Equal Parenting & Child Voice: Reform Family Justice in England and Wales
The Issue
Equal Parenting & Child Voice UK
Parliamentary Proposal for Family Justice Reform
Purpose
This proposal asks the Government to consider a further programme of reform to family justice in England and Wales.
It is intended to build on existing law, court rules, safeguarding procedures and current family-court reforms, rather than duplicate measures that already exist.
Where an existing legal or professional framework already addresses an issue, this proposal seeks to identify where that framework could be strengthened, standardised, extended or given clearer legal effect.
The central objective is to create a family justice system in which:
- the child's welfare and safety remain paramount;
- children have a meaningful voice;
- genuine safeguarding concerns are investigated properly;
- safe parents are not unnecessarily removed from their children's lives;
- deliberate harmful interference with a safe parent-child relationship is properly recognised and addressed;
- deliberately fabricated allegations can have proportionate consequences where legally established;
- children have access to independent support;
- unnecessary delay is reduced;
- and Parliament has reliable national data with which to assess the operation of the system.
This proposal does not seek to create an automatic right to 50/50 care.
Where a parent presents a safeguarding risk, the child's safety must take priority.
Where both parents are safe and capable of parenting, the system should actively consider how the child can maintain a meaningful and substantial relationship with both parents, subject to the child's welfare and individual circumstances.
---
1. Existing Legal Framework and the Need for Further Reform
Family courts already operate under the welfare principle in the Children Act 1989, with the child's welfare forming the central consideration and the welfare checklist including matters such as the child's wishes and feelings, the impact of changes in circumstances, each parent's capacity to meet the child's needs, and harm suffered or risked.
Existing Practice Direction 12J also provides a framework for cases involving domestic abuse and requires the court to consider safeguarding, evidence, risk and whether fact-finding is necessary.
The Government is also introducing wider family-court reforms, including the national expansion of the Child Focused Courts model.
Therefore, this proposal is not intended simply to reproduce those existing provisions.
It seeks to identify remaining gaps and introduce additional measures concerning:
- consistency;
- investigation;
- child support;
- deliberate harmful interference;
- accountability;
- case duration;
- monitoring;
- national data;
- and legal recognition of behaviour which may currently be addressed through professional guidance but does not have the specific legal status proposed here.
---
2. Meaningful and Substantial Parenting
The proposal would establish a stronger policy framework supporting meaningful and substantial parenting with both parents where this is safe and in the child's best interests.
This would not create an automatic 50/50 entitlement.
The exact arrangement should depend on the individual child, including:
- age and developmental needs;
- wishes and feelings;
- education;
- health;
- additional needs;
- safeguarding;
- parenting capacity;
- geographical distance;
- practical circumstances;
- existing relationships;
- and any established history of abuse, neglect or other harm.
The objective should be meaningful parenting rather than an artificial requirement to divide time equally.
This would operate alongside the Government's current reform of the statutory parental-involvement presumption rather than assuming that the existing presumption will remain unchanged.
---
3. The Child's Voice
The existing system already requires consideration of children's wishes and feelings and Cafcass undertakes assessments for the court.
The proposed reform would strengthen this by ensuring that a child's voice is obtained:
- independently where appropriate;
- in an age-appropriate manner;
- without parental coaching;
- without requiring the child to choose between parents;
- and without making the child responsible for deciding allegations.
A child's wishes and feelings should be taken seriously while the reasons behind those views are properly understood.
A child refusing contact should not automatically be treated as evidence of alienation.
Equally, refusal should not automatically be treated as proof that the other parent is unsafe.
The reasons should be investigated.
---
4. Strengthened Family Investigation and Safeguarding Function
Cafcass already undertakes safeguarding and welfare assessment through Family Court Advisers.
The proposal therefore does not seek to create an entirely new investigative organisation.
Instead, it proposes a strengthened specialist Family Investigation and Safeguarding function within or alongside Cafcass, building on existing expertise.
For complex private-law cases, the function would provide a more structured investigation of:
- family circumstances;
- safeguarding concerns;
- disputed allegations;
- parental behaviour;
- the child's experience;
- and evidence relevant to the welfare decision.
It would not replace:
- judges;
- the police;
- children's social care;
- medical professionals;
- or criminal courts.
Judges would retain judicial decision-making.
Police would retain responsibility for criminal investigation.
---
5. Early Safeguarding Assessment
Existing safeguarding checks already form part of the family-court process.
The proposed reform would strengthen and standardise early assessment so that, at the earliest practicable stage, the case identifies:
- domestic abuse;
- sexual or physical abuse allegations;
- neglect;
- coercive or controlling behaviour;
- harmful parenting;
- immediate risk;
- the child's wishes and feelings;
- existing contact;
- geographical issues;
- and other relevant welfare concerns.
The purpose is to ensure that important safeguarding issues are identified before unnecessary months of litigation have passed.
---
6. Structured Family Investigation
Where further investigation is required, the specialist function should produce a structured assessment distinguishing:
1. established facts;
2. allegations which remain disputed;
3. evidence supporting allegations;
4. evidence contradicting allegations;
5. matters requiring judicial determination;
6. and matters requiring further investigation.
This would build on the investigative direction already being developed through the Child Focused Courts/Pathfinder reforms.
The proposed reform would seek to make that approach more consistent nationally.
---
7. Understanding Contact Resistance or Refusal
Where a child is reluctant, resistant or refuses contact, the investigation should consider all reasonable explanations.
