In brief
- Significant backlogs in the Family Court have led to cases involving children being severely delayed, something which the court recognises can itself increase harm to children caught in the midst of parental conflict.
- David Lammy, Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, has announced the roll-out of a new type of "child focused" court, designed to reduce acrimony, focus on the voice of the child and speed up cases.
- Below, we consider feedback from the pilot scheme and the implications of the reforms.
In recent years, severe delays in the family courts have left over 100,000 children trapped in a state of uncertainty and parental conflict during ongoing proceedings.
Amid widespread recognition that the backlog has to be tackled, a new type of court process has been piloted which aims to reduce delays, minimise retraumatisation for domestic abuse survivors, and to shift to a less adversarial process with the voice of the child at the centre. Following a successful pilot scheme the government has announced that Child Focused Courts – formerly known as Pathfinder Courts – will now be expanded across the entirety of England and Wales.
The pilot has operated in 10 court areas since 2022, and funding is being provided to expand it further in 2026/27, with the intention that it will be fully rolled out by 2029.
This development has been welcomed by senior figures in the judiciary, including the judicial lead for Child Focused Courts, Mrs Justice Gwynneth Knowles, and the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, who describes it as a "game changer".
Current procedure
The current procedure is known as the "Child Arrangements Programme". Once an application for a child arrangements order has been made to the appropriate court (generally whichever is closest to where the children live), a First Hearing Dispute Resolution Appointment (“FHDRA”) will be listed.
In theory, this hearing should be listed within around 5–6 weeks, though in practice there is often a lead time of several months, as the court is significantly overburdened.
A member of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (“Cafcass”) will usually be present at the FHDRA, having spoken to both parents. Cafcass will have carried out police and Local Authority checks and lodged a safeguarding letter, which can include recommendations as to the next steps the court should take.
Unless agreement can be reached, directions will be made to progress the matter, often including an expert report (e.g. by a Cafcass officer, an independent social worker and/or child psychologist). The case will then normally be listed for a Dispute Resolution Appointment (“DRA”) and, if it is not settled or determined at that hearing, it proceeds to a Final Hearing. Prior to a Final Hearing, witness statements by the parties and any relevant third parties are likely to be ordered.
Due to the significant backlog of cases and the time taken for reports to be prepared, the DRA is likely to be listed several months after the FHDRA, and the Final Hearing is likely to follow a further six to nine months later, particularly if several days are required for the Court to hear the evidence. Therefore, the full court process can take between a year and two years.
The above is also on the basis that there are no serious allegations of domestic abuse, which can require their own separate Fact-Finding Hearing ("FFH"). A FFH will often be listed for several days, and this can build several additional months into the timetable.
Child Focused Courts
The new model is designed to tackle delay, which the court recognises as prejudicial to children's welfare, and to shift to a more investigative, front-loaded, court-driven process in which the voice of the child is placed at the forefront from the outset.
Once an application is made, it is issued by the Court along with a first gatekeeping order, which will:
- Direct the Local Authority or Cafcass to complete a Child Impact Report ("CIR"), which replaces the safeguarding letter and (in most cases) the expert report from the previous procedure; and
- List a hearing to carry out the second gatekeeping stage, where the report will be reviewed by a judge and legal advisor as a paper-based exercise in the absence of the parties.
The estimated timeframe for the above steps is 8–10 weeks, and it is possible for a final order to be made at the first hearing, which is not attended by the parties. If the judge considers that further evidence is required, the Court can order an addendum CIR, further work from Cafcass or the Local Authority, or other evidence such as substance testing or statements from the parties.
If a final order is not made on paper, most cases will then proceed to a Decision Hearing before a judge or the magistrates within a few weeks. Only the more complex cases will require a prior Case Management Hearing or a subsequent Final Hearing, while the faster process should help to avoid the need for applications and hearings addressing interim arrangements. Indeed, initial Ministry of Justice data has shown that the number of hearings per case has fallen from five to between 1.3–1.4 in some areas during the pilot.
In summary, the process is much faster and significantly more streamlined, reducing delay during proceedings and legal costs for represented litigants. To achieve this, a further marked difference is that there is a dedicated Case Progression Officer in the court administrative staff, who assists with case coordination and acts as a point of contact and support for the parties during the process.
Non-Court Dispute Resolution
Another notable focus of the new system is its emphasis on Non-Court Dispute Resolution ("NCDR").
The Family Court has, in recent years, taken steps to strongly encourage parties to engage in NCDR. Amendments to the Family Procedure Rules in April 2024 and the case of X v Y [2024] EWHC 538 make clear that, save for cases involving domestic abuse, the Family Court expects parties to make a serious effort to resolve matters in other forums (such as through mediation) before making a court application, and the court may stay (i.e. pause) proceedings to enable this to be explored.
It is already apparent that the Child Focused Courts will further increase the impetus in this regard. For example, gatekeeping orders direct that the CIR must consider whether NCDR is appropriate. A judge then considers the CIR without representations by the parties, so proceedings could be stayed to allow for NCDR before the parties make any arguments to the court. The court also provides information to litigants when applications are issued to explain the merits of resolving matters consensually and how this may be achieved.
The way forward
There have been several reports published during the pilot, including a 2026 report analysing feedback received from participants and identifying areas for improvement. In particular, there is work to be done to ensure that allegations of domestic abuse are handled sensitively, fully investigated and documented in the CIR, and that DASH (Domestic Abuse, Stalking, Harassment and ‘Honour Based’ Violence Assessment) risk assessments and special measures are consistently offered. Some participants commented that the process felt too fast, and in some cases they did not feel fully heard.
It is hoped, however, that these issues may be addressed by clearer communication and collaboration between the various agencies involved in the process. Already, many participants reported positive experiences with Cafcass, and saw clear improvements in the efficiency of the process and in capturing the child's perspective under the Pathfinder model, compared to the Child Arrangements Programme.
The further expansion of the Child Focused Courts into some of the more overburdened court areas, including London, will no doubt come with challenges. However, a sea change is on the horizon for private children disputes, and the evidence suggests that the change will be a welcome one.