This section explains how family court proceedings operate in practice in private law children cases. It focuses on procedural structure rather than legal advice, covering applications, hearings, directions, and how cases progress through the court system.

Content in this category is designed to help litigants in person understand what the court expects at each stage, how decisions are made procedurally, and how to engage effectively with forms, timetables, and hearings. The aim is to reduce confusion, improve preparation, and support informed participation in the family court process.

How to Stay Safe as a Litigant in Person After Mazur (Step-by-Step Guide) | JSH Law

/0 Comments/in , /by

If you are a litigant in person, the way your case is structured now matters more than ever. Following the High Court decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP, the court has made it clear that only authorised or exempt individuals can conduct litigation—and that line is being looked at more closely in practice. The result is that many people, often without realising it, may be exposing their case to unnecessary risk simply through how it is being handled. The good news is that this is entirely manageable. With the right structure in place, you can stay fully compliant, protect your position, and strengthen your case at the same time.

How to Stay Safe as a Litigant in Person After Mazur (Step-by-Step Guide) | JSH Law
Key Takeaways for Litigants in Person
  • You must remain in control of your case at all times.
  • Support is allowed — but it must not become “conduct of litigation”.
  • The court is increasingly alert to who is actually running the case.
  • Clear structure protects your credibility and your position.
  • Simple procedural discipline can eliminate most risks.

How to Stay Safe as a Litigant in Person After Mazur (Step-by-Step Guide)

If you are a litigant in person, you are already carrying a significant responsibility.

You are managing your own case, navigating court procedure, and making decisions that may have long-term consequences for you and your family.

Following the High Court decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), there is now an additional layer to that responsibility:

You must not only run your case — you must be seen to be running it.

This is where many people unintentionally expose themselves to risk.

This guide sets out, in practical terms, how to stay safe, compliant, and in control — while still getting the support you need.

—

Step 1: Understand the One Rule That Matters

Everything in this area comes back to a single principle:

You are the one conducting your case.

That means:

  • You make the decisions
  • You give the instructions
  • You take responsibility for what is filed and said

This is not about doing everything alone.

It is about ensuring that, at every stage, it is clear that the case is yours.

If that is maintained, you are on solid ground.

—

Step 2: Separate “Support” from “Control”

The most common mistake litigants make is confusing support with control.

Support is allowed — and often essential.

Control must remain with you.

To make this clear, apply this simple test:

“Am I the one making the decision and taking the step?”

If the answer is yes, you are within the correct structure.

If the answer is unclear, that is where risk begins.

For example:

  • If someone drafts a document for you → that is support
  • If someone decides what goes in that document → that may be control
  • If someone sends the document on your behalf → that may cross the line

The difference is subtle, but important.

—

Step 3: Take Ownership of Every Document

Every document in your case should be something you can stand behind.

That means:

  • You have read it
  • You understand it
  • You agree with it

In practical terms:

  • Do not submit anything you have not reviewed carefully
  • Do not rely on “it’s been handled”
  • Do not allow documents to be sent without your approval

Your name is on the case. The responsibility follows it.

—

Step 4: You Send the Emails

This is one of the simplest and most important safeguards.

All communications with:

  • The court
  • The other party
  • Solicitors

should be sent by you.

Support can help you draft those emails.

But you should be the one pressing send.

This ensures that:

  • Your role is clear
  • Your control is visible
  • Your position cannot be easily challenged

It also reinforces your credibility as a litigant in person.

—

Step 5: You Sign and File Everything

This is non-negotiable.

All documents:

  • Statements
  • Position statements
  • Applications

must be:

  • Signed by you
  • Filed by you

This is not just procedural.

It is a clear marker of who is conducting the case.

Where that marker is missing, questions can arise.

—

Step 6: Maintain a Clear Audit Trail

If your case were examined closely, you should be able to show:

  • That you made decisions
  • That you approved documents
  • That you gave instructions

This does not require complex systems.

It can be as simple as:

  • Email confirmations
  • Document versions showing your approval
  • Clear communication records

The aim is clarity.

If it is clear that you are in control, your position is protected.

—

Step 7: Be Careful Who You Rely On

Not all support is structured in the same way.

Some models are careful to remain within the boundaries of support.

Others may move closer to running the case, sometimes without clearly recognising the distinction.

This is not always obvious at the outset.

But you should be alert to signs such as:

  • Someone taking over communications
  • Decisions being made without your input
  • A sense that the case is being “handled” for you

These are indicators that the structure may need to be corrected.

—

Step 8: Understand How the Court Sees It

The court is not concerned with internal arrangements.

It looks at what is visible.

From the court’s perspective, the key question is simple:

Who appears to be running this case?

If the answer is clearly you, there is no issue.

If the answer is unclear, the court may take a closer look.

Clarity removes that risk entirely.

—

Step 9: Do Not Lose Your Voice in Your Own Case

One of the unintended consequences of over-reliance on support is that litigants can lose confidence in their own voice.

This can show in:

  • Hesitation in court
  • Uncertainty about their own position
  • Difficulty responding to questions

Staying in control of your case avoids this.

It ensures that:

  • You understand your arguments
  • You can explain your position
  • You remain engaged with the process

This is not just legally important.

It is strategically important.

—

Step 10: Use Support Properly — and Powerfully

The answer to all of this is not to avoid support.

It is to use it properly.

When structured correctly, support can:

  • Strengthen your case
  • Improve your preparation
  • Increase your confidence
  • Enhance how your case is presented

But it should always operate behind your role — not replace it.

You remain the decision-maker. Support strengthens you, not substitutes you.

—

Step 11: Recognise the Red Flags Early

One of the most effective ways to protect your case is to recognise when the structure is beginning to drift.

This rarely happens suddenly. It is usually gradual.

Support becomes more involved. Communication becomes more direct. Decisions start to feel less like yours and more like something being done “for you”.