These may include:
- genuine fear;
- domestic abuse;
- sexual or physical abuse;
- neglect;
- harmful parenting;
- the child's own experiences;
- parental conflict;
- anxiety;
- practical problems;
- geographical distance;
- loyalty conflict;
- pressure from either parent;
- or deliberate harmful interference.
Existing Cafcass guidance already recognises that there can be multiple reasons for a child's resistance or refusal and says domestic abuse or harmful parenting should be considered first.
The proposed reform is to make this balanced investigation a consistently applied part of the process.
---
8. Independent Child Counselling and Support
The existing family-court process can involve support and specialist services, but this proposal would create a clearer national expectation that children involved in significant family separation or prolonged conflict should have access to independent emotional support where appropriate.
Where practical, this could be provided through or alongside schools or another suitably independent service.
The purpose would be to help children:
- process family change;
- manage distress;
- understand healthy boundaries;
- express feelings safely;
- and seek help.
The counsellor would not investigate the parents or decide whether allegations are true.
---
9. Protected Child Support Space
The child's support space should remain independent from both parents.
Neither parent should be able to:
- coach the child;
- direct what the child says;
- demand counselling information for use against the other parent;
- use counselling as evidence gathering;
- or pressure the child immediately after a session.
Confidentiality should apply subject to ordinary safeguarding and legal requirements.
This would create a clear separation between supporting the child and investigating the family dispute.
---
10. Separation of Professional Roles
The proposal would clearly distinguish:
Child support
Helping the child emotionally.
Family investigation
Assessing family circumstances and relevant evidence.
Safeguarding
Responding to risks of harm.
Police investigation
Investigating suspected criminal offences.
Judicial decision-making
Determining disputed facts and making legally binding decisions.
The aim is to prevent a single professional role being expected to perform every function.
---
11. School Education About Abuse and Safety
Children already receive safeguarding education through schools.
The proposed reform would seek to strengthen this nationally with age-appropriate education covering:
- healthy boundaries;
- bodily autonomy;
- different forms of abuse;
- unsafe behaviour;
- how to seek help;
- trusted adults;
- and the fact that children should not be punished for asking for help.
Children should also understand that being told to keep something secret does not prevent them from seeking help.
This education must remain neutral.
It must not teach children to diagnose abuse, parental alienation or family-law disputes.
It should provide safety knowledge, not evidence coaching.
---
12. Education About Harmful Family Conflict
Age-appropriate education should also explain that:
- children do not have to choose sides;
- loving both parents is not disloyal;
- adult disputes are not the child's responsibility;
- children should not be used as messengers;
- and children should not be pressured to reject a parent.
This is proposed as an additional preventative measure.
---
13. Deliberate Harmful Alienating Behaviour
Current Cafcass practice already recognises and assesses alienating behaviours.
Cafcass describes these as patterns of negative attitudes or communication that have the potential or intention to undermine, manipulate or destroy a child's relationship with another parent or carer. Cafcass does not treat "parental alienation" as a diagnosable syndrome and instead focuses on behaviour and its impact on the child.
The proposal therefore does not seek to introduce "parental alienation syndrome" as a diagnosis.
Instead, it seeks clearer legal recognition of a specific form of conduct:
deliberate, persistent and harmful interference with a child's safe relationship with another parent.
---
14. Legal Recognition of Deliberate Harmful Interference as Abuse
This is an area where the proposal seeks a genuine legal development, rather than simply repeating existing Cafcass guidance.
Where evidence establishes that a person has deliberately and persistently interfered with a child's safe relationship with another parent and that behaviour causes or creates a significant risk of harm, the law should expressly recognise that conduct as abusive/harmful behaviour affecting the child and the targeted parent.
The proposal would therefore ask the Government to consider creating an appropriate statutory legal framework for this conduct.
The framework must make clear that:
- a child refusing contact is not automatically alienation;
- an allegation of alienation is not proof of alienation;
- an unproven safeguarding allegation is not automatically a false allegation;
- genuine domestic abuse can coexist with harmful alienating behaviour;
- and the court must determine disputed facts on evidence.
This approach would build on, rather than contradict, current Cafcass and Family Justice Council guidance.
---
15. Serious Abuse Allegations
Serious allegations involving:
- rape;
- sexual abuse;
- serious physical abuse;
- domestic abuse;
- or other criminal conduct
must continue to receive appropriate safeguarding and, where applicable, police attention.
The family court should not determine criminal guilt merely because an allegation has been made.
Where a criminal investigation is appropriate, the police and criminal justice system should perform their functions.
The family court should separately determine the welfare and family-law issues necessary for the child.
Existing Practice Direction 12J already provides a framework for domestic-abuse cases, including consideration of risk, evidence and fact-finding.
The proposed reform is to strengthen coordination and reduce avoidable delay.
---
16. Fact-Finding
Fact-finding already exists within the family-court system.
The proposal does not seek to invent it.
Instead, it proposes stronger early case management so that the court identifies promptly:
- which disputed allegations actually matter;
- whether fact-finding is necessary;
- what evidence is required;
- and how the issue can be determined fairly and efficiently.
Fact-finding should focus on material issues rather than allowing proceedings to become an unlimited investigation of every disagreement between parents.
---
17. Deliberately False Allegations
The system must clearly distinguish:
not proven
from
deliberately fabricated or knowingly false.
A person should not face punishment merely because an allegation could not be proved.
