Skip to content

Children and Families Act 2014, Section 11 — Welfare of the Child: Parental Involvement

Jurisdiction: England & Wales · Citation: Children and Families Act 2014 (c. 6), section 11 · Authoritative source: legislation.gov.uk — s.11

The statutory presumption that involvement of each parent in the child's life will further the child's welfare — unless evidence shows the contrary. This is the closest thing in English law to an explicit anti-alienation provision: it inserts a rebuttable welfare-presumption that, absent risk evidence, both parents should be involved in the child's life.

The section operates by amending Children Act 1989, s.1 — adding subsections (2A), (2B), (6) and (7).

Verbatim text (current consolidated)

11 Welfare of the child: parental involvement.

(1) Section 1 of the Children Act 1989 (welfare of the child) is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (2) insert—

"(2A) A court, in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (4)(a) or (7), is as respects each parent within subsection (6)(a) to presume, unless the contrary is shown, that involvement of that parent in the life of the child concerned will further the child's welfare.

(2B) In subsection (2A) 'involvement' means involvement of some kind, either direct or indirect, but not any particular division of a child's time."

(3) After subsection (5) insert—

"(6) In subsection (2A) 'parent' means parent of the child concerned; and, for the purposes of that subsection, a parent of the child concerned—

(a) is within this paragraph if that parent can be involved in the child's life in a way that does not put the child at risk of suffering harm; and

(b) is to be treated as being within paragraph (a) unless there is some evidence before the court in the particular proceedings to suggest that involvement of that parent in the child's life would put the child at risk of suffering harm whatever the form of the involvement.

(7) The circumstances referred to are that the court is considering whether to make an order under section 4(1)© or (2A) or 4ZA(1)© or (5) (parental responsibility of parent other than mother)."

Why this matters for PA

  • The rebuttable presumption is the statutory hinge for PA cases. Where an alienating parent attempts to procure no-contact or minimal-contact orders without evidence of risk, s.11/s.1(2A) of the CA 1989 places the burden on the alienating party to show why involvement of the targeted parent would harm the child.
  • The s.1(6)(b) "evidence before the court" trigger is critical — alienating-parent rhetoric and unevidenced allegations are not sufficient to displace the presumption. The court requires some evidence; bare assertion is not enough.
  • s.1(2B) — "involvement of some kind, either direct or indirect, but not any particular division of a child's time" — defeats two common alienating-parent tactics: (a) the claim that "involvement" means equal time (so anything less means no involvement), and (b) the claim that limited contact is functionally equivalent to no involvement.
  • 2024 statutory review (Family Justice Council, MoJ) has been examining whether s.1(2A) should be strengthened to expressly include "meaningful involvement" or a positive direction in favour of contact, particularly in PA-pattern cases where the presumption has not produced the expected outcomes.

Cross-jurisdictional comparison

  • Australia, Family Law Act 1975 s.60B: similar "meaningful involvement" presumption (replaced 2024 with a more welfare-focused framework after the Australian Law Reform Commission's review).
  • Canada, Divorce Act s.16(6) (2021 amendments): courts consider "the importance of contact with each spouse" but stop short of a presumption.
  • Italy, Codice Civile art. 337-ter: a presumption of joint custody / bigenitorialità — stronger statutory wording than English law.

Sources & authoritative references

Referenced in this page:

Topic baseline (independently verifiable):