That is the point at which you need to pause and reassess.

Common red flags include:

  • Emails being sent without your direct involvement
  • Documents being finalised without your review
  • Instructions being given on your behalf
  • A sense that you are being told what will happen, rather than deciding it

None of these, in isolation, automatically creates a problem.

But taken together, they can indicate that the structure of your case is no longer clear.

Clarity is what protects you. Loss of clarity is what creates risk.

—

Step 12: Real-World Scenario — Where Things Go Wrong

To understand how easily this can happen, consider a common scenario.

A litigant in person is overwhelmed. They engage someone to help. That person is experienced and confident. They begin by assisting with drafting. Then they begin to suggest wording. Then they begin to take a more active role in communication.

At first, this feels helpful.

Over time, however, the balance shifts.

The litigant becomes less involved in the detail. Documents are trusted without being fully reviewed. Emails are sent quickly to “keep things moving”.

From the outside, it may now appear that the case is being run by someone else.

This is not usually intentional.

But intention is not the test.

What matters is how the case is being conducted in practice.

—

Step 13: The “Safe Structure” Checklist

If you want to be confident that your case is properly structured, use this checklist.

You should be able to answer “yes” to all of the following:

  • I make the final decisions in my case
  • I review and approve every document before it is sent
  • I send all emails in my own name
  • I sign all statements and applications personally
  • I understand the key points being made in my case
  • I can explain my position to the court

If any of these answers are “no”, that is an opportunity to bring the structure back into line.

This is not about blame.

It is about clarity and control.

—

Step 14: Common Mistakes to Avoid

There are a number of recurring mistakes that litigants make, particularly when under pressure.

These include:

1. Delegating decisions
Allowing someone else to decide what should be said or done without your full involvement.

2. Not reviewing documents properly
Signing or sending documents without fully understanding their content.

3. Allowing others to communicate on your behalf
This is one of the clearest ways the line can be crossed.

4. Becoming disengaged from the case
Relying too heavily on support can reduce your own understanding and confidence.

Each of these is understandable.

But each can also weaken your position if not addressed.

—

Step 15: How This Strengthens Your Case — Not Just Protects It

It is important to recognise that these steps are not simply about avoiding problems.

They actively improve your case.

When you are clearly in control:

  • Your credibility with the court increases
  • Your submissions are more coherent
  • Your responses are more confident
  • Your case is more resilient to challenge

Judges are used to dealing with litigants in person.

What they look for is clarity, engagement, and understanding.

A well-structured case demonstrates all three.

—

Step 16: Confidence Comes From Control

Many litigants assume that confidence comes from having someone else take over.

In reality, the opposite is true.

Confidence comes from understanding your case and being able to explain it.

That only happens when you remain actively involved.

Support should increase your confidence, not replace your role.

—

Step 17: The Strategic Advantage Most People Miss

There is a misconception that staying within these boundaries limits what you can do.

In practice, it creates an advantage.

When your case is structured properly:

  • There is less room for procedural attack
  • Your position is clearer and more focused
  • The court can engage directly with you

At the same time, you still benefit from support behind the scenes.

This combination—control at the front, structure behind—can be extremely effective.

—

Step 18: A Final Word on Balance

This is not about drawing rigid lines that make your case harder to manage.

It is about balance.

You should not feel that you are facing proceedings alone.

But equally, you should not feel that your case is being taken out of your hands.

The correct position sits between those two points.

You are supported, but you remain in control.

—

Final Thoughts

The decision in Mazur has brought clarity to an area that many people did not fully consider.

For litigants in person, that clarity is an opportunity.

It allows you to structure your case in a way that is:

  • Compliant
  • Robust
  • Credible

Most importantly, it ensures that your case is judged on what matters:

The facts, the evidence, and the outcome you are seeking.

Get the structure right, and everything else becomes stronger.

—

Want to Make Sure Your Case Is Structured Properly?

If you are a litigant in person and want support that strengthens your case while keeping you fully compliant and in control, you can book an initial consultation below.

—

Regulatory & Editorial Notice: JSH Law Ltd is not a firm of solicitors and does not provide regulated legal services. This article is for general information and commentary only and does not constitute legal advice. Any references to legal cases or third-party practices are provided for public interest analysis and educational purposes.

Japan Introduces Joint Custody: What It Means for UK Family Law

/0 Comments/in , /by

Japan has just made a landmark shift in family law, introducing joint custody for the first time in its history. On the surface, this is a domestic legal reform. In reality, it is part of a broader global movement recognising that children benefit from meaningful relationships with both parents after separation. The question for the UK is not whether we recognise this principle — we already do — but whether our system is delivering it in practice.

Japan’s Shift to Joint Custody: A Landmark Reform the UK Family Justice System Cannot Ignore

Key Takeaways for Litigants in Person:
  • Japan has introduced joint custody for the first time — after decades of sole custody being the default.
  • This reflects a global shift toward recognising the importance of both parents in a child’s life.
  • The UK already recognises shared parental responsibility — but practical outcomes often fall short.
  • Courts must balance safeguarding with maintaining meaningful relationships — not default to exclusion.
  • Strategic preparation, evidence, and clarity of proposal remain critical in securing contact.

For decades, Japan stood apart from other developed nations as a jurisdiction that did not recognise joint custody following divorce. That has now changed.

In a landmark reform to its Civil Code, Japan has introduced the legal framework for joint custody of children after separation. This marks the first significant shift in its child-rearing laws in over a century.

At first glance, this may appear to be a domestic legal update. It is not. It is a signal — and one that the UK family justice system should be paying very close attention to.

What Has Changed in Japan?

Historically, Japan operated under a strict sole custody model. Following divorce, one parent — typically the mother — would retain full parental authority, while the other parent often lost meaningful involvement in the child’s life.

The new reform introduces the ability for parents to negotiate joint custody arrangements, allowing both parents to retain legal responsibility and involvement in decision-making.

