The End of Assumptions: Why Family Justice Must Become Evidence-Based

---

Executive Summary

The proposed changes in the Courts and Tribunals Bill 2026 could represent one of the most significant reforms to private family law in a generation.

Removing the presumption of parental involvement provides an opportunity to create a more evidence-based family justice system. However, legislative change alone will not resolve the wider challenges faced by modern families.

A modern family justice system requires earlier identification of risk, improved safeguarding assessments, financial transparency, consistent decision-making and a proportionate approach to complex cases.

This paper recommends the introduction of a Mandatory Three-Tier Family Assessment System across both the Family Court and the Child Maintenance Service (CMS), ensuring that decisions are based on evidence, transparency and the welfare of children.

Moving From Assumptions to Evidence

For more than a decade, the Children Act 1989 has included a presumption that, unless there is evidence to the contrary, the involvement of both parents is likely to further a child’s welfare.

If Parliament removes that presumption, family courts will begin every case from a neutral position.

For many fathers, this has created understandable concern.

Some fear that, without the statutory presumption, it may become easier for their involvement to be reduced if they cannot present sufficient evidence or afford legal representation in an already complex system.

For many survivors of domestic abuse, the proposed changes are viewed differently.

Some believe removing the presumption will allow courts to focus more clearly on evidence where there are genuine safeguarding concerns, coercive control or abuse.

Both perspectives deserve to be heard.

However, the future of family justice should not become a debate about mothers versus fathers. It should become a debate about evidence.

Family justice should never begin with the assumption that one parent is right and the other is wrong. The purpose of the system must be to establish the facts, understand the circumstances and determine what arrangement best promotes the child’s welfare.

Families Change After Separation

Separation changes families in many different ways.

Parents may enter new relationships, remarry, have more children, move home, change jobs or create blended families. These are common changes experienced by thousands of families every year.

For some parents, these changes are positive.

For others, they can be emotionally difficult and lead to disagreements about child arrangements, communication, finances or future parenting decisions.

Some fathers worry that as children become settled within a new family dynamic, their role in their child’s life may gradually diminish.

Some mothers have concerns about changes following a father’s new relationship or changing circumstances.

Equally, fathers may have similar concerns where mothers form new relationships or family circumstances change.

These emotions are understandable. However, personal circumstances alone should never determine the outcome of a family case.

A parent remarrying, having another child, changing employment or creating a blended family does not automatically make them a better or worse parent.

Likewise, a change in circumstances should not automatically justify restricting or increasing a parent’s involvement.

The question should never be: “Has someone’s life changed?”

The question should always be: “What does the evidence show, and what arrangement best promotes this child’s welfare?”

Why Some Fathers Are Concerned

Many fathers have expressed concern that removing the presumption of parental involvement could make it easier for contact to be reduced or restricted.

Some worry they will face greater legal hurdles simply to remain involved in their children’s lives.

Others fear that disputes, misunderstandings or allegations could result in restrictions before all available evidence has been properly examined.

These concerns deserve to be heard.

Equally, concerns raised by either parent about domestic abuse, coercive control, financial abuse, economic abuse, neglect or other safeguarding issues must be properly investigated.

Domestic abuse is not limited to one gender. Women and men can both be affected by domestic abuse, coercive control and economic abuse, and every concern raised must be taken seriously.

Allegations should neither automatically be accepted nor dismissed because of the gender of the parent raising them. They should be assessed objectively, tested against available evidence and considered alongside all relevant information.

Family justice should never assume that one parent is right and the other is wrong.

The court’s role is to establish the facts.

The Importance of Evidence

An evidence-based family justice system requires decisions to be supported by accurate, complete and timely information.

Relevant evidence may include:-

• Verified financial information

• Safeguarding assessments

• Professional reports

• School and educational information

• Medical or therapeutic evidence where appropriate

• Patterns of behaviour over time; and

• The child’s own experiences, wishes and feelings in an age-appropriate way

Decisions should not be based solely on allegations, assumptions or the ability of one party to present a stronger case.

Moving towards a neutral starting position increases the importance of ensuring that both parents have a fair opportunity to provide relevant information.

Without effective early assessment and consistent evidence gathering, there is a risk that outcomes may depend too heavily on resources, confidence or the ability to navigate a complex system.

The Real Problem

The real challenge is not simply whether the law starts with a presumption or a neutral position. The real challenge is ensuring that courts receive accurate, complete and timely information to make the right decision.

Every allegation should be properly investigated.

Every safeguarding concern should be assessed.

Every financial disclosure should be transparent.

Every child’s wishes and feelings should be considered.

Every decision should be supported by evidence.

