Ending the Pro-Contact Culture: What Repealing the Presumption Achieves
By Nic Douglas, European Regional Manager, Safe & Together Institute
The announcement that the UK government will repeal the presumption of parental involvement from the Children Act 1989 is a testament to the tireless campaigning of Claire Throssell, who has fought to change a system that catastrophically failed to protect her sons, Jack and Paul, who were tragically killed by their abusive father during a contact visit 11 years ago.
Her courage, alongside the voices of countless survivors and domestic abuse services, has finally resulted in desperately needed legislative change. Both the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s Everyday Business report and the government’s Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement provide stark evidence of systemic failures that have been putting children at ongoing risk of harm. Despite overwhelming evidence of domestic abuse in most family court cases (87% of case files and 73% of observed hearings), the research found that abuse was considered relevant to child arrangements in only 42% of hearings. The most common outcome remained unsupervised contact. As the Review concludes: “The apparent high incidence of orders where there were indicators of risk suggested that courts were ordering direct contact between children and parents who caused or posed a risk of harm.”
Survivors were routinely discouraged from raising allegations of domestic abuse by professionals who told them that contact would go ahead regardless. Courts operated with a “no stone unturned” approach focussed on facilitating contact rather than assessing whether that contact was safe. The court process itself became a tool of ongoing abuse, with perpetrators using repeated applications, cross-examination, and legal processes to maintain control. This isn’t just about numbers and percentages. These are real children being placed in ongoing danger. Protective parents being told their concerns don’t matter. Perpetrators being given continued access to abuse.
The announcement represents a crucial turning point. Not because it solves all the problems within the family court—it doesn't—but because it sends an unequivocal signal: Children’s safety and well-being must come before parental rights.
The Accountability Gap: Why This Change Matters
Both reports highlight the lack of focus on harm created by perpetrators and impact how perpetrators have been largely invisible in the current system. Whilst survivors faced intense scrutiny of their parenting, their emotions, their credibility, and their motives, perpetrators’ behaviour was minimised, excused, or simply ignored.
The Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s report documents how the system’s pro-contact culture operated in practice: Physical violence was treated as more serious than coercive control, abuse was dismissed as historical, fathers received more leeway than mothers, and the focus was on facilitating contact rather than on whether the perpetrator had stopped using abusive behaviour. As one survivor quoted in the report said: “It’s all controlled by the strongest person in the room, who is usually the perpetrator.” This is fundamentally backwards.
When we presume contact is beneficial, we place the burden on survivors to prove it isn’t. When we repeal that presumption, we can finally ask perpetrators to demonstrate why it would be safe.
The research shows that this lack of accountability created perverse incentives. Perpetrators learned that making counter-allegations, claiming parental alienation, or simply denying abuse was often sufficient for contact to be ordered. Meanwhile, survivors learned that raising concerns would be seen as hostile, their protective efforts would be pathologised, and the burden was on them to prove abuse rather than on perpetrators to demonstrate safety.
What Repealing the Presumption Should Mean
Removing the statutory presumption fundamentally shifts where accountability lies. As Justice Minister Baroness Levitt KC stated: “Being a parent is a privilege, not a right. The only right that matters is a child’s right to safety, and this government is determined to ensure that that is at the heart of every decision made about each and every child.”
This reframes the question courts must ask. Not “Why shouldn't this father have contact?” but “What arrangements will keep this child safe?” Not “Has the mother proven the abuse is serious enough to prevent contact?” but “Has the perpetrator demonstrated they can be involved without causing harm?”
I hope this change will mean that perpetrators can no longer rely on the system to automatically facilitate contact. Instead, they should have to demonstrate an understanding of the harm their behaviour has caused, a genuine behavioural change sustained over time, an ability to put their children’s needs ahead of their own, a willingness to engage with appropriate interventions where needed, and respect for the other parent’s role in keeping children safe.
Building Perpetrator Accountability into the System
Repealing the presumption removes a barrier, but several fundamental shifts need to happen:
Recognising perpetrator patterns, not just incidents. The Review found that coercive and controlling behaviour was “often missed or downplayed” whilst courts focused on physical violence. Perpetrators use interconnected patterns of behaviour to achieve power and control—financial control, isolation, intimidation, emotional abuse, and using children as weapons. When we can clearly articulate a perpetrator’s pattern, we can hold them accountable for the full scope of their behaviour.
Placing expectations on perpetrators, not survivors. Instead of asking why the mother can’t facilitate contact, we should ask what the perpetrator has done to address their abusive behaviour, how they’ve demonstrated respect for the other parent, what evidence exists of sustained behavioural change, and how they’ve prioritised children’s needs over their own desires.
Requiring evidence of change, not just claims. Systems need to distinguish between perpetrators saying they’ve changed and demonstrating behavioural change through sustained change over time (months or years, not weeks), respectful communication, following court orders, appropriate boundaries, and prioritising children’s needs. Attendance at a programme does not automatically mean risk has reduced.
Understanding that separation is a high-risk time. Perpetrators who are losing control often escalate their tactics—increased stalking, threats, using court processes as continued abuse, financial sabotage, or actual violence including homicide. Repealing the presumption allows courts to properly consider ongoing risk rather than assuming separation has resolved the problem.
Recognising children as victims. Perpetrators who abuse their partner are harming their children, even if they never directly assault them. Assessments need to explore the ecological impacts upon children.
