New Reforms Target Exceptional Cases—General Presumption of Parental Involvement Remains Intact
Recent media coverage of the government’s family law reforms has led to some confusion about the scope and impact of these changes. While reports on radio stations have suggested a wholesale shift away from the presumption of parental involvement, the reality is more nuanced—and the fundamental principle that children benefit from relationships with both parents, where safe, remains firmly in place.
What the Reforms Actually Change
The amendments to the Victims and Courts Bill target a specific and narrow category of cases: those involving parents convicted of serious offences against children. These are exceptional circumstances where parental involvement poses a clear and serious risk to child welfare.
The key reform is procedural: automatic restriction of parental responsibility at sentencing, rather than requiring survivors to pursue separate family court proceedings. This removes a significant burden from victims while ensuring swift protection for children.
The Broader Principle Remains
What these reforms do not do is overturn the hard-won principle that children generally have a right to maintain relationships with both parents when it is safe to do so. This presumption, which took years to establish in law and practice, has been instrumental in ensuring usually the fathers are not arbitrarily excluded from their children’s lives.
The presumption of parental involvement recognises that children typically benefit from having both parents actively engaged in their upbringing, provided this does not compromise their safety or wellbeing. This principle has helped countless fathers maintain meaningful contact with their children following separation, and has prevented the use of contact disputes as a weapon in acrimonious breakdowns.
A Targeted Response to Serious Harm
The government’s reforms should be understood as a targeted response to egregious cases where parental involvement clearly endangers children—not a general retreat from recognising the importance of both parents. The automatic restriction includes a safeguard: it will not be imposed if contrary to “the interests of justice,” ensuring judicial discretion remains where appropriate.
For the vast majority of families navigating separation, the expectation remains that both parents will continue to play an active role in their children’s lives. These reforms simply ensure that in the most serious cases—involving serious offences against children —the safety of children and protection of survivors take precedence, as they should.
Simon Walker – Senior Associate
simon.walker@mogersdrewett.com