This does not mean joint custody will be automatic. It will depend on agreement or court determination. But the shift is fundamental:

  • From exclusion → to inclusion
  • From control → to shared responsibility
  • From parental loss → to continued parental identity

Why This Matters Globally

Japan was the last G7 country not to recognise joint custody. That is no longer the case.

This reform reflects a broader international consensus:

  • Children benefit from meaningful relationships with both parents (absent risk)
  • Parental responsibility should not be extinguished by relationship breakdown
  • Legal frameworks must evolve to reflect modern parenting realities

In other words, the direction of travel is clear: co-parenting is no longer optional — it is expected.

The UK Position: Strong on Paper, Inconsistent in Practice

In England and Wales, the law already recognises parental responsibility for both parents under the Children Act 1989.

The court’s guiding principle is clear:

  • s.1(1) — the child’s welfare is paramount
  • s.1(2A) — presumption of parental involvement

On paper, this aligns with the principles now being adopted in Japan.

But in practice, the reality experienced by many litigants in person tells a different story.

The Practical Gap

Time and again, we see:

  • Indirect contact being used as a long-term holding position
  • Delay in progressing cases to meaningful live contact
  • Over-reliance on safeguarding processes without proportional progression
  • Parental relationships eroded through procedural inertia

This is where the issue lies — not in the law, but in its application.

Safeguarding vs. Relationship Preservation

The central tension in all family proceedings is this:

How do we protect children without unnecessarily severing relationships?

Japan’s reform implicitly acknowledges that exclusion should not be the default outcome of separation.

The UK system, however, often finds itself leaning toward caution in a way that can become counterproductive.

Safeguarding is essential. But safeguarding must be:

  • Evidence-based
  • Proportionate
  • Subject to ongoing review

Without this, temporary restrictions risk becoming permanent outcomes.

What This Means for Litigants in Person

If you are navigating the family court system without legal representation, this development reinforces an important point:

You must actively demonstrate why continued involvement is in your child’s best interests.

The court will not build your case for you.

Strategic Priorities

  • Present a clear, structured contact proposal (step-up plan)
  • Demonstrate insight into any concerns raised
  • Provide organised, chronological evidence
  • Focus consistently on the child’s welfare — not parental grievance

The strongest cases are not emotional. They are structured, measured, and forward-looking.

A System at a Crossroads

Japan’s move is not just about custody. It is about legal philosophy.

It raises a broader question for jurisdictions like the UK:

Are we truly facilitating co-parenting — or are we managing separation through controlled disengagement?

The answer will define the next decade of family justice reform.

Final Thoughts

This reform should not be viewed in isolation. It is part of a wider shift toward recognising that children do not benefit from losing a parent — except where there is clear and evidenced risk.

The UK has the legal framework. What it needs now is consistent, confident application.

Because ultimately, the objective is simple:

Not just to resolve disputes — but to preserve relationships wherever it is safe to do so.

Need support with your family court case?
Book a consultation: https://jshlaw.co.uk/contact/

Regulatory & Editorial Notice: JSH Law Ltd is not a firm of solicitors and does not provide reserved legal activities. This article is provided for general information and commentary only and does not constitute legal advice. Commentary on international legal developments is based on publicly available reporting and is intended for educational and comparative purposes.

Child-Focused Courts: What the New Family Court Model Really Means for Parents and Litigants in Person

/0 Comments/in , /by

There are moments when the family justice system pauses and admits—quietly but clearly—that something isn’t working as it should. The recent announcement, widely reported by BBC News, that Child Focused Courts will be rolled out across England and Wales is one of those moments. It is being described as the most significant change in a generation. But for parents navigating proceedings right now, the real question is not what the reform promises—it is what it actually changes in practice, and whether it will make any meaningful difference to the outcome of your case.

Child-Focused Courts: What the New Family Court Model Really Means for Parents and Litigants in Person

For years, many parents have walked into the family court believing the system would carefully examine what was happening to their child, weigh the evidence properly, and then make decisions that were truly centred on welfare.

Too often, that has not been the lived experience.

Delay has been normalised. Parents have been drawn into adversarial litigation. Serious allegations have sometimes taken too long to assess properly. Children have been left waiting while adults, professionals and institutions move at a pace that bears little resemblance to a child’s sense of time.

That is why the latest announcement reported by the BBC matters.

The government has now confirmed that the newly named Child Focused Courts model, previously known as the Pathfinder approach, will be rolled out across England and Wales. Senior family judge Sir Andrew McFarlane has described the shift as the biggest change in this area of family justice in 30 years. It is being presented as a major structural reset: less adversarial, more front-loaded, more alert to domestic abuse, and more focused on what the child is actually experiencing.

Key takeaways for litigants in person

1. The family court process is changing. In many areas, the court will be expected to focus much earlier on the child’s actual lived experience, not just the parents’ competing positions.

2. Early information is becoming more important. If your case is poorly prepared at the beginning, you may lose ground quickly.

3. Allegations of harm, especially domestic abuse, are supposed to be identified and explored sooner.

4. A child-focused system does not mean parents can relax. It means you need to be more disciplined, more evidence-led, and more careful about how you present your case.

5. The label sounds positive, but litigants in person should still approach the system with clear eyes. A new model is only as good as its day-to-day implementation.

Why this change is happening

The official explanation is straightforward: the existing family court process has too often been too slow, too conflict-driven, and too damaging for children. The Ministry of Justice says the pilot areas showed cases being resolved up to seven and a half months faster, with backlogs reduced and agencies working together earlier where domestic abuse or other forms of harm were alleged.

That matters. In private children proceedings, delay is not administrative inconvenience. It is lived instability. For a child, months of uncertainty about where they will live, who they will see, and whether adults will stop fighting can feel enormous.

