To: The Parliament of the United Kingdom

We, call on Parliament to introduce and pass a Family Justice Reform Bill to replace outdated legislation in private law children cases with a framework grounded in evidence, child safety, and trauma-informed practice.

 

Rationale:

Removing section 1(2A) of the Children Act 1989 alone does not dismantle the longstanding “contact-promoting” culture in private law children proceedings. Courts have historically assumed that contact with both parents is usually beneficial, reinforced by appellate authority including Re H (A Child) (Contact: Domestic Violence), which emphasises:

 

• Courts have a positive obligation to promote contact.

• Contact should end only in exceptional circumstances.

• Suspension requires cogent reasons.

 

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights continues to create structural pressure to maintain parental relationships, even when risk exists. Without explicit statutory recalibration, repeal risks being symbolic rather than transformative.

 

We urge Parliament to enact comprehensive reform addressing the following priorities:

 

1. Safety First

 

    Statutory hierarchy must prioritise the physical and psychological safety of children over parental involvement.

 

2. Recognition of Coercive Control and Post-Separation Abuse

 

   • Emotional, economic, and coercive behaviours post-separation must be explicitly recognised as “harm” in the welfare checklist.

 

3. Reframing the Positive Obligation to Promote Contact

 

   • No duty to promote contact where risk exists.

   • Remove the framing of contact suspension as only permissible in “exceptional circumstances.”

 

4. Revised Welfare Checklist

 

   • Mandatory consideration of:

     • Domestic abuse history

     • Risk of continued coercive control and post-separation abuse

     • Emotional security and boundary-respecting capacity

 

5. Clarified Position under Article 8

 

   • Child welfare remains paramount.

   • No freestanding parental right to contact; Article 8 is not absolute.

   • Preservation of family life cannot override substantiated safeguarding risks.

 

6. Procedural Safeguards

 

   • Mandatory risk assessments.

   • Required findings of fact where abuse is alleged.

   • No adverse inference for raising safeguarding concerns in good faith.

 

7. Trauma-Informed Reasoning

 

   • Distinguish trauma responses from perceived “hostility.”

   • Protective behaviour must not be mischaracterised as obstruction.

 

8. Standard for Restricting Contact

 

   • Contact only ordered where affirmatively safe and beneficial.

   • Indirect or no contact is lawful where risk cannot be safely managed.

 

9. Express Parliamentary Intention

 

   • Clear interpretative clause signalling departure from the default contact-promoting approach.

• Parliament to exercise it's sovereignty to override all previous case law. 

 

10. Judicial Training

 

    • Statutory requirement for specialist training in domestic abuse, coercive control, and trauma-informed practice.

11. Removal and outlaw of out dated pseudo-science, such as Parental alienation and alienating behaviours. 

12. Guidence to the court on how to protect children where disclosures are made in relation to child sexual abuse.

13. The removal of unnecessary psychologists. The pathologization of mothers is not helpful where trauma is present. 

 

Conclusion:

 

Without explicit statutory recalibration, the repeal of section 1(2A) will not meaningfully protect children or victims of abuse. This petition calls for a Family Justice Reform Bill that replaces outdated presumptions and “draconian” practices with evidence-based, child-centred decision-making. Parliament must act to ensure that the safety, wellbeing, and rights of children are paramount.