadly she wasn’t safe in his care and her mother, who she had been forced to make allegations against, couldn’t protect her. This is clear evidence in my view that hearing children doesn’t guarantee that we won’t end up grieving them.
We all grieved Sara Sharif’s unnecessary death and whilst the media went on a witch hunt, in their attempt to blame the Judge in the case, (another repeating theme from the 2004 report – 29 Child Homicides, which called for legal professionals to be held accountable when a child died), those of us who know the complexity of managing cases such as these, recognise the risks which come from reducing them down to binary themes of heroes and villains and the harm that is caused when ideological demands are allowed to dominate the family courts.
The real problem with the ‘end the presumption of contact‘ campaign is not that it is a straw man argument, it is that it is not about children at all. What the campaign seeks is to empower women and to render the needs of children once again indivisible from the rights of their mothers. This will put more children not less at risk of harm, by placing power over children into the hands of an ideology which has little in the way of understanding children and too much in the way of focus upon the rights of women.
Time will tell whether the government will bend to the pressures placed upon them by this group of campaigners. What is certain however is that children will be no safer after the non existent ‘presumption of contact’ is removed, than they are today, in fact I would argue that in the light of campaigns which attempt to increase the idea that all children should be listened to and we should do what they say, more children like Sara Sharif will lose their lives not less.
The removal of the presumption of involvement means that the Children Act 1989 will be less protective than it used to be and once again in Britain, mothers will have more power to determine children’s relationships with their fathers. All of which will lead us back to the time of women as heroines and fathers as villains and an environment when it will no longer be considered essential that families need fathers. This is not about child focused protection, in fact sadly, it is not about the children at all.
Presenting your case to the professionals
An online event for parents of alienated children and their families with Nick Woodall
Saturday 2 August 2025
This seminar will be delivered on Zoom between 17:00 and 19:00 UK Time.
To check your local start time, please click the link below, ensure ‘Date’ is selected, and enter 17:00 – 2025-08-02 – London in the right-hand boxes, here: https://dateful.com/time-zone-converter
A Zoom link for this event will be included in your order confirmation (if you do not receive this, please check your spam folder).
Cost £45.00
T&Cs: Please read our terms and conditions here
Please note: this seminar will not be recorded and available to watch again.
About this seminar
Parents who are working to preserve or re-establish the natural relationship with their children will, in almost all cases, come into contact with a wide range of professionals, including child custody evaluators, social workers, lawyers, judges, psychologists and therapists. Each of these professionals will play a part in determining the outcome of the case. As a parent in the rejected position, how you respond to those professionals, and how you present your case can be a critical factor in whether you achieve your goal.
This seminar will examine the world of family separation professionals and the systems in which they work. It will also look, in detail, at the types of professional you might meet and how they fit into that wider system. In addition, it will focus on the importance of narrative and the art of story telling, offering practical insights and skills so that you can be concise, precise and persuasive.
There will also be time for Q&A on workshop content.
The seminar will offer you:
- ways to talk about you case that can be easily understood
- key skills for constructing court documents
- insights into professionals’ biases and how they operate
- information about the use of expert witnesses
- strategies for considering risk and reward approaches to decision making
This seminar is for all parents with children who are affected by alignment and rejecting behaviour, whether your child is present in your life or not.
PLEASE NOTE: The content of this seminar is for informational purposes only and is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should not rely on any information we may provide you with as an alternative to legal advice from a fully qualified legal professional regulated by the appropriate authorities. We strongly advise you to take professional legal advice from a fully qualified legal professional regulated by the appropriate authorities.
About Nick Woodall
Nick Woodall is a psychotherapist and holds a Masters degree in psychodynamic psychotherapy from the University of London. He is also a therapeutic mediator, accredited by the School of Psychotherapy & Counselling Psychology, Regents University, London. Nick has worked with families experiencing divorce or separation since 1999 and specialises in childhood relational trauma and the onset of disorganised attachment behaviours that can occur in the context of family separation and divorce.
Nick has worked on family separation policy and service design for the UK Government and has been a guest lecturer at the Judicial College of England and Wales. He has authored and co-authored a number of commercially published books on the subject of children’s responses and changing needs in the context of divorce or family separation.
Karen Woodall - Psychotherapist, Writer, Researcher, Trainer 
Leave a comment