The judiciary has also been unusually clear in its support for the reform. Sir Andrew McFarlane has said the key change is the production of a Child Impact Report by Cafcass, Cafcass Cymru or the local authority at a much earlier stage. In simple terms, the idea is to stop leaving meaningful welfare analysis until later in the process and instead bring it forward, so the first hearing is better informed and more child-centred from the outset.

That is a significant cultural shift. The President of the Family Division has even said that the model “turns the old approach on its head”.

What is a Child Focused Court?

In practical terms, Child Focused Courts are intended to move the family court away from a parent-versus-parent battle model and towards a problem-solving model centred on child welfare and safety.

That sounds obvious. Family courts should already be child-focused. The welfare of the child is already the court’s paramount consideration under section 1 of the Children Act 1989. But anyone with real experience of the system knows that what the law says on paper and what proceedings feel like in practice are not always the same thing.

The significance of this reform is that it tries to change the process, not just repeat the principle.

Under the model being rolled out, there is supposed to be earlier gathering of information, earlier risk identification, earlier attention to domestic abuse, earlier engagement with the child’s situation, and fewer unnecessary hearings. The first hearing is not meant to be a vague holding exercise. It is meant to be a better-informed decision point.

That is the theory. And the theory is sensible.

The Child Impact Report: why this matters so much

The Child Impact Report is one of the most important features of the new model.

Traditionally, many parents have experienced the family court process as something in which the adults speak first, argue first, accuse first, file statements first, and only later does a proper welfare-focused assessment begin to shape the case. By then, narratives may already have hardened. Interim positions may already have influenced the direction of proceedings. The emotional temperature may already be high.

The Child Impact Report is intended to change that.

According to the judiciary, this report is designed to give the court an early understanding of the impact the dispute is having on the child. The first hearing can then focus on the real question: what needs to happen to make things better for this child?

For litigants in person, that should be a wake-up call.

If the case is going to be framed earlier around impact, welfare and safety, then your preparation cannot just be a list of what the other parent has done wrong. You need to be able to explain, clearly and calmly:

What is happening for the child?

What is the child currently experiencing?

What are the risks, if any?

What arrangements are working or not working?

What practical outcome are you asking the court to put in place, and why is it better for the child?

That is a more disciplined question than many parents are used to answering.

Will this help victims of domestic abuse?

This is one of the most important questions, and also one of the most sensitive.

The government and judiciary have both emphasised that the new model is intended to improve the family court’s handling of domestic abuse. Official statements say that risks should be identified sooner, support should come in earlier, and the process should be less retraumatising. The President of the Family Division has also noted the regular involvement of domestic abuse professionals in the model.

That is positive. It is also long overdue.

For years, one of the deepest criticisms of private children proceedings has been that abuse allegations were too often forced into adversarial structures that did not feel safe, coherent or humane. Some parents have felt disbelieved. Others have felt that serious issues were minimised in the rush to restore or preserve parental involvement. Still others have experienced proceedings as a form of continuing control.

If the Child Focused Courts model genuinely improves early identification of harm, early risk assessment, and the quality of the court’s understanding of abuse dynamics, that is a meaningful step forward.

But parents should also be realistic. Structural reform is not the same thing as guaranteed safety. A new model does not automatically produce good professional judgment. It does not eliminate poor evidence, minimisation, or misunderstanding. And it certainly does not remove the need for careful preparation.

In other words: this reform may help, but it does not remove the burden on parties to present their case properly.

What litigants in person need to understand right now

If you are representing yourself in private children proceedings, the biggest mistake you can make is to hear the phrase “child-focused” and assume the court will now do all the work for you.

It will not.

The system may become better structured. It may become better front-loaded. It may become quicker in some areas. But the pressure on litigants in person to be organised, relevant and evidence-led is not going away. If anything, it may increase.

Why? Because when information is gathered earlier, first impressions become even more important. The shape of the case may settle faster. The issues may crystallise sooner. Weak pleading, muddled allegations, emotional overstatement and disorganised evidence can do real damage at the beginning of a case.

That means you should be thinking in the following way from day one:

1. Build a proper chronology

If you cannot explain the sequence of events clearly, the court may never properly understand your case. Dates matter. Incidents matter. Changes in arrangements matter. Police involvement, school issues, safeguarding concerns, messages, missed contact, medical issues and prior agreements all need to be set out in an organised way.

2. Distinguish fact from feeling

Your emotional experience matters. But family courts still make decisions by reference to evidence, welfare and risk. Try to separate what you can prove from what you believe. The clearer you are about that distinction, the more credible you become.

3. Focus on impact on the child

Do not simply repeat what the other parent has done to you. Explain what effect it has had on the child. Has the child become anxious? Withdrawn? Distressed at transitions? Exposed to conflict? Confused about routines? Losing educational stability? Struggling emotionally after contact? Those are the types of questions that fit a genuinely child-focused analysis.

4. Be solution-led

The court is not only interested in the problem. It wants to know what order, structure or safeguard you say should be put in place. That could mean a phased reintroduction plan, indirect contact moving to supported contact, a handover arrangement, a no-discussion-of-adult-issues condition, an information-sharing provision, a defined holiday schedule, or a section 7 report if more assessment is needed.

5. Do not assume “child-focused” means “I automatically win”

That is especially important. Some parents will hear the rhetoric around child welfare and assume the system will naturally validate their position. That is dangerous thinking. The court still decides cases on evidence, proportionality and welfare evaluation. You still need to prove what you say. You still need to engage with the weaknesses in your own case. And you still need to be careful not to present adult grievances as though they are automatically child harm.

The promise of this reform — and the reality check

There is a lot to welcome here.

Earlier welfare-focused information is better than later welfare-focused information.

Earlier identification of domestic abuse risk is better than allowing those issues to drift.

Fewer hearings can be better, provided the case is being understood properly.

Listening to children earlier is better than treating their voices as an afterthought.

Trying to reduce conflict rather than inflame it is plainly sensible.

