Courts Bill to repeal parental involvement presumption

Here’s the line to add to your notes this week. The Government has written into a new Courts and Tribunals Bill its plan to remove the “presumption of parental involvement” from family court cases in England and Wales. The Bill was introduced on 25 February 2026 and MPs are due to debate Second Reading on Tuesday 10 March 2026. This is a proposal, not yet law. (commonslibrary.parliament.uk)

What is the presumption? Since 2014, section 1(2A) of the Children Act has told judges to begin by presuming a child benefits from both parents’ involvement, unless that risks harm. It sits alongside the welfare principle, which makes the child’s best interests the court’s paramount consideration. Knowing this helps you read any headline about “contact” with more care. (commonslibrary.parliament.uk)

What would repeal do in practice? Family courts would no longer start from that assumption. Judges would take an open‑minded look at each child’s safety and wellbeing. Where a parent is a risk, involvement could be limited to supervised time, indirect contact such as letters, or none at all, as the Ministry of Justice explains. (gov.uk)

Why now? A government review published in October 2025 pulled together research, case analysis and voices from the family courts. It found the presumption was not always applied consistently and might contribute to unsafe outcomes; an earlier “harm panel” had already called for urgent change. Ministers say repeal signals that children’s safety comes first. (assets.publishing.service.gov.uk)

Policy is being framed in human terms too. The Ministry of Justice dedicates the change to campaigner Claire Throssell, whose sons Jack and Paul were killed by their father; Women’s Aid calls repeal a historic win for survivors and children. When you see policy headlines, remember the people whose experiences push issues onto the agenda. (gov.uk)

What it means for families and practitioners now. Until Parliament passes the Bill and it receives Royal Assent, the legal framework is unchanged. Judges must still apply the welfare principle and existing guidance in abuse cases, and decisions remain case‑by‑case. If you are in proceedings, ask your adviser to explain how the current law applies to your situation. (commonslibrary.parliament.uk)

The Bill also packages wider justice reforms you’ll hear a lot about in class and in the news. It would restrict the right of defendants to choose a jury for many either‑way offences, create judge‑only “swift” trials for cases with likely sentences up to three years, expand magistrates’ sentencing powers, and reserve juries for the most serious crimes. The Ministry of Justice says judge‑only “swift” trials could cut hearing time by about 20 percent. (commonslibrary.parliament.uk)

These criminal‑court plans are contested. The House of Commons Library records strong opposition from the Criminal Bar Association and others to limiting jury trials, and notes calls for any change to be piloted. Media‑literacy tip: compare government time‑saving claims with independent assessments and look closely at which offences would leave the jury system. (commonslibrary.parliament.uk)

Key dates and where scrutiny happens. Second Reading is scheduled for Tuesday 10 March 2026, after which MPs can propose amendments at Committee stage. The Justice Committee has opened a call for evidence on the Bill’s detail, including which cases would lose jury trials and how much backlog reduction is realistic. Following that process is a smart way to build your own view. (parliament.uk)

Study prompts you can use. Try contrasting a presumption (a legal starting point) with a principle (a guiding rule), then test how judges might apply the best‑interests test without a default assumption in a fictional case study. Track messaging too: on 24 February, the Deputy Prime Minister set out plans for “faster, fairer” courts, including a pilot AI assistant and targeted “Blitz” listing to clear backlogs-spot what is evidenced and what still needs proof. (gov.uk)

Glossary checkpoint. Best interests test: the court’s paramount consideration under section 1 of the Children Act 1989. Child arrangements order: decides where a child lives, spends time or has other contact. Supervised contact: time with a parent in the presence of an approved adult or centre. Either‑way offence: a crime that can be tried in the magistrates’ court or the Crown Court. (commonslibrary.parliament.uk)