The decision, announced last week, follows the campaigning of Claire Throssell, whose children were killed by their abusive father 11 years ago.
Bar Council chair and family silk Barbara Mills KC said the presumption that it is in a child’s best interests to have contact with both parents ‘has long prioritised contact over safety, leaving many potentially subjected to ongoing abuse’. She said repeal was ‘a strong protective measure’, but called for more funding ‘to ensure all parties are represented and have access to non-means-and non-merit-tested legal aid.
‘Unrepresented parties often mean cases go on for longer, swallowing up judges' time. Family court proceedings can also themselves become a vehicle for ongoing abuse’.
Family silk Ruth Kirby KC, barrister at 4PB, said: ‘Family cases are fact-specific and many involve genuine domestic abuse which must and should be taken into account.
‘That hasn’t always been the case when using the starting point that a child is entitled to have a relationship with both parents. There are also cases in the family court where women make false allegations of domestic abuse and I am concerned that any complete abandonment of the presumption may give more weight to those false allegations and unfairly deprive children of their right to a relationship with both parents.
‘We must continue to approach cases on a fact-specific basis and not assume that every allegation of domestic abuse is true. I worry that we may be heading too far in that direction.’
Kirsty Morris, partner at Burgess Mee, said it was essential to balance the protection of those at risk with safeguards against restricting parental involvement where there is no risk.
The government also plans to introduce automatic restrictions on parental responsibility following conviction of a serious sexual offence against a child, or where a child is born as a result of rape.
The reform, announced last week, will be made through an amendment to the Victims and Courts Bill.
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=49be51b1_1)