However, where deliberate fabrication or knowingly false allegations are established and the relevant legal threshold is met, existing legal mechanisms may already provide consequences in appropriate circumstances.
These can include, depending on the facts and applicable law:
- contempt of court;
- perjury where applicable;
- perverting the course of justice;
- wasting police time;
- costs consequences;
- or other lawful sanctions.
The proposal seeks clearer guidance and consistent consideration of these existing mechanisms where deliberate misuse of allegations is established.
Genuine safeguarding reports must remain protected.
---
18. Geographical Distance
There should be a clear policy principle that geographical distance does not, by itself, demonstrate parental disengagement.
Distance may result from:
- employment;
- housing;
- financial circumstances;
- family circumstances;
- previous relocation;
- or other practical reasons.
The proposal therefore seeks to ensure that geographical distance is treated as a practical parenting issue to be assessed and addressed, rather than automatic evidence that a parent does not want an active relationship.
---
19. Moving Closer to a Child
Where a safe and capable parent wishes to move closer to their child to make meaningful parenting more practical, that intention should be considered on its circumstances.
Moving closer should not automatically be treated negatively.
The court should consider:
- the child's welfare;
- safeguarding;
- stability;
- housing;
- employment;
- education;
- transport;
- existing arrangements;
- and the impact on both parents.
This is proposed as a clearer policy approach rather than an assertion that a parent currently has an unrestricted legal right to relocate wherever they choose.
---
20. Interim Parenting Arrangements
Existing law already permits courts to make interim arrangements and requires safeguarding considerations where domestic abuse is alleged.
The proposed reform would strengthen the principle that, where there is no established immediate risk, unresolved allegations should not automatically result in prolonged loss of a safe parent-child relationship.
Depending on the circumstances, interim arrangements could include:
- direct contact;
- supported contact;
- supervised contact;
- indirect contact;
- telephone or video communication;
- or another proportionate arrangement.
Where credible evidence indicates an immediate safeguarding risk, protection must take priority.
---
21. Active Case Management
Existing family-court rules already require active case management.
The proposal would strengthen this through a clearer national expectation that courts identify early:
- the core issues;
- safeguarding questions;
- evidence required;
- disputed allegations;
- the child's needs;
- whether fact-finding is necessary;
- and what professional assessments are genuinely required.
Unnecessary hearings, repeated adjournments and avoidable duplication should be reduced.
---
22. Six-to-Twelve-Month Case Resolution Framework
The existing family justice system is already being reformed to improve timeliness, including through Child Focused Courts. The Government has reported significant reductions in case duration from the Pathfinder model.
This proposal would go further by establishing a clear national performance framework.
Six-month target
Private family proceedings involving children should aim, wherever reasonably practicable, to resolve the core issues within approximately 6 months.
By that stage, the system should aim to have:
- identified safeguarding concerns;
- completed necessary initial investigation;
- obtained the child's wishes and feelings;
- identified disputed allegations;
- decided whether fact-finding is required;
- completed necessary fact-finding where appropriate;
- and established an appropriate long-term arrangement where possible.
Twelve-month expectation
Where a case cannot reasonably be resolved within six months because of complexity, serious safeguarding issues or necessary proceedings, there should be a strong expectation of resolution within 12 months wherever reasonably practicable.
Any case continuing beyond 12 months should have the reason recorded and be subject to active judicial review.
Exceptional cases
This should not create an unsafe artificial deadline.
Cases involving serious criminal investigations, complex safeguarding, international issues, multiple children or other genuinely exceptional circumstances may require longer.
However, additional time should be necessary and justified rather than caused by avoidable administrative delay.
Proposed principle
Family proceedings involving children should be resolved as quickly as safely possible, with a target of approximately six months and a strong expectation of resolution within twelve months wherever reasonably practicable.
---
23. Findings and Proportionate Intervention
The court should receive a clear presentation of:
- established facts;
- unresolved matters;
- safeguarding findings;
- the child's wishes and feelings;
- parenting capacity;
- relevant behaviour;
- and practical parenting options.
Where harmful behaviour is established, intervention should be proportionate to the evidence and the level of harm.
The objective should be to protect the child and, where safe, repair damaged relationships.
---
24. Ongoing Monitoring
The proposal would strengthen post-order monitoring in serious or high-conflict cases.
Where appropriate, monitoring should consider:
- whether contact occurs;
- whether the child remains safe;
- whether orders are complied with;
- whether relationships improve;
- whether new safeguarding concerns arise;
- whether harmful interference continues;
- and whether additional support is needed.
This should supplement, rather than duplicate, existing court powers and review mechanisms.
---
25. Family Support
Families should have access to appropriate support where necessary, including:
- parenting support;
- child counselling;
- conflict-resolution services;
- domestic-abuse services;
- therapeutic support;
- parenting programmes;
- and practical help implementing arrangements.
Support must be risk-sensitive.
Ordinary co-parenting programmes should not be imposed where doing so would be inappropriate because of established abuse or safeguarding concerns.
---
26. National Family Justice Data
The Government should develop a national anonymised dataset for private family proceedings involving children.
Where lawful and proportionate, this should include:
- case duration;
- allegations;
- safeguarding findings;
- fact-finding;
- contact arrangements;
- enforcement;
- repeat proceedings;
- child support;
- interventions;
- and outcomes.
No dataset should identify individual children, parents, judges, magistrates, social workers or live cases.
The purpose would be to allow Parliament and policymakers to evaluate whether reforms are actually working.
