Child Welfare First: What Clause 17 Means for Parents
The government’s new Courts and Tribunals Bill 2026 is set to change how judges make decisions about child custody and contact.
The most talked‑about part of the Bill is Clause 17, which removes the old rule that assumed it was always best for children to have both parents involved in their lives.
What Was the Old Rule?
For years, the law said that judges should start from the idea that children benefit from having both parents involved, unless there was clear evidence of harm. This was meant to encourage shared parenting. But many campaigners argued that it sometimes put children at risk — especially in cases where one parent had a history of abuse.
What’s Changing?
Clause 17 gets rid of that automatic assumption. Judges will now look at each case individually, asking: What is truly best for this child? The focus will be on the child’s safety, wellbeing, and long‑term interests, not on parental rights.
This means that if there are concerns about abuse or neglect, the court won’t be forced to start from the position that both parents should be involved. Instead, the judge will weigh up the evidence and decide what level of contact, if any, is safe and beneficial.
Why Has This Happened?
The change comes after years of campaigning by parents and charities who felt the old rule was dangerous. One high‑profile campaigner, Claire Throssell, lost her children to an abusive ex‑partner and has fought for reforms to protect others. Tragically, the organisation Throssell teamed up with, “Women’s Aid” confirmed that 19 more children since her sons died in 2014 have lost their lives in similar cases.
The government says the new law makes clear that children’s welfare comes first.
What Does This Mean in Practice?
- Case‑by‑case decisions: Judges will no longer rely on a presumption. Every case will be judged on its own facts.
- Safer outcomes: Courts can order supervised visits, indirect contact (like letters or video calls), or no contact at all if that’s what protects the child.
- Non‑resident parents: Many fathers’ groups worry this could reduce their chances of involvement. But the government insists that safe, positive contact will still be supported.
- Institutions adapting: Policies in places like prisons are being updated to reflect the new approach, ensuring parental contact only happens where it is safe.
The Debate
Supporters say Clause 17 is a vital step to protect children from harm. Critics argue it could make it harder for non‑resident parents to stay involved in their children’s lives. As with many changes in family law, the real impact will depend on how judges apply the new rules in practice.
In summary: Clause 17 marks a big shift in custody law. The courts will now put child welfare above all else, without starting from the idea that both parents must be involved. For families going through disputes, this means the focus will be squarely on what keeps children safe and helps them thrive.
The repeal of the presumption of involvement of both parents | The Transparency Project
Abuse survivor’s tireless campaign leads to law change announcement