The UK Just Took Aim at Presumed 50/50 Custody — Will America Listen?
For years, family courts have operated from a dangerous assumption:
Children should have contact with both parents whenever possible.
That sounds reasonable—until one parent is abusive.
Until a child is afraid.
Until one parent uses “co-parenting” as a weapon.
Until court-ordered contact becomes the very thing that puts a child in danger.
Now the United Kingdom is taking a dramatic step in the opposite direction.
In March 2026, the UK government announced that it plans to repeal the “presumption of parental involvement” from the Children Act 1989. In plain English, courts will no longer begin with the assumption that parental involvement is automatically in a child’s best interests.
Instead, judges are supposed to begin with an open-minded inquiry:
What is actually safest and best for this child?
That is enormous. Australia is going the same direction.
Safety First, Not Contact First
The UK government said the current process can leave children at risk of harm. That is a stunning admission.
For years, protective parents have been told:
- “Children need both parents.”
- “Don’t interfere with contact.”
- “Be the friendly parent.”
- “You need to co-parent better.”
But what if the other parent is dangerous?
What if the problem is not “conflict,” but abuse?
What if equal access gives an abuser more opportunities to intimidate, manipulate, threaten, or harm?
Family court slogans do not protect children. Careful, individualized safety assessments do.
Why Claire Throssell’s Story Matters
This reform is tied closely to the advocacy of Claire Throssell, whose two sons, Jack and Paul, were murdered by their abusive father after family court authorized contact.
Claire had warned the system. Her children had warned the system.
The system still prioritized contact.
Her sons died.
That is why this change matters. It is not anti-parent. It is pro-child. It says a child’s safety is more important than maintaining the appearance of a two-parent arrangement.
America Needs to Pay Attention
This debate is already here.
In the United States, several states have considered or adopted laws favoring joint custody or equal parenting time. Kentucky became the first state to establish a legal presumption favoring joint custody and roughly equal parenting time.
Supporters often frame these laws as “fairness.” But custody is not supposed to be about fairness between adults.
Custody is supposed to be about children.
Some parents are loving, safe, and responsible. In those cases, shared parenting may work well.
But some parents are not safe. Some use custody exchanges to harass. Some use children as messengers. Some use litigation as punishment. Some terrorize the safe parent and then demand equal access in the name of “parental rights.”
A 50/50 calendar does not magically create safety.
Sometimes it creates more danger. The Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) needs to take this seriously.
Christians Must Stop Confusing Access with Love
As Christians, we should care deeply about children having loving relationships with safe parents.
But we should never make an idol out of family structure.
Jesus cared about the vulnerable. Scripture repeatedly calls God’s people to protect the oppressed, defend the weak, and refuse to partner with wickedness.
Not every person who wants access is safe.
Not every parent who demands “rights” is acting in love.
And not every protective parent is “bitter” or “alienating.” Some are trying to keep their children alive.
For more on this, see chapter 7 in The Life-Saving Divorce.
The Question America Must Answer
The UK is moving away from automatic assumptions and toward child safety.
America should do the same.
Children are not property to be divided equally.
They are precious human beings made in the image of God.
And when abuse is present, the question should never be, “How do we preserve equal access?”
The question should be:
What will keep this child safe?
:
:
Buy PDF