---
27. Parliamentary Accountability
The Government should publish regular reports concerning the operation of the reformed system.
Reporting should include, where appropriate:
- cases reaching six months;
- cases exceeding twelve months;
- safeguarding outcomes;
- fact-finding;
- serious allegations;
- established harmful interference;
- enforcement;
- child support;
- repeat proceedings;
- and children's experiences.
This would allow Parliament to assess whether reform is producing measurable improvement.
---
28. Fundamental Safeguard
Nothing in this proposal should create an automatic entitlement to equal parenting where that would be contrary to the child's safety or welfare.
A parent who has abused, neglected or placed a child at significant risk should not receive equal parenting simply because they are a parent.
Equally, a safe parent should not lose a meaningful relationship solely because:
- an allegation has been made but not properly investigated;
- an allegation remains unresolved;
- a child is reluctant to have contact without the reasons being properly understood;
- or geographical distance has been interpreted as parental disengagement without proper consideration of the circumstances.
The evidence, safeguarding position and child's welfare must remain central.
---
29. Relationship Between Existing Law and Proposed Reform
The proposal should expressly recognise that significant parts of the requested framework already exist.
The purpose is therefore not to abolish everything and start again.
Instead, the proposal seeks to:
Retain
Existing child-welfare principles, safeguarding duties, judicial decision-making, criminal investigation, domestic-abuse protections and appropriate existing court powers.
Strengthen
Early investigation, child voice, case management, support, monitoring and consistency.
Extend
Independent child support, national data, accountability and systematic investigation.
Clarify
The treatment of geographical distance, unresolved allegations, contact resistance and deliberate harmful interference.
Create or consider creating
A clearer statutory framework recognising deliberately harmful interference with a child's safe relationship with another parent as abusive/harmful behaviour where established through evidence, together with proportionate legal consequences.
This distinction is fundamental to the proposal.
---
30. Requested Government Action
Equal Parenting & Child Voice UK asks the Government to undertake a formal review and consultation on the reforms proposed in this document.
The consultation should include:
- children and young people;
- parents;
- Cafcass;
- the judiciary;
- family-law professionals;
- social workers;
- safeguarding professionals;
- police;
- domestic-abuse organisations;
- children's organisations;
- schools;
- child-support professionals;
- academics;
- and other relevant stakeholders.
The Government should identify which reforms require:
- primary legislation;
- amendments to family procedure;
- secondary legislation;
- professional guidance;
- court practice;
- safeguarding procedures;
- training;
- funding;
- or national data systems.
Implementation should be independently evaluated.
---
Final Principle
Equal Parenting & Child Voice UK proposes a family justice system in which the child is protected, heard and supported, while safe parents are not unnecessarily removed from their children's lives.
It does not seek automatic 50/50 parenting regardless of circumstances.
It seeks a system in which:
- genuine safeguarding concerns are taken seriously;
- serious allegations are investigated appropriately;
- children have an independent voice;
- children have access to independent support;
- children are not placed in the middle of adult conflict;
- allegations are not treated as established facts merely because they have been made;
- unproven allegations are not automatically treated as deliberately false;
- deliberately fabricated allegations can have consequences where legally established;
- deliberate and persistent harmful interference with a child's safe relationship with another parent can receive clearer legal recognition and proportionate consequences where established;
- geographical distance is not automatically treated as parental disengagement;
- safe parents can be considered for meaningful and substantial parenting;
- and cases are resolved as quickly as safely possible.
The guiding question should be:
Where both parents are safe and capable, how can this child maintain a meaningful and substantial relationship with both parents in a way that is safe, practical and genuinely consistent with the child's welfare?
Where that is not safe, protection comes first.
Where it is safe, unnecessary loss of an important parent-child relationship should be prevented.
What I Am Asking For
I am asking the Government and Parliament to consider this proposal as a further programme of family justice reform, building on the laws, safeguards and reforms that already exist.
This proposal is not asking Parliament to simply repeat existing provisions. It identifies areas where the current system could be strengthened, made more consistent, made more accountable and, where necessary, changed in law.
In particular, I am asking for consideration of:
- a stronger framework for meaningful and substantial parenting where both parents are safe and capable;
- a genuinely independent and protected voice and support system for children;
- stronger early family investigation and safeguarding;
- clearer and faster handling of serious disputed allegations;
- a target of approximately six months and a strong expectation of resolution within twelve months wherever reasonably practicable;
- clearer recognition and proportionate consequences for deliberate, persistent and harmful interference with a child's safe relationship with another parent where established through evidence;
- appropriate consequences where deliberately fabricated allegations are legally established;
- greater consideration of geographical distance and a parent's willingness to move closer to their child;
- better support and monitoring for children and families;
- national anonymised data collection;
- and regular parliamentary accountability for the performance of the family justice system.
The fundamental safeguard throughout this proposal is that the safety and welfare of the child must come first.
Where a parent is unsafe, the system must protect the child.
Where both parents are safe and capable, the system should work to protect the child's opportunity to maintain meaningful relationships with both parents rather than allowing avoidable conflict, delay or unsupported assumptions to determine the outcome.
I am asking for this proposal to be properly considered, consulted on with children, families and relevant professionals, and assessed for what changes may be required through legislation, court procedure, professional practice and funding.
Children should not have to lose a safe and loving relationship with a parent simply because the family justice system was unable to resolve the situation effectively or quickly enough.
