Parents in England and Wales Face Tougher Penalties 2026

Key Points

• Parents in England and Wales may now incur increased fines, reduction of benefits, or even imprisonment if they deliberately fail to abide by stronger Parenting Orders.
• Youth Justice Minister Jake Richards stated that imprisonment would be used for “the most extreme cases” and that it will still be left to the discretion of judges.
• The Parenting Orders may include requirements such as attendance at counselling sessions or guidance classes, or even residential courses, in some cases.
• The current maximum fine for non-compliance with the Parenting Orders is £1,000.
• The Government contemplates increasing that financial punishment and implementing additional sanctions, including reductions in benefits.
• The Ministers claim that these changes are designed to make parents take an active role in prevention of further criminal activities and anti-social behavior.
• The critics maintain that Parenting Orders are relatively ineffective and can cause more financial distress in already poor families.
• The use of Parenting Orders decreased from over 1,000 in 2009-10 to 33 in 2022-23.
• Another separate Government initiative is a pilot project for identification and assistance of the children affected by parental imprisonment, not punishment for their parent’s crime.

Wales (Wales Times) September 21, 2026 – parents could face tougher financial and legal consequences if they fail to comply with orders designed to address offending or anti-social behaviour by their children.

The proposals would strengthen and expand the use of Parenting Orders. Under the existing system, a court can require a parent or guardian to take specific steps intended to improve a child’s behaviour. These steps may include attending counselling, guidance sessions or other structured support.

If a parent breaches the order, the breach is a criminal offence. The current maximum fine is £1,000, according to the Sentencing Council, while the order itself can last for no more than 12 months.

The Government is considering increasing the maximum fine. It has also indicated that parents who deliberately refuse to comply could potentially face deductions from benefits or imprisonment in the most serious circumstances.

The proposals do not mean that parents would automatically be imprisoned whenever their child commits an offence. The possible penalties would relate to a parent’s failure to comply with a court order or to take required steps, rather than creating automatic criminal responsibility for a child’s conduct.

What did Jake Richards say?

As reported by The Guardian on September 19, Youth Justice Minister Jake Richards said the youth justice system should hold parents accountable in a proportionate way when they fail to play their part in keeping communities safe.

Richards described the proposed approach as a combination of incentives and penalties. He said Parenting Orders should ensure that parents are more involved in efforts to change the behaviour of young offenders.

“Parenting orders are going to make sure that parents are more involved in the process by which we try to turn around young offenders,” Richards told The Times, according to The Guardian.

The minister added that the approach would include a punitive element where parents deliberately failed to meet their responsibilities.

“Yes, that will have some stick. It could be custodial, or docking benefits – ultimately it will be up to a judge. But we want them to be more involved and that comes with responsibilities as well,” he said, as quoted by The Guardian.

Richards stressed that imprisonment would be used only in “the most extreme cases”. Any custodial sentence would be decided by a judge rather than imposed automatically by ministers.

The same comments were reported by the BBC, The Independent, Eastern Eye, Birmingham Mail, The Sun and other media outlets. Their reports broadly stated that the Government was considering higher fines, benefit cuts and prison sentences as part of a wider reform of the youth justice system.

How would Parenting Orders work?

Parenting Orders are legal requirements aimed at involving parents or guardians in attempts to prevent a child from offending again.

Courts are required to consider issuing an order when a child under 16 has been convicted of an offence. Courts may also consider an order for a young person aged 16 or 17 if they believe it could help prevent further offending.

The order may require a parent or guardian to attend counselling or guidance sessions. The sessions can focus on family relationships, supervision, boundaries, communication and the factors contributing to a child’s behaviour.

The Government has also indicated that the support could include residential courses. These would be intended to give families more intensive assistance where ordinary guidance sessions are considered insufficient.

A parent who fails to comply with the order can currently face a fine of up to £1,000. The proposed reforms could increase that amount and create additional enforcement measures.

However, the legal framework is intended to distinguish between a parent who is unwilling to cooperate and one who is unable to do so because of circumstances such as poverty, disability, mental-health difficulties or a lack of access to services.

Why is the Government proposing changes?

The proposals form part of the Government’s wider plans to reform youth justice and increase parental involvement when children offend.

The then Justice Secretary David Lammy said in May that stronger Parenting Orders would create “real consequences for parents and carers who wilfully fail to support efforts to address their children’s behaviour”, according to The Guardian.

Lammy also said that judges would be able to intervene where a parent was struggling. His position was that courts should ensure the young person received appropriate help and that the parent was doing what they could to support the process.

He expected the power to imprison parents to be used “very, very rarely”, The Guardian reported.

The Government’s argument is that parents and carers have an important role in supervising children and helping them avoid further involvement in crime. Ministers believe that stronger orders could encourage greater participation in counselling and other interventions.

The proposals are also connected to efforts to address anti-social behaviour and repeat offending. The Government has said that families should not be left without support, but that there should be consequences when adults deliberately refuse to follow court requirements.

What concerns have experts raised?

Critics have questioned whether Parenting Orders are effective and whether stronger penalties would improve outcomes for children and families.

Nikki Rutter, an assistant professor in sociology at Durham University who specialises in child behaviour, told the BBC in July that there was substantial evidence that Parenting Orders were ineffective.

“We have a huge amount of evidence that parenting orders aren’t effective. It’s why we’re seeing the decrease in them. The police know these are not effective measures,” Rutter said, according to The Guardian.

Rutter also warned that increasing fines could worsen poverty. She said that poverty was closely connected to some criminal activity and that taking more money from parents could leave families with fewer resources.