But there is also a reality check that needs to be said out loud.

Family justice reforms often sound excellent in principle. The real question is always implementation.

Will Child Impact Reports be consistently high quality?

Will Cafcass and local authorities have the time, training and resources to do this well?

Will judges across all areas apply the model with consistency?

Will litigants in person understand what is expected of them?

Will the system really become safer for those raising domestic abuse, coercive control and child harm concerns?

Those are not cynical questions. They are necessary questions.

It is entirely possible for a reform to be both promising and imperfect. That is probably the most realistic position to take.

What this may mean for McKenzie Friend support and litigation support

For those supporting litigants in person, this change also matters.

A more front-loaded process means early case analysis becomes even more valuable. Parents will need help identifying the real issues, preparing chronologies, organising exhibits, structuring safeguarding concerns properly, and avoiding the common trap of filing long emotional material that lacks legal or evidential focus.

That is where good litigation support can make a real difference.

A litigant in person who is left to navigate a supposedly more sophisticated process without proper help may still be badly disadvantaged. A system can be child-focused on paper and still feel overwhelming to the parent trying to present their case coherently.

So while this reform may improve the architecture of proceedings, it does not remove the need for practical support, strategic preparation and clarity of presentation.

A word of caution for parents reading headlines

Media headlines can make legal change sound more immediate, more dramatic, or more complete than it really is.

Parents should therefore be careful about two things.

First, not every court area will change in exactly the same way overnight. The rollout is national, but it is being implemented over time.

Second, a change in model does not mean every individual decision will suddenly feel fair. The day-to-day experience of family proceedings still depends on the quality of the evidence, the quality of the professionals involved, the judge hearing the case, and the extent to which the issues are properly identified and managed.

So yes, this is a major development. But no, it is not a magic fix.

What a genuinely child-focused approach should look like

In truth, a genuinely child-focused court should do more than use child-centred language.

It should:

Identify harm early.

Recognise abuse properly.

Reduce delay.

Hear children appropriately.

Avoid unnecessary adversarial escalation.

Make proportionate orders grounded in evidence.

Support arrangements that are safe, workable and emotionally realistic for the child.

It should also resist lazy assumptions. It should not confuse adult assertion with proof. It should not reduce complex children’s cases to slogans. And it should not force a child to carry the emotional burden of a process designed by adults but badly experienced by children.

That is the standard by which this reform will need to be judged.

Final thoughts

The BBC report is right to treat this as a major moment in family justice. It is a serious development, and one that could improve outcomes for many children and families if it is implemented well.

But litigants in person should approach it with both hope and discipline.

Hope, because a court process that listens earlier, assesses sooner, and focuses more clearly on the child is plainly preferable to one that does not.

Discipline, because no reform removes the need to prepare your case properly.

If you are in private children proceedings now, the message is simple: do not wait for the system to become perfect before you become organised.

Build the chronology. Clarify the issues. Focus on the child. Gather the evidence. Make a realistic proposal. Say what the court needs to know, not just what you most want to say.

That has always mattered.

Under a Child Focused Court model, it may matter earlier than ever.

Useful links

Regulatory & Editorial Notice: This article is published by JSH Law Ltd for general information, commentary and public legal education only. JSH Law Ltd is not a firm of solicitors and does not provide reserved legal activities or regulated legal services. Nothing in this article constitutes legal advice, representation, or the formation of a solicitor-client relationship. Family court cases turn on their own facts, evidence, judicial evaluation and procedural history. Readers should obtain advice tailored to their own circumstances before taking or refraining from any step in litigation. Commentary on public reporting, court reform, institutions or third-party materials is editorial in nature and is presented in good faith on the basis of sources believed to be reliable at the time of publication.

Need help preparing for family court?

If you are facing private children proceedings and need clear, strategic support, book a 15-minute initial consultation to discuss your case, your next steps, and how to approach proceedings with greater confidence.

Practical litigation support. Clear strategy. Confidence before your next hearing.

Family Court Procedure Explained: A Practical Guide for Litigants in Person (England & Wales)

/0 Comments/in , /by

Family Court procedure is not designed to intimidate you — it is designed to ensure fairness. Every stage, from issuing an application to final hearing, follows a structured framework governed by the Family Procedure Rules 2010. Whether your case concerns children, finances, or domestic abuse, the court works within defined procedural steps that protect both parties and focus the judge on the legal issues. For litigants in person, understanding how the process works — and what happens at each stage — is one of the most powerful ways to reduce anxiety and strengthen your position.

Family Court Procedure Explained: A Practical Guide for Litigants in Person (England & Wales)

Key Takeaways

  • Family Court procedure is governed by the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR).
  • The court follows structured stages: application, safeguarding, directions, evidence, and final determination.
  • Children cases are driven by the welfare principle under the Children Act 1989.
  • Financial cases follow strict disclosure and negotiation stages before trial.
  • Procedure matters — failure to comply can undermine even strong cases.
  • Understanding the process reduces anxiety and improves strategic focus.

Introduction: Procedure Is the Framework of Fairness

Family Court can feel overwhelming — particularly if you are representing yourself. The forms, the hearings, the terminology, the directions — it can appear procedural for the sake of bureaucracy.

It is not.

Procedure is the structure that ensures fairness. It allows both parties to know the case they must meet. It ensures evidence is exchanged. It protects children. It safeguards rights. It creates predictability in what can otherwise be highly emotional litigation.

This guide explains how Family Court procedure works in England and Wales, what stages you should expect, and how to prepare strategically at each point.

The Legal Framework

Family proceedings are governed primarily by:

The FPR set out how cases must be started, managed and concluded.

If you are a litigant in person, understanding the FPR is not optional — it is essential.