45
The Issue
Equal Parenting & Child Voice UK
Parliamentary Proposal for Family Justice Reform
Purpose
This proposal asks the Government to consider a further programme of reform to family justice in England and Wales.
It is intended to build on existing law, court rules, safeguarding procedures and current family-court reforms, rather than duplicate measures that already exist.
Where an existing legal or professional framework already addresses an issue, this proposal seeks to identify where that framework could be strengthened, standardised, extended or given clearer legal effect.
The central objective is to create a family justice system in which:
- the child's welfare and safety remain paramount;
- children have a meaningful voice;
- genuine safeguarding concerns are investigated properly;
- safe parents are not unnecessarily removed from their children's lives;
- deliberate harmful interference with a safe parent-child relationship is properly recognised and addressed;
- deliberately fabricated allegations can have proportionate consequences where legally established;
- children have access to independent support;
- unnecessary delay is reduced;
- and Parliament has reliable national data with which to assess the operation of the system.
This proposal does not seek to create an automatic right to 50/50 care.
Where a parent presents a safeguarding risk, the child's safety must take priority.
Where both parents are safe and capable of parenting, the system should actively consider how the child can maintain a meaningful and substantial relationship with both parents, subject to the child's welfare and individual circumstances.
---
1. Existing Legal Framework and the Need for Further Reform
Family courts already operate under the welfare principle in the Children Act 1989, with the child's welfare forming the central consideration and the welfare checklist including matters such as the child's wishes and feelings, the impact of changes in circumstances, each parent's capacity to meet the child's needs, and harm suffered or risked.
Existing Practice Direction 12J also provides a framework for cases involving domestic abuse and requires the court to consider safeguarding, evidence, risk and whether fact-finding is necessary.
The Government is also introducing wider family-court reforms, including the national expansion of the Child Focused Courts model.
Therefore, this proposal is not intended simply to reproduce those existing provisions.
It seeks to identify remaining gaps and introduce additional measures concerning:
- consistency;
- investigation;
- child support;
- deliberate harmful interference;
- accountability;
- case duration;
- monitoring;
- national data;
- and legal recognition of behaviour which may currently be addressed through professional guidance but does not have the specific legal status proposed here.
---
2. Meaningful and Substantial Parenting
The proposal would establish a stronger policy framework supporting meaningful and substantial parenting with both parents where this is safe and in the child's best interests.
This would not create an automatic 50/50 entitlement.
The exact arrangement should depend on the individual child, including:
- age and developmental needs;
- wishes and feelings;
- education;
- health;
- additional needs;
- safeguarding;
- parenting capacity;
- geographical distance;
- practical circumstances;
- existing relationships;
- and any established history of abuse, neglect or other harm.
The objective should be meaningful parenting rather than an artificial requirement to divide time equally.
This would operate alongside the Government's current reform of the statutory parental-involvement presumption rather than assuming that the existing presumption will remain unchanged.
---
3. The Child's Voice
The existing system already requires consideration of children's wishes and feelings and Cafcass undertakes assessments for the court.
The proposed reform would strengthen this by ensuring that a child's voice is obtained:
- independently where appropriate;
- in an age-appropriate manner;
- without parental coaching;
- without requiring the child to choose between parents;
- and without making the child responsible for deciding allegations.
A child's wishes and feelings should be taken seriously while the reasons behind those views are properly understood.
A child refusing contact should not automatically be treated as evidence of alienation.
Equally, refusal should not automatically be treated as proof that the other parent is unsafe.
The reasons should be investigated.
---
4. Strengthened Family Investigation and Safeguarding Function
Cafcass already undertakes safeguarding and welfare assessment through Family Court Advisers.
The proposal therefore does not seek to create an entirely new investigative organisation.
Instead, it proposes a strengthened specialist Family Investigation and Safeguarding function within or alongside Cafcass, building on existing expertise.
For complex private-law cases, the function would provide a more structured investigation of:
- family circumstances;
- safeguarding concerns;
- disputed allegations;
- parental behaviour;
- the child's experience;
- and evidence relevant to the welfare decision.
It would not replace:
- judges;
- the police;
- children's social care;
- medical professionals;
- or criminal courts.
Judges would retain judicial decision-making.
Police would retain responsibility for criminal investigation.
---
5. Early Safeguarding Assessment
Existing safeguarding checks already form part of the family-court process.
The proposed reform would strengthen and standardise early assessment so that, at the earliest practicable stage, the case identifies:
- domestic abuse;
- sexual or physical abuse allegations;
- neglect;
- coercive or controlling behaviour;
- harmful parenting;
- immediate risk;
- the child's wishes and feelings;
- existing contact;
- geographical issues;
- and other relevant welfare concerns.
The purpose is to ensure that important safeguarding issues are identified before unnecessary months of litigation have passed.
---
6. Structured Family Investigation
Where further investigation is required, the specialist function should produce a structured assessment distinguishing:
1. established facts;
2. allegations which remain disputed;
3. evidence supporting allegations;
4. evidence contradicting allegations;
5. matters requiring judicial determination;
6. and matters requiring further investigation.
This would build on the investigative direction already being developed through the Child Focused Courts/Pathfinder reforms.
The proposed reform would seek to make that approach more consistent nationally.
---
7. Understanding Contact Resistance or Refusal
Where a child is reluctant, resistant or refuses contact, the investigation should consider all reasonable explanations.
