The MoJ’s Presumption Review: thin evidence, big policy—and a serious risk to the falsely accused
- Falsely Accused Network
- 6 days ago
- 4 min read
By Michael Thompson, Founder & Director, Falsely Accused Network (England & Wales)
The Ministry of Justice has published its Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement – Final Report, alongside research papers and a policy announcement to repeal the statutory presumption in the Children Act 1989 that a child’s welfare is generally furthered by the involvement of both parents.
Below I (1) summarise what the report actually says, (2) unpack what the proposals mean in practice, and (3) explain why—on the review’s own evidence—this reform risks hurting children and the falsely accused.
---
What the report actually says
The presumption is rarely named—but the system is pro-involvement anyway. The review says published and unpublished decisions suggest courts do not routinely cite the presumption in reasons, yet the wider family-justice culture is “no stone unturned” in trying to sustain some involvement with both parents. In other words, the culture—not the statutory wording alone—has been doing the heavy lifting.
Orders commonly provide direct, often unsupervised, contact. Across the judgment sample the modal outcome is some direct involvement with both parents; no-contact orders are rare in contested private-law cases. (This finding comes from the judgment-analysis strand commissioned for the review.)
Evidence gaps are serious. The review concedes there is little evidence about what happens to children after proceedings or how often different outcomes occur in the system as a whole. That means we lack the denominators that matter for policy.
Key legal context remains in place. Whatever Parliament does with the presumption, Article 8 ECHR case-law still requires courts to consider alternatives before ordering no contact—a point the review acknowledges. The statute is not the whole story.
---
What the government now proposes
On 22 October 2025, ministers announced an intention to repeal the presumption “to protect children from abusive parents,” framing it as the answer to a harmful “pro-contact culture.” The gov.uk publication page links the review to this policy shift. Legislation will be needed.
---
Why this matters for the falsely accused
1) Repeal without robust data risks over-correcting on the basis of anecdotes
The state of the evidence is the report’s own Achilles heel: it relies heavily on small, qualitative samples and a limited judgment dataset; it cannot tell us how often the presumption drove unsafe outcomes, nor post-order child outcomes. Yet the recommendation that has followed is a major statutory change. That is policy outrunning the evidence.
For those falsely accused, the danger is obvious: if culture shifts further toward restricting involvement before findings (or with no findings), children may lose a safe, loving parent for months or years while criminal processes grind on. The review itself treats “indicators of risk” and allegations as key signals—but does not quantify false, unproven, or withdrawn claims, nor the harms of unnecessary restriction.
2) Allegations ≠ findings ≠ risk
The review frequently aggregates allegations, indicators, and findings when discussing outcomes. That can inflate perceived risk in cases where allegations are contested or unproven. If the presumption is removed without tight safeguards, courts may feel licensed to err on the side of restriction at interim or final stage without robust fact-finding. That is not child-centred justice; it is uncertainty-averse justice that can harm children and innocent parents alike.
3) The law that actually constrains no-contact hasn’t changed
Even if s.1(2A) goes, ECHR case-law still obliges judges to explore lesser restrictions before no-contact. So repeal may not deliver the transformative safety gains its advocates expect—while still signalling to practitioners that involvement should be approached more sceptically. Symbols matter in day-to-day decision-making.
---
Practical implications you’ll feel in family courts
Interim contact: Expect more judges to default to reduced or supervised contact at interim where there are allegations (especially coercive control/CSA), even pre-charge, pending fact-finding—because the system’s signal has shifted. (The review repeatedly centres those allegation types.)
Fact-finding pressure: Without a balancing presumption, the only safe route to restoring ordinary contact may be early, proportionate fact-finding—but the review provides no operational plan to expand judicial time for that. Delays could harden interim restrictions into the new normal.
Children’s voices: The report criticises “selective listening” to children. Unless courts adopt validated, anti-suggestibility approaches consistently, repeal may entrench confirmation bias: courts may hear a hesitant or aligned child as proof of risk, even in false-allegation scenarios.
---
What should change instead (or at least in parallel)
1. Findings-first for durable restrictions
Long-term restrictions on a child’s relationship should require clear findings, not just “indicators” or allegations. If findings aren’t proportionate, then any restrictions should be strictly interim, review-dated, and coupled with structured, supported contact wherever safe.
2. Disaggregate the evidence in orders
Judges should state expressly whether they relied on allegations, indicators, or findings—and why. That transparency disciplines reasoning and enables meaningful appeals.
3. Invest in outcome data (not just process critique)
Commission longitudinal research on children’s outcomes where allegations were (a) proven, (b) unproven, or (c) disproven—and where a parent was later exonerated. Policy should be built on measured welfare, not assumptions. The review admits this gap.
4. Resource early fact-finding
If we are serious about child safety and fairness to the innocent, we must fund swift, proportionate fact-finding so children aren’t separated from blameless parents by the mere passage of time.
---
Bottom line
The review documents a culture of promoting parental involvement—much of which operates independently of the presumption’s text. It also admits the evidence base cannot show how often the presumption itself caused unsafe outcomes, nor what happens after cases end. On that foundation, tearing out a statutory safeguard against an anti-contact drift is high-risk for children and for the falsely accused. If Parliament proceeds, it must hard-wire safeguards for due process, findings-led restrictions, and timely fact-finding.
Children deserve protection from proven harm—and they also deserve protection from the harm of losing an innocent parent. Both truths must be held at once.
---
Read it yourself (primary sources)
MoJ publication page (Final Report & research papers): Presumption of parental involvement review (22 Oct 2025).
---
Falsely Accused Network – Contact us
📞 0204 538 8788
Comments