On the eleventh anniversary of a tragedy that shook the United Kingdom, the government announced a sweeping change to family court law—one that campaigners say will save children’s lives and finally put their safety first. The move comes after years of advocacy, most notably from Claire Throssell, whose sons Jack, 12, and Paul, nine, were killed by their father in a deliberate house fire in Yorkshire in October 2014. Despite clear warnings and evidence of previous threats, the boys’ father had continued to be granted access under a law that presumed contact with both parents was usually in a child’s best interest.
That presumption, enshrined in the Children Act 1989, has been the subject of fierce debate for decades. According to the Ministry of Justice, new evidence shows that clinging to the idea that parental contact is always beneficial can, in fact, perpetuate abuse. The government’s decision to repeal this presumption marks a fundamental shift in how courts will approach custody and visitation, aiming to make it easier and quicker to restrict contact with abusive parents.
Claire Throssell’s story is at the heart of this change. In the days leading up to the announcement, she met with Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, who promised to deliver on her campaign’s objectives. Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, Throssell recalled a promise she made to her son Paul as he lay dying in her arms: “I’ve waited 11 years, I don’t want to wait 11 more. Let’s be honest, for 30 years the family courts have let down children, have failed to protect them, have failed to see, hear, believe and support them. They mustn’t be allowed to fail them for 30 more. I hope it goes through as quickly as possible next year.”
Throssell’s advocacy has not gone unnoticed. Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy, in a statement marking the announcement, said, “As we mark this important step forward in the law, I pay tribute to her sons, Jack and Paul, whose memory drives our commitment to ensuring no other child suffers a similar fate.” Lammy called Throssell “simply remarkable,” highlighting her courage and determination in the face of unimaginable loss.
For Throssell, the campaign was never about seeking a personal victory. “It doesn’t feel like a victory or a win, but it does feel that there is a change coming in the country, and it will save so many children’s lives,” she said. “I hope that one day I can go to where they sleep and say to them that all the children around them, all the children in this country, will have a safer, brighter future.”
The Ministry of Justice explained that, while the current presumption could be overturned if there was evidence a parent posed a risk, removing the law entirely should lead to faster and more decisive action. Justice Minister Sarah Sackman described the announcement as “hugely significant,” adding that she wanted the change to happen “as soon as parliamentary time allows.”
Women’s Aid, a leading domestic abuse charity, has long called for the repeal. Its chief executive, Farah Nazeer, said the organization “warmly welcomes” the government’s move, calling it “an important first step.” But she also warned that changing the law alone would not be enough: “With the existing ‘pro-contact’ culture being deep-rooted in the family courts, comprehensive action needs to be taken to overturn these dangerous attitudes and beliefs that are putting lives at risk.” Nazeer also stressed the need for improved training for judges and magistrates, pointing to a “fundamental lack of transparency and accountability” in how domestic abuse and coercive control are recognized in courtrooms.
The government’s announcement isn’t limited to the presumption of contact. In the same week, plans were unveiled to automatically restrict parental responsibility for rapists whose crimes resulted in the birth of a child, and for parents convicted of serious sexual offences against any children. The Ministry of Justice stated that these measures are part of a broader mission to halve violence against women and girls within a decade.
The debate over how best to protect children in family court is hardly unique to the UK. In the United States, particularly in Michigan, child welfare reform is also at a crossroads. On October 21, 2025, five county court administrators presented early ideas for reforming Michigan’s child welfare system to lawmakers—a system that’s been under federal monitoring for 17 years. Their testimony highlighted the tension between centralized standards and the need for local flexibility and knowledge.
Tim Smith, Charlevoix County Court Administrator, pointed out that since the state moved to centralized intake, the number of child abuse and neglect petitions in his county dropped by about 60%. But, he cautioned, “It’s simply that matters aren’t being investigated because there’s someone making that decision who doesn’t know the area, doesn’t understand the nuances of the community and the generational issues of families.”
Thom Lattig, Ottawa County Juvenile Court Director, shared the story of a young man who had been in detention for ten months due to a lack of placement options, underscoring the need for local control and compassion. “We are taking the lead to secure placement for this young man, because we have the flexibility and the compassion from our caseworkers,” Lattig said.
There was consensus among the Michigan administrators that while standardization—such as consistent training for caseworkers and legal representation for the Department of Health and Human Services—is crucial, local knowledge and weekly face-to-face contact, as practiced in Ingham County, can make a significant difference in child outcomes. Kathie Kolean, assistant director of Ottawa County Juvenile Court, recounted her own family’s struggle with the system, emphasizing that “structured screening tools, such as those used in the juvenile justice system, are evidence, informed, consistent, objective, rather than solely based on convenience or personal discretion.”
Whether in the UK or the US, these stories and statistics reveal a common thread: well-intentioned laws and policies often fall short in protecting the most vulnerable when they fail to account for the complexities of abuse, family dynamics, and local realities. Reformers like Claire Throssell and the Michigan administrators are pushing for systems that listen to children and communities, rather than relying on outdated assumptions or one-size-fits-all rules.
As the UK prepares to legislate the repeal of the presumption of parental contact, and as Michigan continues to grapple with its own reforms, one thing is clear: real change comes not just from new laws, but from a willingness to hear the voices of those most affected—and to act with urgency and compassion.