These may include:
- genuine fear;
- domestic abuse;
- sexual or physical abuse;
- neglect;
- harmful parenting;
- the child's own experiences;
- parental conflict;
- anxiety;
- practical problems;
- geographical distance;
- loyalty conflict;
- pressure from either parent;
- or deliberate harmful interference.
Existing Cafcass guidance already recognises that there can be multiple reasons for a child's resistance or refusal and says domestic abuse or harmful parenting should be considered first.
The proposed reform is to make this balanced investigation a consistently applied part of the process.
---
8. Independent Child Counselling and Support
The existing family-court process can involve support and specialist services, but this proposal would create a clearer national expectation that children involved in significant family separation or prolonged conflict should have access to independent emotional support where appropriate.
Where practical, this could be provided through or alongside schools or another suitably independent service.
The purpose would be to help children:
- process family change;
- manage distress;
- understand healthy boundaries;
- express feelings safely;
- and seek help.
The counsellor would not investigate the parents or decide whether allegations are true.
---
9. Protected Child Support Space
The child's support space should remain independent from both parents.
Neither parent should be able to:
- coach the child;
- direct what the child says;
- demand counselling information for use against the other parent;
- use counselling as evidence gathering;
- or pressure the child immediately after a session.
Confidentiality should apply subject to ordinary safeguarding and legal requirements.
This would create a clear separation between supporting the child and investigating the family dispute.
---
10. Separation of Professional Roles
The proposal would clearly distinguish:
Child support
Helping the child emotionally.
Family investigation
Assessing family circumstances and relevant evidence.
Safeguarding
Responding to risks of harm.
Police investigation
Investigating suspected criminal offences.
Judicial decision-making
Determining disputed facts and making legally binding decisions.
The aim is to prevent a single professional role being expected to perform every function.
---
11. School Education About Abuse and Safety
Children already receive safeguarding education through schools.
The proposed reform would seek to strengthen this nationally with age-appropriate education covering:
- healthy boundaries;
- bodily autonomy;
- different forms of abuse;
- unsafe behaviour;
- how to seek help;
- trusted adults;
- and the fact that children should not be punished for asking for help.
Children should also understand that being told to keep something secret does not prevent them from seeking help.
This education must remain neutral.
It must not teach children to diagnose abuse, parental alienation or family-law disputes.
It should provide safety knowledge, not evidence coaching.
---
12. Education About Harmful Family Conflict
Age-appropriate education should also explain that:
- children do not have to choose sides;
- loving both parents is not disloyal;
- adult disputes are not the child's responsibility;
- children should not be used as messengers;
- and children should not be pressured to reject a parent.
This is proposed as an additional preventative measure.
---
13. Deliberate Harmful Alienating Behaviour
Current Cafcass practice already recognises and assesses alienating behaviours.
Cafcass describes these as patterns of negative attitudes or communication that have the potential or intention to undermine, manipulate or destroy a child's relationship with another parent or carer. Cafcass does not treat "parental alienation" as a diagnosable syndrome and instead focuses on behaviour and its impact on the child.
The proposal therefore does not seek to introduce "parental alienation syndrome" as a diagnosis.
Instead, it seeks clearer legal recognition of a specific form of conduct:
deliberate, persistent and harmful interference with a child's safe relationship with another parent.
---
14. Legal Recognition of Deliberate Harmful Interference as Abuse
This is an area where the proposal seeks a genuine legal development, rather than simply repeating existing Cafcass guidance.
Where evidence establishes that a person has deliberately and persistently interfered with a child's safe relationship with another parent and that behaviour causes or creates a significant risk of harm, the law should expressly recognise that conduct as abusive/harmful behaviour affecting the child and the targeted parent.
The proposal would therefore ask the Government to consider creating an appropriate statutory legal framework for this conduct.
The framework must make clear that:
- a child refusing contact is not automatically alienation;
- an allegation of alienation is not proof of alienation;
- an unproven safeguarding allegation is not automatically a false allegation;
- genuine domestic abuse can coexist with harmful alienating behaviour;
- and the court must determine disputed facts on evidence.
This approach would build on, rather than contradict, current Cafcass and Family Justice Council guidance.
---
15. Serious Abuse Allegations
Serious allegations involving:
- rape;
- sexual abuse;
- serious physical abuse;
- domestic abuse;
- or other criminal conduct
must continue to receive appropriate safeguarding and, where applicable, police attention.
The family court should not determine criminal guilt merely because an allegation has been made.
Where a criminal investigation is appropriate, the police and criminal justice system should perform their functions.
The family court should separately determine the welfare and family-law issues necessary for the child.
Existing Practice Direction 12J already provides a framework for domestic-abuse cases, including consideration of risk, evidence and fact-finding.
The proposed reform is to strengthen coordination and reduce avoidable delay.
---
16. Fact-Finding
Fact-finding already exists within the family-court system.
The proposal does not seek to invent it.
Instead, it proposes stronger early case management so that the court identifies promptly:
- which disputed allegations actually matter;
- whether fact-finding is necessary;
- what evidence is required;
- and how the issue can be determined fairly and efficiently.
Fact-finding should focus on material issues rather than allowing proceedings to become an unlimited investigation of every disagreement between parents.
---
17. Deliberately False Allegations
The system must clearly distinguish:
not proven
from
deliberately fabricated or knowingly false.
A person should not face punishment merely because an allegation could not be proved.
However, where deliberate fabrication or knowingly false allegations are established and the relevant legal threshold is met, existing legal mechanisms may already provide consequences in appropriate circumstances.