Types of Family Proceedings

Family Court deals with several categories of case:

1. Private Law Children Cases

  • Child Arrangements Orders (live with / spend time with)
  • Specific Issue Orders
  • Prohibited Steps Orders
  • Parental Responsibility disputes

2. Financial Remedy Proceedings

  • Division of assets following divorce
  • Spousal maintenance
  • Pension sharing

3. Divorce and Dissolution

  • Now largely administrative under the no-fault system

4. Domestic Abuse Applications

  • Non-Molestation Orders
  • Occupation Orders

Each category follows procedural rules tailored to its purpose.

Stage 1: Starting Proceedings

Children Cases

Most private law children applications are started using Form C100.

Before applying, applicants must usually attend a MIAM (Mediation Information and Assessment Meeting), unless an exemption applies.

Relevant guidance:

Once filed, the application is issued and allocated to a court.

Financial Remedy Cases

These begin with Form A. This triggers a structured timetable.

Disclosure is governed by strict rules and Form E.

Stage 2: Safeguarding and Initial Checks

In children cases, CAFCASS conducts safeguarding checks before the first hearing.

This includes:

  • Police checks
  • Local authority checks
  • Telephone interviews

Where domestic abuse is alleged, Practice Direction 12J applies.

The court may consider whether a fact-finding hearing is required.

Stage 3: First Hearing (FHDRA or First Appointment)

Children Cases: FHDRA

The First Hearing Dispute Resolution Appointment aims to:

  • Identify issues
  • Explore settlement
  • Determine safeguarding concerns
  • Give directions

Financial Cases: First Appointment

The court:

  • Reviews Form E disclosure
  • Orders further disclosure if needed
  • Sets timetable to FDR

Preparation here is crucial. Bring a concise position statement.

Stage 4: Directions

Directions are court orders telling parties what to do next.

Examples:

  • File witness statements
  • Prepare Scott Schedules
  • Obtain expert reports
  • File Section 7 report
  • Prepare bundles (see PD27A)

Failure to comply with directions can damage credibility.

Stage 5: Evidence Exchange

Parties file:

  • Witness statements
  • Exhibits
  • Schedules of allegations
  • Chronologies

Evidence must relate to issues in dispute — not historical grievances.

Standard of proof: balance of probabilities.

Stage 6: Dispute Resolution

Children cases may have further review hearings.

Financial cases include a Financial Dispute Resolution (FDR) hearing — a without prejudice settlement forum.

Many cases resolve here.

Stage 7: Final Hearing

If no agreement is reached, the case proceeds to trial.

The judge will:

  • Hear oral evidence
  • Consider cross-examination
  • Evaluate credibility
  • Apply statutory principles

Judgment may be delivered orally or reserved.

After the Final Order

The court order is binding.

If breached, enforcement options exist.

Appeals are possible but subject to strict criteria and time limits.

Key Procedural Principles

1. The Welfare Principle

The child’s welfare is paramount.

2. Proportionality

The court expects focused evidence.

3. Overriding Objective

The FPR require cases to be dealt with justly and proportionately.

Common Mistakes by Litigants in Person

  • Filing excessive documentation
  • Missing deadlines
  • Arguing in evidence
  • Failing to prepare a position statement
  • Ignoring procedural directions

How Procedure Protects You

Procedure ensures:

  • Both parties see the evidence
  • Deadlines apply equally
  • Judges act within defined frameworks
  • Children’s interests remain central

When understood, procedure reduces uncertainty.

Strategic Preparation at Each Stage

  • Before application: consider mediation
  • Before first hearing: define issues clearly
  • Before evidence stage: ensure alignment with legal framework
  • Before final hearing: rehearse submissions

Useful Links

Book a 15-Minute Consultation

Regulatory & Editorial Notice

This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts.

JSH Law provides litigation support services to litigants in person. JSH Law is not a firm of solicitors and does not undertake reserved legal activities.

Is There a Duty to Disclose in Family Law Proceedings?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Is There a Duty to Disclose in Family Law Proceedings?

A practical, plain-English guide for litigants in person

Yes — there is a strict duty of disclosure in family law proceedings, and it is far more onerous than many people expect. It applies early, it applies continuously, and it applies even where the information harms your own case.

This guide explains:

  • Whether a duty to disclose exists in family proceedings
  • When it arises and how long it lasts
  • Where disclosure must be made (forms, statements, hearings)
  • What must be disclosed (and what does not)
  • Consequences of non-disclosure, including setting aside final orders

1. Is there a duty to disclose in family law?

Yes. The duty of disclosure in family proceedings is mandatory (not optional), proactive (you must volunteer relevant information), and continuing (it does not end once forms are filed).

It is particularly strict in:

  • Financial remedy proceedings
  • Ancillary relief
  • Schedule 1 Children Act proceedings
  • Any case where the court must decide issues based on financial/factual transparency

2. What is the legal basis of the duty?

(a) Family Procedure Rules 2010

The primary procedural framework is the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR), including the overriding objective (fair and proportionate case management) and the court’s expectation of openness so it can make decisions on a reliable factual basis.

(b) The Statement of Truth

Most family court documents are verified by a Statement of Truth. If you knowingly withhold, falsify, or misrepresent information, you may be committing contempt of court.

(c) Key authorities

The duty of full and frank disclosure has been repeatedly reinforced by the appellate courts, including Livesey (formerly Jenkins) v Jenkins [1985] AC 424, Sharland v Sharland [2015] UKSC 60, and Gohil v Gohil [2015] UKSC 61.

3. When does the duty of disclosure arise?

As soon as proceedings are contemplated — and it continues throughout the case.

Quick timeline: when disclosure applies

Stage Duty exists? What this means in practice
Pre-action correspondence Yes (in substance) Especially where financial information is being exchanged to narrow issues or explore settlement.
Issue of application (e.g., Form A / Schedule 1) Yes The court expects transparency from the start; hiding information early usually backfires later.
Form E filed Yes (core obligation) Full, accurate, evidenced disclosure is required; uncertainty must be explained.
First Appointment / directions Yes Questionnaires, schedules, and directions often focus on completing missing disclosure.
Throughout proceedings Yes (continuing) If circumstances change, you must update disclosure — you do not wait to be asked.
After final order (limited cases) Sometimes Orders may be challenged if material non-disclosure is later discovered.
Key point: The duty is ongoing. If something changes (new job, bonus, sale of shares, new relationship affecting housing), update disclosure promptly and keep proof of what you sent and when.

