Courts and Tribunals Bill — Additional further written evidence submitted by Both Parents Matter (CTB42)

Courts and Tribunals Bill (28th April 2026)

Primary navigation

Home

Parliamentary business

MPs, Lords & offices

About Parliament

Get involved

Visiting

Education

House of Commons

House of Lords

What's on

Bills & legislation

Committees

Publications & records

Parliament TV

News

Topics

You are hereParliament home page
>
Parliamentary business
>
Publications and Records
>
Hansard
>
Commons Debates
>
Public Bill Committee Debates
>
Public Bill Committee

Session 2021-22

Courts and Tribunals Bill

Additional further written evidence submitted by Both Parents Matter to the Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee (CTB42)

Response to Written Evidence CTB36 Submitted by Fair Hearing

1. Introduction

This submission responds to the evidence provided by Fair Hearing in support of amendments NC16, NC20 and NC31. While the protection of children and survivors of domestic abuse is of paramount importance, the proposed amendments are not supported by sufficiently balanced or robust evidence and, by introducing new presumptions in law, risk undermining fundamental principles of family justice.

2. Systemic Failure

Fair Hearing characterises the family justice system as structurally unsafe. This interpretation is contested across the family justice sector.

The 2020 Harm Panel Report identified concerns regarding practice and consistency, but did not conclude that the legal framework itself is fundamentally defective. Existing mechanisms-including the updated Practice Direction 12J, fact-finding hearings and safeguarding checks-already provide courts with the tools necessary to manage risk appropriately.

Whilst Fair Hearing cites evidence that highlight genuine risks, the evidence does not demonstrate that current legal standards are incapable of addressing them, nor that the proposed amendments would reduce such harm.

The issue is therefore one of
implementation
, not legislative deficiency.

3. Overextension of Statistics

The submission relies on statistics that require careful interpretation.

·

The claim that 87% of cases of those analysed by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner

[1]

involve domestic abuse, refers to
allegations
, not proven findings. This report therefore takes domestic abuse allegations at face value, treating them as fact without distinguishing between substantiated and unsubstantiated claims. As well as risking the proper identification and assessment of genuine cases, such an assertion risks undermining due process and evidential fairness.

·

The Domestic Abuse Commissioner report also has a number of shortcomingsan over-reliance on focus groups introducing selection bias, an unbalanced literature base and a lack of systemic, representative data, which risks presenting a narrative supported only by a partial evidence base.

·

The limitations of the 2020 Harm Panel Report were recognised by the authors themselves, with its emphasis on subjective, anecdotal evidence from self-selecting sample groups risking selection bias, and a lack of quantitative research data. The research review and panel membership was mainly influenced by advocacy group involvement with no father or separated parent representation.

·

This charity outlined the multiple research failings of the Ministry of Justice Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement: Final Report (October 2025) in our previous submission
CTB10
, with the report’s conclusion to repeal the Presumption unsupported by the evidence.

·

Fair Hearing cites the tragic cases of 67 children killed in contact arrangements over 30 years. This is in the context of hundreds of thousands of child arrangements orders annually which, over 30 years, equates to millions of contact decisions. Accepting the tragic figure of 67 children, the rate is statistically extremely low and causation (ie, that court decisions directly enabled each death) is not established in all cases. Serious case reviews repeatedly show multi-agency failures, not solely judicial decision-making; these tragedies justify improving safeguarding practice before restructuring legal presumptions for all cases.

4. Mischaracterisation of Alienating Behaviour

Fair Hearing presents "parental alienation" as a discredited concept. This is misleading in the UK context.

"Parental Alienation Syndrome" may be discredited, or at least controversial, in terms of being a condition capable of clinical diagnosis. This is different to "parental alienation" which the Courts in England and Wales assess as an
observable alienating behaviour
that may harm a child’s relationship with a parent. Such harm is recognised in case law, professional guidance and academic studies

[2]

.

Conflating the "behaviour" with the "syndrome" to discredit the former, risks leaving children unprotected from this recognised harm.

While parental alienation can be raised inappropriately in some cases, that does not justify dismissing it as illegitimate. Parental Alienation can be directed against mothers as well as fathers, occurs and is raised without any abuse allegations present and its prevalence is well documented.

Whilst The Family Justice Council 2024 Guidance rejects it as a medical "syndrome", it affirms alienating behaviours can be harmful and that assessment requires careful, evidence-based evaluation. It does not support or mandate the presumptions of the type proposed in NC20/NC31.

5. Reliance on Contested International Evidence

The Fair Hearing submission draws heavily on:

·

US-based research (Meier et al.)

·

UN Special Rapporteur reports

The cited Meier report has been subject to methodological criticism in that, amongst others, it did not distinguish between unfounded, false and proven allegations; the US family law system also differs significantly to that in England and Wales.

The UN Special Rapporteur reports are advocacy documents, not binding legal standards.

These sources are not determinative in the UK legal context.

UK legislation should be grounded in
domestic legal principles and evidence
, not contested or non-binding international advocacy.

6. Erosion of Judicial Discretion

The proposed amendments introduce rebuttable presumptions that alter the starting point of judicial decision-making.

While framed as modest adjustments that "correct imbalances", these changes would in practice:

·

Shift the burden of proof

·

Influence evidential interpretation

·

Risk predetermining outcomes

This approach is inconsistent with the
Children Act 1989
, which requires a fully individualised welfare assessment in each case. We respectfully suggest it is inconsistent to state that presumptions in current law are ineffective or misapplied but then that new presumptions will correct outcomes.

7. Due Process and Fairness Concerns

The proposed amendments risk:

·

Giving undue weight to untested allegations

·

Creating incentives for strategic litigation behaviour

·

Reducing the court’s ability to assess evidence impartially

Safeguarding must be balanced with procedural fairness. Weakening due process may ultimately undermine confidence in outcomes.

Unfounded or exaggerated allegations of abuse, in all its forms including alienation, are a recognised feature of adversarial custody disputes. Where evidential ambiguity exists, introducing presumptions risks distorting outcomes rather than improving them.

8. Hague Convention Considerations

The Hague Convention serves an essential role in preventing unilateral child removal. High thresholds (e.g. Article 13(1)(b)) are intentional safeguards against misuse. Lowering thresholds risks incentivising international child abduction framed as protection.

The assertion that amendment NC16 poses no risk to international obligations is overstated. Changes to domestic relocation presumptions may:

·

Create legal uncertainty in cross-border disputes

·

Undermine consistency with other jurisdictions

·

Increase litigation complexity

A cautious approach is required when legislating in areas with international legal implications. The claim that the Hague Convention has failed to protect survivors is presented without systemic evidence, whilst domestic abuse is instead properly considered in relocation decisions and each case assessed under the welfare principle.

9. Conclusion

Fair Hearing identifies important concerns regarding domestic abuse and child safety. However, the proposed amendments represent a disproportionate and insufficiently evidenced response.

The existing legal framework already prioritises child welfare and safety. The primary need is for:

·

Improved consistency in judicial practice

·

Enhanced training

·

Better resourcing of the system

Introducing statutory presumptions risks undermining fairness, distorting evidential assessment and producing unintended consequences for children and families. The appropriate response is improved implementation of existing law, not restructuring the legal framework through further presumptions.

April 2026

[1]
The Domestic Abuse Commissioner's October 2025 Everyday Business Report

[2]
For an example of the latest research, see
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2026.1803173/full

Prepared 28th April 2026

Footer links

A-Z index

Glossary

Contact us

Freedom of Information

Jobs

Using this website

Copyright

Privacy notice
Cookie policy
Cookie Manager