Unfortunately, straightforward cases and highly complex cases are often processed through the same system. As a result:-

• Safeguarding concerns may not always be identified early

• Coercive control may continue after separation

• Financial and economic abuse can remain hidden

• Complex self-employed or company finances may not receive sufficient scrutiny

• Repeated breaches of Child Arrangements Orders may continue without timely intervention; and

• Families can spend months or years in litigation before the real issues are identified.

Children deserve better.

Child Maintenance and Overnight Care

One area that continues to generate conflict is the interaction between child arrangements and child maintenance.

Under the current Child Maintenance Service scheme, the number of overnight stays can affect the amount of child maintenance payable.

As a result, disagreements sometimes arise about patterns of care, particularly where parents disagree about how many nights a child spends with each parent.

Some parents believe overnight arrangements may sometimes be influenced by financial considerations rather than being based solely on the child’s welfare.

Others argue that restrictions on overnight care can have financial consequences that increase conflict between separated parents.

Where such concerns are raised, they should neither automatically be assumed to be true nor dismissed without consideration. They should be examined objectively alongside all available evidence.

A modern family justice system should ensure that child arrangements are determined by the child’s best interests, not by financial incentives or assumptions.

Financial circumstances after separation can significantly affect children’s welfare.

Where financial information is incomplete, income is complex or resources are deliberately hidden, this can create instability for children and increase conflict between parents. Financial transparency should therefore form part of the wider family assessment process rather than being treated as a separate issue.

The Solution: A Mandatory Three-Tier Family Assessment System

This is why I have spent more than a year campaigning for a Mandatory Three-Tier Family Assessment System across both the Family Court and the Child Maintenance Service.

The purpose is not to favour mothers.

It is not to favour fathers.

It is to ensure that every family receives a proportionate, structured and evidence-based assessment from the beginning.

Tier One – Standard Assessment

For straightforward cases where there are no safeguarding concerns or indicators of complexity.

Tier Two – Enhanced Family and Financial Assessment

For cases involving:-

• Domestic abuse

• Coercive or controlling behaviour

• Financial or economic abuse

• Repeated breaches of Child Arrangements Orders

• Disputed child arrangements

• Complex self-employed or company finances

• Concerns regarding financial disclosure

• Significant parental conflict; or

• Other indicators requiring enhanced assessment

Tier Three – Court and Multi-Agency Safeguarding Review

For the most complex cases requiring coordinated assessment by courts, safeguarding professionals and relevant agencies to ensure decisions are based on the fullest possible evidence.

Expected Benefits of Reform

A Three-Tier Family Assessment System would aim to:-

• Identify safeguarding risks earlier

• Improve consistency of decision-making

• Reduce unnecessary court proceedings

• Improve financial transparency

• Reduce opportunities for financial manipulation

• Support safer child arrangements

• Reduce repeated litigation

• Improve confidence for mothers, fathers and children; and

• Ensure professional resources are targeted towards the most complex cases

A Modern Family Justice System

Whether the proposed legal changes become law or not, one principle should never change.

Family justice must not be driven by gender.

It must not be driven by assumptions.

It must not be driven by conflict.

It must be driven by evidence.

Where evidence shows that a child can safely benefit from a meaningful relationship with both parents, the court should support that relationship.

Where evidence identifies domestic abuse, coercive control, neglect or other safeguarding risks, those concerns must be recognised promptly and acted upon appropriately.

Neither outcome should be predetermined.

Both should be determined by facts.

Children are not passive participants in family breakdown. Their experiences, views and emotional wellbeing should be considered safely and appropriately.

A child-focused justice system should never ask: “Is this the mother or the father?”

It should always ask: “What information is needed, what risks exist, what does the evidence show, and what is truly in this child’s best interests?”

The proposed legal changes present an opportunity not simply to remove one legal presumption, but to modernise the entire approach to family justice.

Replacing assumptions with robust, evidence-led assessment would improve confidence in the system for children, parents and professionals alike.

That is why I continue to call for the introduction of a Mandatory Three-Tier Family Assessment System.

It is time to modernise family justice.

It is time to replace assumptions with evidence.

It is time to build a family justice system that is transparent, consistent and child-focused.

#FamilyJustice #FamilyCourtReform #FathersRights #ChildFocusedJustice #ChildrenFirst #EvidenceBasedJustice #EqualParenting #ChildMaintenanceReform #DomesticAbuseAwareness #CoerciveControlAwareness #SafeguardingChildren #FinancialTransparency #EvidenceOverAssumptions #ModerniseFamilyJustice #DNFamilyLaw

---

Deanna Newell | Founder | DN Family Law

Advocacy for truth-tellers, survivors, and the children who deserve better