4. Where must disclosure be made?

Disclosure happens across multiple procedural “locations”, not just one form. Common disclosure points include:

  • Form E (financial disclosure)
  • Statements / affidavits
  • Replies to questionnaires
  • Schedules of assets and liabilities
  • Oral evidence (hearings)
  • Exhibits (bank statements, valuations, payslips, HMRC documents, etc.)

5. What must be disclosed?

The test is simple in principle: disclose information that is material to the issues the court must decide. That includes information that harms your case or assists the other party.

Common categories of disclosure

Category Examples
Income Salary, bonuses, commission, overtime, dividends, benefits-in-kind, rental income.
Assets Property, savings, investments, shares, cryptoassets, premium bonds, valuable items.
Liabilities Loans, credit cards, tax debts, arrears, guarantees, business borrowing.
Business interests Directorships, partnerships, shareholder interests, company accounts, dividends, retained profits.
Trust / third-party interests Trust entitlements, beneficial interests, family arrangements, nominee holdings.
Pensions All schemes, CETVs, private pensions, workplace pensions, drawdown arrangements.
Future resources Expected inheritances (where relevant), options, pending sale proceeds, significant known changes.

6. What does “full and frank” disclosure mean?

“Full and frank” means nothing material is concealed, figures are honest and evidenced, uncertainty is explained (not glossed over), and estimates are clearly identified as estimates.

In Livesey v Jenkins, the court made clear that silence can be as misleading as lies: if you know something important, you should not sit back and hope the other side fails to ask the right question.

7. A simple disclosure flow diagram

Flow: how disclosure works in a typical family case

1) Identify what’s material Ask: does this affect the issues the court must decide (money, housing, needs, credibility)? If yes, disclose it.
2) Evidence it Attach supporting documents (statements, payslips, valuations). If you can’t, explain why and what you’ve done to obtain it.
3) File + serve accurately Forms, statements, and schedules must match. Inconsistencies are a major red flag to the court.
4) Update continuously New job, bonus, asset sale, new debt? Update promptly. Keep a dated audit trail of what you disclosed.
5) Court response Good disclosure builds trust. Poor disclosure triggers questionnaires, adverse inferences, costs, and (in serious cases) set-aside or contempt.
Tip: Treat disclosure like a compliance task, not a negotiation tactic. In financial cases, the court is deciding on fairness — and it can’t do that if it doesn’t trust the data.

8. What about privilege and without prejudice material?

Legal advice privilege

Communications with your solicitor are generally privileged. However, facts themselves are not privileged. You cannot withhold facts simply because you discussed them with a lawyer.

Without prejudice

Without prejudice communications are usually protected to encourage settlement. But it does not operate as a shield to avoid disclosure obligations where the court requires transparency and accuracy on material issues.

9. What happens if there is non-disclosure?

Consequences may include:

  • Adverse inferences being drawn
  • Costs orders
  • Setting aside of orders
  • Re-opening concluded cases
  • Contempt proceedings in serious cases

In Sharland v Sharland, the Supreme Court confirmed that material non-disclosure will usually justify setting aside an order, unless it can be shown the outcome would have been the same (a high threshold).

10. Practical guidance for litigants in person

Practical checklist (LiP-friendly)

  • Over-disclose rather than under-disclose. If in doubt, disclose and explain.
  • Keep a disclosure log. What was disclosed, to whom, when, and how (email/portal/post).
  • Make your documents consistent. Forms, statements, and exhibits must align.
  • Label estimates. If a figure is approximate, say so and explain the basis.
  • Update quickly. Do not wait for the other party to discover the change.
The family court is experienced in spotting inconsistencies. If you “forget” an asset or income stream, expect it to be treated as deliberate unless you can show a genuinely credible explanation.

Key takeaways

  • There is a strict duty of disclosure in family proceedings.
  • It arises early and continues throughout the case.
  • “Full and frank” means complete, honest, evidenced, and updated information.
  • Non-disclosure can unravel entire cases, including final orders.
  • Transparent disclosure protects you and helps the court decide fairly.

How JSH Law can help

If you are preparing Form E, unsure what must be disclosed, facing allegations of non-disclosure, or considering whether an order can be challenged, we can help you organise disclosure in a structured, court-ready way.

Book a free 15-minute introductory telephone call:

This short call is for new enquiries only. It allows us to understand the nature of your issue, explain the type of support available, and confirm next steps (if appropriate). This call does not constitute legal advice and does not create a solicitor-client relationship.

Complex Family Law Proceedings: What They Are and How to Navigate Them as a Litigant in Person

/0 Comments/in , /by

Family court proceedings are rarely straightforward. However, some cases go beyond the ordinary and become complex family law proceedings, involving overlapping legal, procedural, and safeguarding issues that can be difficult to manage without structured support.

For litigants in person, complexity does not arise because someone has done something “wrong”. It arises because multiple systems, concerns, or stages of proceedings intersect at the same time.

This article explains:

  • what makes a family law case “complex”,
  • what such proceedings typically involve,
  • how complexity often develops in practice, and
  • how structured McKenzie Friend support can help you navigate the process calmly and effectively.

What Are Complex Family Law Proceedings?

A family law case may be considered complex when it involves more than a single issue or a single procedural track.

Common indicators of complexity include:

  • multiple hearings across different stages of proceedings,
  • safeguarding or welfare concerns alongside private law disputes,
  • disputed factual histories,
  • involvement of third parties or professionals,
  • procedural irregularities or appeals,
  • or significant imbalance between the parties’ understanding of process.

