Why does the Children Act 1989 not provide adequate protection for children?
The Children Act does not require the courts to ensure that contact orders are safe for children with violent parents, and the meaning of the Act has been distorted by the following case-law precedents: • In Re O (Contact: Imposition of Conditions)[1995] the Appeal Court set a very strong presumption of contact by ruling that contact is “almost always in the child’s interest”. • In Re H and R (Child Sexual Abuse)[1995] the House of Lords ruled that a higher standard of proof should be required in family law cases involving more serious allegations. This ruling makes it very hard to protect a child who has been physically or sexually abused, because it is notoriously difficult to prove child abuse, particularly child sexual abuse, in a court of law. The Government recently tried to tackle this issue by introducing Good Practice Guidelines and extending the definition of harm in the Children Act 1989, but unfortunately these measures do not overrule these damaging case-law precedents. Or