These can include, depending on the facts and applicable law:
- contempt of court;
- perjury where applicable;
- perverting the course of justice;
- wasting police time;
- costs consequences;
- or other lawful sanctions.
The proposal seeks clearer guidance and consistent consideration of these existing mechanisms where deliberate misuse of allegations is established.
Genuine safeguarding reports must remain protected.
---
18. Geographical Distance
There should be a clear policy principle that geographical distance does not, by itself, demonstrate parental disengagement.
Distance may result from:
- employment;
- housing;
- financial circumstances;
- family circumstances;
- previous relocation;
- or other practical reasons.
The proposal therefore seeks to ensure that geographical distance is treated as a practical parenting issue to be assessed and addressed, rather than automatic evidence that a parent does not want an active relationship.
---
19. Moving Closer to a Child
Where a safe and capable parent wishes to move closer to their child to make meaningful parenting more practical, that intention should be considered on its circumstances.
Moving closer should not automatically be treated negatively.
The court should consider:
- the child's welfare;
- safeguarding;
- stability;
- housing;
- employment;
- education;
- transport;
- existing arrangements;
- and the impact on both parents.
This is proposed as a clearer policy approach rather than an assertion that a parent currently has an unrestricted legal right to relocate wherever they choose.
---
20. Interim Parenting Arrangements
Existing law already permits courts to make interim arrangements and requires safeguarding considerations where domestic abuse is alleged.
The proposed reform would strengthen the principle that, where there is no established immediate risk, unresolved allegations should not automatically result in prolonged loss of a safe parent-child relationship.
Depending on the circumstances, interim arrangements could include:
- direct contact;
- supported contact;
- supervised contact;
- indirect contact;
- telephone or video communication;
- or another proportionate arrangement.
Where credible evidence indicates an immediate safeguarding risk, protection must take priority.
---
21. Active Case Management
Existing family-court rules already require active case management.
The proposal would strengthen this through a clearer national expectation that courts identify early:
- the core issues;
- safeguarding questions;
- evidence required;
- disputed allegations;
- the child's needs;
- whether fact-finding is necessary;
- and what professional assessments are genuinely required.
Unnecessary hearings, repeated adjournments and avoidable duplication should be reduced.
---
22. Six-to-Twelve-Month Case Resolution Framework
The existing family justice system is already being reformed to improve timeliness, including through Child Focused Courts. The Government has reported significant reductions in case duration from the Pathfinder model.
This proposal would go further by establishing a clear national performance framework.
Six-month target
Private family proceedings involving children should aim, wherever reasonably practicable, to resolve the core issues within approximately 6 months.
By that stage, the system should aim to have:
- identified safeguarding concerns;
- completed necessary initial investigation;
- obtained the child's wishes and feelings;
- identified disputed allegations;
- decided whether fact-finding is required;
- completed necessary fact-finding where appropriate;
- and established an appropriate long-term arrangement where possible.
Twelve-month expectation
Where a case cannot reasonably be resolved within six months because of complexity, serious safeguarding issues or necessary proceedings, there should be a strong expectation of resolution within 12 months wherever reasonably practicable.
Any case continuing beyond 12 months should have the reason recorded and be subject to active judicial review.
Exceptional cases
This should not create an unsafe artificial deadline.
Cases involving serious criminal investigations, complex safeguarding, international issues, multiple children or other genuinely exceptional circumstances may require longer.
However, additional time should be necessary and justified rather than caused by avoidable administrative delay.
Proposed principle
Family proceedings involving children should be resolved as quickly as safely possible, with a target of approximately six months and a strong expectation of resolution within twelve months wherever reasonably practicable.
---
23. Findings and Proportionate Intervention
The court should receive a clear presentation of:
- established facts;
- unresolved matters;
- safeguarding findings;
- the child's wishes and feelings;
- parenting capacity;
- relevant behaviour;
- and practical parenting options.
Where harmful behaviour is established, intervention should be proportionate to the evidence and the level of harm.
The objective should be to protect the child and, where safe, repair damaged relationships.
---
24. Ongoing Monitoring
The proposal would strengthen post-order monitoring in serious or high-conflict cases.
Where appropriate, monitoring should consider:
- whether contact occurs;
- whether the child remains safe;
- whether orders are complied with;
- whether relationships improve;
- whether new safeguarding concerns arise;
- whether harmful interference continues;
- and whether additional support is needed.
This should supplement, rather than duplicate, existing court powers and review mechanisms.
---
25. Family Support
Families should have access to appropriate support where necessary, including:
- parenting support;
- child counselling;
- conflict-resolution services;
- domestic-abuse services;
- therapeutic support;
- parenting programmes;
- and practical help implementing arrangements.
Support must be risk-sensitive.
Ordinary co-parenting programmes should not be imposed where doing so would be inappropriate because of established abuse or safeguarding concerns.
---
26. National Family Justice Data
The Government should develop a national anonymised dataset for private family proceedings involving children.
Where lawful and proportionate, this should include:
- case duration;
- allegations;
- safeguarding findings;
- fact-finding;
- contact arrangements;
- enforcement;
- repeat proceedings;
- child support;
- interventions;
- and outcomes.
No dataset should identify individual children, parents, judges, magistrates, social workers or live cases.
The purpose would be to allow Parliament and policymakers to evaluate whether reforms are actually working.