Redressing gender double standards. The reality is that currently, we hold mothers to significantly higher standards than fathers. Mothers face intense scrutiny and are expected to demonstrate consistent caregiving and protection, with any shortcoming seen as evidence of risk. Fathers receive credit for minimal engagement, with problematic behaviour often minimised.
Having consequences for continued abuse. If a perpetrator continues abusive behaviour, contact should be restricted, suspended, or ended. The child’s right to safety trumps the perpetrator’s desire for contact.
What Perpetrator Accountability Looks Like in Practice
In practice, accountability means perpetrators must demonstrate they understand harm—acknowledging specific abusive behaviours, recognising the impact on the other parent and children, understanding that coercive control is abuse, and accepting responsibility without blaming the survivor.
They must show evidence of change through sustained behavioural change over time, respectful communication, following court orders, appropriate boundaries, and prioritising children’s needs.
They must earn involvement, not demand it as a right—starting with supervised contact whilst demonstrating change, with graduated increases based on evidence of safety, conditions that protect children and the other parent, and regular review based on ongoing assessment.
The Review identified the absence of commissioned Domestic Abuse Perpetrator Programmes as a significant gap. We urgently need nationally commissioned, accredited programmes, but children’s safety cannot be conditional on perpetrator programme engagement. We protect children now whilst working towards perpetrator change.
Systems Implications: What Needs to Change
Multi-agency information sharing becomes crucial. When assessing whether a perpetrator has changed, agencies need to share intelligence about ongoing incidents, what other services know about the perpetrator’s behaviour, whether there are other victims, and what the perpetrator’s history tells us about patterns. Domestic abuse services provide vital expertise about whether someone is genuinely engaging, what kinds of behavioural change indicate reduced risk, and how perpetrators manipulate systems. Their expertise should inform family court decisions, not just support survivors in the background.
Early intervention can prevent escalation. Family Help Teams positioned to work with families before crisis can identify perpetrator patterns early, set clear expectations, connect perpetrators with interventions, monitor for behavioural change, and escalate concerns if risk increases. But this only works if teams are trained to recognise perpetrator patterns and hold perpetrators accountable, not just “support families.”
Professional practice must shift focus. The focus must shift from assuming contact will happen and working backwards to manage risk, to assessing whether contact should happen at this time and what would need to change for it to be safe. Documenting perpetrator patterns, impacts on children, what perpetrators have or haven’t done to change, and protective actions taken by non-abusive parents provide courts with crucial evidence for safe decisions.
Commissioning decisions shape available options. Local authority leaders and commissioners determine what infrastructure exists for accountability—perpetrator programmes, supervised contact services, multi-agency coordination, and training so staff can recognise and respond to perpetrator patterns. These aren’t peripheral issues—they’re core infrastructure for child protection.
Building the Accountability That Should Have Existed All Along
The government’s decision to repeal the presumption of parental involvement represents a fundamental shift in how we think about child safety in the context of domestic abuse.
The evidence in both reports is stark and sobering. For too long, a system built on assumptions about the benefits of parental contact has placed children at ongoing risk of harm. Survivors have been disbelieved, their protective efforts pathologised, and their concerns dismissed. Meanwhile, perpetrators have been essentially invisible—their behaviour minimised, their patterns missed, their accountability absent.
Repealing the presumption changes the question from “Why shouldn’t contact happen?” to “What does this child need to be safe?” It shifts accountability from survivors having to prove risk, to perpetrators having to demonstrate safety. It removes the legislative reinforcement of a pro-contact culture that has cost children their well-being and, in the worst cases, their lives.
But legislative change alone is not enough. The pro-contact culture runs deep, shaped by decades of practice, case law, and assumptions about what children need. The structural barriers identified in both reports—adversarialism, resource limitations, silo working—remain in place.
We need a system that:
Starts by asking “What does this child need to be safe?” not “How do we facilitate contact?”
Places accountability on perpetrators to demonstrate change, not on survivors to prove risk
Understands domestic abuse as an ongoing pattern of coercive control
Recognises that children are harmed by witnessing abuse, even if not directly assaulted
Values the protective actions of non-abusive parents
Listens to and believes children’s voices
Requires evidence of sustained behavioural change before increasing contact
Has consequences when perpetrators continue abusive behaviour
Coordinates across agencies to share information and maintain accountability
Invests in perpetrator programmes, supervised contact, and multi-agency working
Continuously monitors and evaluates whether children are actually safer
This is what domestic abuse–informed child protection looks like. Not perfect practice—no approach can prevent all harm. But practice that consistently centres children’s safety by holding perpetrators accountable for the behaviour that created risk in the first place.
The Families First Partnership Programme, with its emphasis on early intervention, multi-agency working, and Family Help Teams, provides one framework for this kind of coordinated, accountability-focussed practice. But only if domestic abuse–informed approaches are genuinely embedded from the start, with proper training, adequate resources, and sustained commitment to culture change.
The evidence is clear. The legislative barrier is being removed. Now we need the will, the resources, and the sustained commitment to make accountability a reality. For every child who deserves to grow up safe. For every survivor who has fought to protect their children, often at enormous personal cost.
Additional Resources
Safe & Together Institute’s domestic abuse–informed trainings
Safe & Together Institute’s upcoming events
David Mandel’s book Stop Blaming Mothers and Ignoring Fathers: How to Transform the Way We Keep Children Safe from Domestic Violence
