When Safety Isn't an Attack on Fatherhood.

Why the UK’s Repeal of the Contact Presumption Is a Necessary Shift.

The recent decision by the UK Justice Department to repeal the statutory presumption of parental involvement has triggered emotional reactions, especially among those aligned with the so-called “parental alienation” movement. Some have framed this as a war on fathers or the erosion of family integrity. But in truth, this reform signals something far more profound: a long-overdue realignment of family justice with the realities of domestic violence, coercive control, and child safety.

What the repeal actually means.

The 2014 presumption stated that courts should assume contact with both parents benefits a child, unless proven otherwise. It created a starting position that both parents’ involvement was inherently positive. However, as countless case reviews, inquests, and child deaths have revealed, this presumption has too often overridden evidence of abuse, coercive control, and risk.

The UK’s Ministry of Justice and Domestic Abuse Commissioner found a disturbing pattern: courts prioritising contact even in cases where there were clear indicators of danger. Mothers (and some fathers) were disbelieved, children were silenced, and abusers were granted access under the banner of “a child’s right to both parents.” The repeal is not an attack on fatherhood; it is an attempt to break the pattern of institutional blindness that has cost children their lives.

Where the ‘parental alienation’ argument misses the mark

The blog by Sinta Ebersohn, echoing global fathers’ rights rhetoric mischaracterises the reform as an erosion of justice. But it fails to confront a central truth: the “presumption of contact” has not protected children; it has protected perpetrators.

Her framing relies heavily on:

The false equivalence between “parental alienation” and “abuse”;

The assumption that false allegations are common; and

The belief that removing a presumption of contact somehow “erases” good parents.

None of these claims are supported by empirical evidence.

Multiple international reviews, including the UK’s Harm Panel Report (2020), Domestic Abuse Act Review (2023), and similar Australian inquiries, show that false allegations are rare, while failure to act on genuine abuse is widespread.

The notion of parental alienation has itself been heavily criticised by the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women (2023), who warned that it is routinely misused in court to discredit protective mothers and reframe coercive control as “conflict”. In this context, centering the narrative around “alienated fathers” diverts attention from the actual epidemic - gendered violence and systemic disbelief of women and children.

Safety is not bias, it’s balance restored.

The repeal doesn’t mean that fit, loving parents will be excluded. It means that contact will no longer be presumed safe without proof. Courts must now start with a child’s right to safety not a parent’s right to access.

For survivors of domestic and economic abuse, this is monumental. It acknowledges that post-separation abuse, including financial control, stalking, and legal harassment doesn’t end with the relationship; it often intensifies through the court process.

The UK shift mirrors a growing global recognition: family law must no longer function as a continuation of abuse by other means.

In South Africa, the conversation lags behind, and why it matters here. Our courts still operate under a similar assumption that contact is always beneficial, even when histories of violence, intimidation, or non-support exist. Maintenance defaulters routinely seek increased contact while withholding financial support, a pattern of economic coercion that the system rarely identifies as abuse.

Meanwhile, genuine protective parents, often mothers, are accused of alienation for trying to keep children safe. The concept has become a tool to silence victims rather than protect children.

As South Africa moves toward reforming its maintenance and domestic violence systems, the UK example offers a crucial lesson: children’s safety and parents’ rights are not equal claims. Safety must come first, and contact should follow only when it is safe.

What this reform really signals

The repeal does not dismantle family bonds, it redefines accountability. It says:

A parent’s involvement is not automatically beneficial.

Abuse, coercive control, and financial manipulation must be examined before contact is granted.

The well-being of children and the safety of victims are non-negotiable starting points.

This is not an ideological attack on fathers. It is a reality check for systems that have too long treated abuse as a “relationship issue” rather than a safety issue.

Toward a child-centred justice system

For reformers, this shift is part of a broader evolution: away from adversarial family law, and toward trauma-informed, evidence-led decision-making.

It means early fact-finding, judicial education on coercive control, and mechanisms to protect victims from re-traumatisation through repeated litigation.

And for those of us focused on economic abuse and maintenance reform, it offers a parallel insight: just as a presumption of contact can endanger children, a presumption of “shared financial responsibility” without enforcement equally harms them.

Both systems fail when they privilege adult rights over child well-being.

Final thought

Repealing the presumption of contact is not about removing a pillar of family life, it’s about reinforcing its foundation.

A family justice system that cannot recognise abuse cannot deliver justice.

And a parent who truly loves their child will support a system that puts safety first even when it demands accountability from them.