---
27. Parliamentary Accountability
The Government should publish regular reports concerning the operation of the reformed system.
Reporting should include, where appropriate:
- cases reaching six months;
- cases exceeding twelve months;
- safeguarding outcomes;
- fact-finding;
- serious allegations;
- established harmful interference;
- enforcement;
- child support;
- repeat proceedings;
- and children's experiences.
This would allow Parliament to assess whether reform is producing measurable improvement.
---
28. Fundamental Safeguard
Nothing in this proposal should create an automatic entitlement to equal parenting where that would be contrary to the child's safety or welfare.
A parent who has abused, neglected or placed a child at significant risk should not receive equal parenting simply because they are a parent.
Equally, a safe parent should not lose a meaningful relationship solely because:
- an allegation has been made but not properly investigated;
- an allegation remains unresolved;
- a child is reluctant to have contact without the reasons being properly understood;
- or geographical distance has been interpreted as parental disengagement without proper consideration of the circumstances.
The evidence, safeguarding position and child's welfare must remain central.
---
29. Relationship Between Existing Law and Proposed Reform
The proposal should expressly recognise that significant parts of the requested framework already exist.
The purpose is therefore not to abolish everything and start again.
Instead, the proposal seeks to:
Retain
Existing child-welfare principles, safeguarding duties, judicial decision-making, criminal investigation, domestic-abuse protections and appropriate existing court powers.
Strengthen
Early investigation, child voice, case management, support, monitoring and consistency.
Extend
Independent child support, national data, accountability and systematic investigation.
Clarify
The treatment of geographical distance, unresolved allegations, contact resistance and deliberate harmful interference.
Create or consider creating
A clearer statutory framework recognising deliberately harmful interference with a child's safe relationship with another parent as abusive/harmful behaviour where established through evidence, together with proportionate legal consequences.
This distinction is fundamental to the proposal.
---
30. Requested Government Action
Equal Parenting & Child Voice UK asks the Government to undertake a formal review and consultation on the reforms proposed in this document.
The consultation should include:
- children and young people;
- parents;
- Cafcass;
- the judiciary;
- family-law professionals;
- social workers;
- safeguarding professionals;
- police;
- domestic-abuse organisations;
- children's organisations;
- schools;
- child-support professionals;
- academics;
- and other relevant stakeholders.
The Government should identify which reforms require:
- primary legislation;
- amendments to family procedure;
- secondary legislation;
- professional guidance;
- court practice;
- safeguarding procedures;
- training;
- funding;
- or national data systems.
Implementation should be independently evaluated.
---
Final Principle
Equal Parenting & Child Voice UK proposes a family justice system in which the child is protected, heard and supported, while safe parents are not unnecessarily removed from their children's lives.
It does not seek automatic 50/50 parenting regardless of circumstances.
It seeks a system in which:
- genuine safeguarding concerns are taken seriously;
- serious allegations are investigated appropriately;
- children have an independent voice;
- children have access to independent support;
- children are not placed in the middle of adult conflict;
- allegations are not treated as established facts merely because they have been made;
- unproven allegations are not automatically treated as deliberately false;
- deliberately fabricated allegations can have consequences where legally established;
- deliberate and persistent harmful interference with a child's safe relationship with another parent can receive clearer legal recognition and proportionate consequences where established;
- geographical distance is not automatically treated as parental disengagement;
- safe parents can be considered for meaningful and substantial parenting;
- and cases are resolved as quickly as safely possible.
The guiding question should be:
Where both parents are safe and capable, how can this child maintain a meaningful and substantial relationship with both parents in a way that is safe, practical and genuinely consistent with the child's welfare?
Where that is not safe, protection comes first.
Where it is safe, unnecessary loss of an important parent-child relationship should be prevented.
What I Am Asking For
I am asking the Government and Parliament to consider this proposal as a further programme of family justice reform, building on the laws, safeguards and reforms that already exist.
This proposal is not asking Parliament to simply repeat existing provisions. It identifies areas where the current system could be strengthened, made more consistent, made more accountable and, where necessary, changed in law.
In particular, I am asking for consideration of:
- a stronger framework for meaningful and substantial parenting where both parents are safe and capable;
- a genuinely independent and protected voice and support system for children;
- stronger early family investigation and safeguarding;
- clearer and faster handling of serious disputed allegations;
- a target of approximately six months and a strong expectation of resolution within twelve months wherever reasonably practicable;
- clearer recognition and proportionate consequences for deliberate, persistent and harmful interference with a child's safe relationship with another parent where established through evidence;
- appropriate consequences where deliberately fabricated allegations are legally established;
- greater consideration of geographical distance and a parent's willingness to move closer to their child;
- better support and monitoring for children and families;
- national anonymised data collection;
- and regular parliamentary accountability for the performance of the family justice system.
The fundamental safeguard throughout this proposal is that the safety and welfare of the child must come first.
Where a parent is unsafe, the system must protect the child.
Where both parents are safe and capable, the system should work to protect the child's opportunity to maintain meaningful relationships with both parents rather than allowing avoidable conflict, delay or unsupported assumptions to determine the outcome.
I am asking for this proposal to be properly considered, consulted on with children, families and relevant professionals, and assessed for what changes may be required through legislation, court procedure, professional practice and funding.
Children should not have to lose a safe and loving relationship with a parent simply because the family justice system was unable to resolve the situation effectively or quickly enough.
The Decision Makers
Petition Updates
Share this petition
Petition created on 17 September 2026