“The more you’re fining parents, the less money they’ve got. The less money the family have, we’re seeing a further dive into poverty,” she said, as quoted by The Guardian.

The concern is that reducing benefits could affect children as well as parents. A sanction applied to a parent could reduce household income, potentially limiting access to food, transport, clothing, housing and other essentials.

Critics have also questioned whether a parent can always control a child’s actions. Young people may spend significant time outside the home, be influenced by peers or have complex needs linked to trauma, mental health, substance misuse or exploitation.

For that reason, opponents of stronger sanctions say support should remain voluntary wherever possible. A report cited by The Guardian in the Youth Justice Journal said there was limited research into the impact and effectiveness of Parenting Orders, despite the measure being available since its introduction by the New Labour government in 1998.

How common are Parenting Orders?

The use of Parenting Orders has declined substantially over the past decade.

Government figures reported by The Guardian show that more than 1,000 orders were issued in 2009–10. By 2022–23, the number had fallen to 33.

The decline may reflect changing practices among police, courts and youth justice services. It may also indicate concerns about whether compulsory orders produce better results than voluntary family support.

The Government’s plan would therefore represent a significant change in emphasis. Instead of allowing the measure to remain rarely used, ministers want Parenting Orders to become a more active part of the youth justice system.

The success of the policy would depend on how courts use the powers, how local services deliver support and whether families can access counselling and other assistance. The proposed sanctions could also face scrutiny over proportionality and their effect on children living in households affected by benefit reductions.

How does this compare with support for children of prisoners?

The Government has also announced a separate initiative focused on protecting children affected by parental imprisonment.

In a July 8 announcement, the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Education said a new pilot would identify children with a parent in prison and connect them with support. The programme is intended to ensure that children do not suffer because of a parent’s crime.

The Government estimates that about 193,000 children in England and Wales have a parent in prison each year. It says parental imprisonment can have long-term effects on children’s schooling, mental health and future employment prospects.

The pilot will bring together information held by prisons, police forces and local councils. In selected areas, police forces will share information with local authorities when a parent goes to prison. Families can then be offered tailored support.

That assistance could include help with emotional wellbeing, confidence, a sense of belonging, physical and mental health, housing, youth services and local charities.

The pilot is expected to run from 2026 to 2028, beginning during the summer with an official launch in autumn 2026. It will initially focus on areas with high rates of parental imprisonment, with the possibility of expanding to other parts of the country.

Jake Richards said children affected by parental imprisonment had been “invisible to the system” for too long. He said the Government wanted to stop children paying the price for their parents’ crimes.

Children’s Minister Josh MacAlister said no child should be defined by the actions of a parent. The Government said the pilot was intended to support children’s mental health, education and wellbeing.

The charity POPS welcomed the initiative. Its director, Lynn Kelly, said early, specialist and non-judgemental support could significantly benefit children and families affected by the justice system.

Diane Curry OBE, the Clinks Families Network co-ordinator, said affected children and families needed support in trusted community spaces. She also said services should be shaped by the needs identified by children and families themselves.

The Government said data sharing under the pilot would be subject to a Data Protection Impact Assessment and would comply with relevant data protection legislation and the Human Rights Act.

What happens next?

The Government must determine how the strengthened Parenting Orders would operate in practice before any changes can be fully implemented.

Important details include the proposed level of any higher fine, the circumstances in which benefits could be reduced, and the legal threshold for considering imprisonment.

The courts would also need clear guidance on how to distinguish deliberate refusal from an inability to comply. Judges may need to consider a parent’s income, health, caring responsibilities, housing situation and access to support services.

The reforms are likely to attract further discussion from youth justice organisations, legal professionals, children’s charities and anti-poverty groups. Supporters will argue that parents should not ignore court orders, while opponents will continue to question whether punishment can change behaviour when families lack effective support.

What is the background to Parenting Orders?

Parenting Orders were introduced in England and Wales in 1998. They were created to make parents and guardians more directly involved in preventing children from offending or engaging in anti-social behaviour.

The orders can require adults to attend guidance or counselling sessions and to comply with specific conditions relating to their child’s behaviour. Breaching an order is a criminal offence, with the current maximum fine set at £1,000.

Courts must consider an order in cases involving children under 16 who have been convicted of an offence. Orders may also apply to 16- and 17-year-olds where the court believes they could prevent further offending.

Their use has fallen from more than 1,000 orders in 2009–10 to 33 in 2022–23. The Government’s current proposal seeks to strengthen the measure and make parental accountability a more prominent part of youth justice policy.

The separate 2026–28 pilot for children affected by parental imprisonment reflects the Government’s stated aim of preventing children from being disadvantaged by a parent’s involvement in the criminal justice system.

How could the changes affect families in England and Wales?

Families could face greater pressure to attend counselling, guidance sessions or residential programmes if a child is convicted of an offence or is considered at risk of further offending.

Parents who deliberately refuse to comply could face higher financial penalties, possible benefit deductions and, in the most extreme cases, imprisonment decided by a judge. The practical effect would depend on the final legislation, court guidance and the support available locally.

For families able to access effective services, stronger engagement requirements could provide earlier intervention. For households already facing poverty or complex social problems, critics warn that additional fines or benefit reductions could increase hardship and make it more difficult to address the causes of offending.

Children with an imprisoned parent may benefit from the Government’s separate support pilot if they live in one of the initial target areas. The programme could improve access to mental-health, education, housing and family services, although its results will depend on how quickly children are identified and whether local services have enough capacity.

The central impact will therefore depend on implementation. The policy could create stronger expectations for parental involvement, but its effect on youth offending will be measured against whether families receive practical help as well as legal pressure.