Campaign · Children Act 1989, section 7 · Live now
On the Record
Measure the risk. Write it down. Protect the child. Decisions about who a child sees can rest on one person’s subjective impression, sometimes spoken aloud and never written down. A small amendment to the Courts and Tribunals Bill changes that.
The problem
Said in court. Gone for good.
“The report may be made in writing, or orally, as the court requires.”
Children Act 1989, section 7(3), as it stands
A welfare report can decide whether a child ever sees a parent again. Today the law allows that report to be spoken in the courtroom, with no written record of the reasoning, the risks considered, or how they could be managed. Even a written report often does not include a quantified risk assessment.
Arguments over what was said
This leads to appeals, complaints and waste in both the courts and local authorities.
No supervision
A manager cannot review a report that was never written.
No quality assurance
Two professionals can reach opposite answers about the same family.
No audit
Spoken reports cannot be examined after a complaint or a child’s death.
When bias decides
One flaw. Two tragedies.
Charm is not safety
A dangerous person can be confident, polite and convincing. An assessor who is won over may recommend contact. Children and former partners have died after exactly that.
19 children in 18 families were killed by a domestic abuse perpetrator who had contact with them through a formal or informal arrangement. Four of the cases had been through the family courts.
Child safeguarding and serious case reviews published September 2015 to September 2024. Source: Women’s Aid, Nineteen More Child Homicides (2025).
Safe parents, shut out
The same bias works the other way. A parent with no convictions, no findings and no history of harm can lose their child because of how they came across in one short call: first impressions, confirmation bias, stereotypes, or an assessor who simply prefers one parent.
A child who loses a safe, loving parent is harmed too, and that harm is never recorded as a risk.
The evidence
Measure the risk. Don’t guess it.
of studies found structured methods matched or beat personal judgement.
of studies found structured methods substantially more accurate.
The Court of Appeal already asks
In Re F [2018] EWCA Civ 2761 the court set out four questions: the type of harm, its likelihood, its severity, and whether it can be reduced. The amendment makes every report answer them in writing.
Source: a meta-analysis of 136 studies. Grove, Zald, Lebow, Snitz & Nelson, Clinical versus mechanical prediction: a meta-analysis, Psychological Assessment 12(1), 19–30 (2000).
The solution
A simple amendment. An enormous impact.
A quantified risk assessment
Every risk to the child is scored for likelihood and severity.
A mitigation strategy
Every option to reduce each risk is set out, so the court sees ways to keep contact safe.
Written and filed
No more oral reports. The reasoning is documented for quality assurance, audit and any complaint.
Twelve months to prepare
The Lord Chancellor sets the method by regulations, and report writers are trained first.
Danger is named. Safety is visible.
A charming parent cannot talk a real risk away. A safe parent is not refused contact on a biased impression. The judge still decides, but on reasoning anyone can check.
Read the amended section 7 in full
7 Welfare reports
(1) A court considering any question with respect to a child under this Act may— (a) ask [an officer of the Service]; or (b) ask a local authority to arrange for— (i) an officer of the authority; or (ii) such other person (other than [an officer of the Service]) as the authority considers appropriate, to report to the court on such matters relating to the welfare of that child as are required to be dealt with in the report.
(2) The Lord Chancellor may make regulations specifying matters which, unless the court orders otherwise, must be dealt with in any report under this section.
(2A) A report under this section must be accompanied by an appendix containing— (i) a written quantified risk assessment which identifies all risks to the welfare of the child identified by the person preparing the report; and (ii) a written risk mitigation strategy which identifies all risk mitigation options for every risk identified in the risk assessment.
(3) The report must be made in writing, filed with the court, and must incorporate or be accompanied by the appendix required under subsection (2A).
(4) Regardless of any enactment or rule of law which would otherwise prevent it from doing so, the court may take account of— (a) any statement contained in the report; and (b) any evidence given in respect of the matters referred to in the report, in so far as the statement or evidence is, in the opinion of the court, relevant to the question which it is considering.
(5) It shall be the duty of the authority or [officer of the Service] to comply with any request for a report under this section.
(6) This section shall come into force 12 months after the date on which this Act receives Royal Assent, to allow the Lord Chancellor to make regulations under subsection (2) and to ensure that persons who may be asked to prepare reports under this section receive adequate training in quantified risk assessment methodologies.
Highlighted: new or changed text.
Take action
Ask your MP to back the amendment
It takes two minutes. Enter your postcode and we will write the email for you to check and send.
Support the campaign
Help cover the costs of campaigning
Gifts go to Gavin Johnston to cover campaign costs such as printing, travel and the website. Fairer Family Court is a voluntary campaign, not a charity, so gifts are not eligible for Gift Aid.
Keep informed
Be the first to know when to act
Each campaign has a different ask of MPs. Sign up and we will tell you when your voice can make the biggest difference: a Bill in committee, a vote, or a consultation closing.
Occasional emails only. You can unsubscribe at any time. See our privacy policy.