😢 Child Arrangements: Presumption of Parental Involvement

• Dr Marie Tidball initiated a debate on reforming the presumption of parental involvement in child arrangements, emphasizing the need to prioritize children’s safety and voices in family court proceedings.

• The current law, amended in the Children and Families Act 2014, presumes that parents should have contact with their children, even in cases involving known domestic abusers, which has led to tragic outcomes.

• Dr Tidball cited the case of her constituent Claire Throssell, whose sons Jack and Paul Sykes were killed by their father during a court-ordered visit, highlighting the dangers of the existing presumption of contact.

• Several MPs supported the call for reform, pointing out the systemic issues in family courts that can force children into unsafe situations with abusive parents.

• The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 recognizes children as victims in their own right, yet MPs argued that family courts need to better incorporate this into their decisions.

• MPs raised concerns about the family court system being used as a tool of further abuse, with examples of economic abuse and re-traumatization during custody battles.

• Dr Tidball proposed changes, including repealing section 1(2A) of the Children Act 1989, to explicitly state that known domestic abusers should not automatically be granted contact with their children.

• Minister Sarah Sackman acknowledged the need for reform, noting that a review had been conducted and its findings would soon be published with policy responses.

• The Minister emphasized that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in family courts, but admitted that unintended consequences from the current presumption need addressing.

• The debate underscored the urgency for the government to act to prevent further tragedies and ensure family courts prioritize child safety over parental contact rights.

The disagreement displayed in the parliamentary session was moderate. The session primarily focused on a pressing issue - the presumption of parental involvement in child arrangements, particularly in cases of domestic abuse. While there was a consensus among members about the need for reform due to the tragic consequences of the current law, there was disagreement on how to approach the issue and what specific changes should be implemented. However, the disagreements were more about nuances and details rather than strong opposition to the underlying issue itself.

Examples of disagreements include:

1. Approach to Reform: Dr Marie Tidball and other members pushed for immediate legislative changes, emphasizing repealing sections of the Children Act to prioritize children’s safety explicitly. In contrast, the Minister of State, Sarah Sackman, highlighted that a review had been conducted and the Government was in the process of considering the implications of those findings, suggesting a more measured approach rather than immediate legislative changes.

2. Definition of Harm: There was a call from Emily Darlington to expand the definition of harm to include broader forms of abuse such as financial and emotional abuse. The Minister, while acknowledging the importance of this broader understanding, did not commit to immediate changes but indicated it would be part of the ongoing review.

3. Family Courts as a Tool of Abuse: Jess Asato and Alison Bennett expressed concerns over the family courts being used as a tool of abuse against survivors. The Minister responded by underlining the importance of feedback and the ongoing efforts through the pathfinder pilot to prevent re-traumatization, indicating a different perspective on the urgency and implementation of solutions.

These disagreements, while significant and indicative of different priorities and timelines for action, did not constitute strong opposition but rather a difference in the suggested approach and speed of reform, which is why the session received a rating of 2 for disagreement.