In a landmark policy change, the family courts of England and Wales will no longer presume that contact with both parents is automatically in a child’s best interests.
This reform marks the end of the long-criticized “pro-contact culture” that had dominated British family law for decades.
Domestic-abuse advocates have celebrated the decision as a child-safety milestone, saying it will prevent courts from forcing ongoing contact with abusive parents. The announcement followed years of government review and public pressure to overhaul a system that, according to many experts, placed parental rights above child protection. (The Guardian)
From “Pro-Contact” to “Child-Centered”
Under the prior framework, courts operated on an assumption that frequent contact with both parents benefited nearly every child, except in the most extreme cases. Critics argued this mindset discouraged judges from properly assessing risk in families with histories of coercive control or violence.
The Ministry of Justice has now confirmed that the statutory presumption of parental involvement will be repealed, following recommendations from a major “harm panel” review that found the old approach routinely exposed children and survivors to continued danger. (Local Government Lawyer)
Domestic-violence charities such as IDAS (Independent Domestic Abuse Services) hailed the shift as “life-saving,” emphasizing that contact should never outweigh safety. (IDAS Statement)
The goal is not to prevent safe, loving parents from seeing their children—but to ensure that contact occurs only when it can be shown to be safe, beneficial, and child-focused.
Why It Matters
This reform represents more than a legislative adjustment—it’s a cultural reset. For the first time, courts in England and Wales will begin from a place of protection, not presumption.
Research leading up to the change found that in the majority of British custody cases, domestic abuse played a role, yet courts often ordered continued contact despite serious safety concerns. (Community Care)
By removing the presumption, the legal burden shifts: instead of victims having to prove why contact would be harmful, the court—and any parent with a history of abuse—must now show that contact can be safe.
California’s Approach: Balancing Safety and Parental Involvement
California law already embodies similar caution through Family Code § 3044, which creates a rebuttable presumptionthat granting custody or unsupervised visitation to a parent who has committed domestic violence within the past five years is detrimental to the child.
The presumption can be overcome, but only when the abusive parent shows clear evidence of rehabilitation and safety. Courts consider factors such as:
- Successful completion of a batterer’s treatment program
- Compliance with probation or restraining orders
- Absence of new incidents of violence
- Demonstrated ability to act in the child’s best interests
Both California and England/Wales share the same goal: protecting children while maintaining fairness for reformed parents. California’s model doesn’t eliminate the possibility of contact, but—like the U.K.’s new policy- it ensures that safety is the starting point, not an afterthought.
A Shared Global Trend: Prioritizing Safety Over Assumption
Across jurisdictions, family law is moving toward evidence-based, safety-centered decision-making.
- England & Wales are eliminating the automatic presumption of contact.
- California applies a statutory presumption against custody for perpetrators of domestic violence.
Both reforms reflect a broader understanding: not all parents are safe, and not all contact is healthy. Courts must weigh evidence, assess risk, and place the child’s well-being above all else.
What This Means for California Families
For California parents navigating custody disputes involving domestic-violence allegations, this global shift reinforces a universal principle: a child’s right to safety outweighs a parent’s right to contact.
California already provides the legal tools to uphold that principle, but doing so requires strong advocacy and clear evidence under § 3044. The example from abroad underscores the importance of approaching each case with a child-centered mindset, where protection is presumed- and contact must be earned.
Channe G. Coles
Family Law Attorney- Santa Barbara & Ventura Counties