Complexity does not necessarily mean the case is high-conflict or dramatic. In many instances, complexity develops gradually as issues are not resolved early and procedural decisions compound over time.

What Complex Family Law Proceedings Often Involve

While every case is different, complex proceedings commonly include a combination of the following elements.

1. Multiple Procedural Stages

Rather than progressing smoothly from application to final hearing, complex cases often involve:

  • interim hearings,
  • adjournments,
  • directions hearings,
  • reviews,
  • or appellate steps.

Understanding why each hearing is taking place — and what the court expects at each stage — becomes critical.

2. Safeguarding and Welfare Issues

Where safeguarding concerns are raised, proceedings may involve:

  • Cafcass reports or recommendations,
  • safeguarding letters,
  • professional involvement from social services or other agencies,
  • or disputes about how concerns have been assessed or recorded.

These issues can significantly affect the direction and pace of proceedings.

3. Disputed Narratives or Allegations

Some cases involve sharply contested accounts of past events, communication breakdown, or allegations that affect decision-making.

Even where findings are not being sought, how disputed material is handled procedurally can have lasting consequences.

4. Appeals or Procedural Challenges

Complexity may increase where:

  • a decision is challenged,
  • time limits have passed,
  • transcripts are required,
  • or procedural errors are alleged.

Appeals introduce a different legal framework, stricter focus, and higher expectations of clarity.

5. Litigants in Person Facing Represented Opponents

When one party is legally represented and the other is not, complexity can arise from:

  • imbalance of knowledge,
  • unfamiliarity with procedural rules,
  • or difficulty understanding what is relevant versus what is emotionally significant.

How Complexity Develops in Practice (Anonymised Example)

In one anonymised case, a litigant in person entered family court proceedings expecting a limited dispute focused on child arrangements. Over time, the case became significantly more complex.

Key features included:

  • repeated hearings addressing different procedural questions,
  • safeguarding concerns raised at various stages,
  • confusion about what issues had been determined and what remained live,
  • difficulties understanding why certain decisions were made,
  • and later, the need to challenge aspects of the process itself.

The litigant was not struggling because of a lack of commitment or care — they were struggling because no one had helped them step back and understand the procedural landscape as a whole.

Documents had been prepared in isolation rather than strategically. Emotional energy had been spent on issues the court was not addressing, while critical procedural points were being missed.

This is a common pattern in complex family law cases involving litigants in person.

Why Complexity Is Particularly Difficult for Litigants in Person

Complex cases place additional strain on litigants in person because:

  • court documents assume procedural knowledge,
  • expectations are rarely explained in plain language,
  • hearings move quickly and are highly focused,
  • and misunderstandings can have cumulative effects.

Many litigants attempt to manage by reacting to each new development in isolation. Unfortunately, this often increases stress and reduces clarity.

What is usually missing is structure.

How Structured McKenzie Friend Support Can Help

My role is not to act as your solicitor or provide legal advice. Instead, I provide procedural, practical, and organisational support designed to help you navigate complexity with confidence and control.

1. Clarifying What the Court Is Actually Dealing With

In complex proceedings, clarity is often lost.

I help you identify:

  • what the court is deciding now,
  • what has already been determined,
  • and what is not currently before the court.

This prevents unnecessary argument and misplaced focus.

2. Structuring Documents and Evidence

Complex cases generate large volumes of material.

I support you to:

  • organise documents chronologically and logically,
  • prepare clear statements or summaries,
  • ensure relevance and proportionality,
  • and avoid common procedural pitfalls.

3. Preparing for Hearings Calmly and Strategically

Rather than approaching hearings with anxiety or uncertainty, I help you prepare by:

  • understanding the purpose of the hearing,
  • identifying key points that matter procedurally,
  • and ensuring you are ready to engage appropriately.

4. Supporting You Through Procedural Complexity

Where cases involve appeals, reviews, or unusual procedural routes, I help you:

  • understand the process step-by-step,
  • prepare materials in line with expectations,
  • and maintain focus on clarity rather than emotion.

5. Helping You Regain a Sense of Control

Perhaps most importantly, structured support helps you move from reacting to events to actively managing your case.

You remain in control at all times.

What This Support Is — and Is Not

It is important to be clear about boundaries.

  • I do not provide legal advice.
  • I do not act as your representative.
  • I do not promise outcomes.

What I do provide is calm, proportionate support focused on preparation, understanding, and procedural confidence — particularly in cases that have become complex or difficult to manage alone.

Final Thoughts

Complex family law proceedings are challenging, but complexity does not mean chaos.

With the right structure, clarity, and preparation, it is possible to navigate even difficult cases without becoming overwhelmed or losing sight of what matters to the court.

If you are representing yourself in a family law case that feels increasingly complex, support may help you regain perspective and move forward more confidently.

Contact Me

If you are involved in complex family court proceedings and are representing yourself, you do not have to navigate the process alone.

I offer calm, structured McKenzie Friend support to help litigants in person prepare clearly, understand procedure, and approach hearings with confidence.

You are welcome to get in touch using the form below to discuss whether support may be appropriate in your circumstances.

    Jessica Susan Hill provides procedural McKenzie Friend support to litigants in person involved in family court proceedings across England and Wales.

    Regulatory & Editorial Notice

    This article is provided for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The content reflects procedural guidance and commentary based on experience supporting litigants in person within the family court system.

    Jessica Susan Hill does not act as a solicitor in these matters and does not provide legal advice or legal representation. Support is offered in a McKenzie Friend capacity only, subject to the court’s discretion.

    Any examples or scenarios referred to in this article are anonymised and are not intended to identify any individual case or person.

    Family law and court procedure are fact-specific and may change over time. Readers are encouraged to seek independent legal advice where appropriate.

    Why Family Court Transparency Matters: What the 30 January 2023 Reporting Pilot Meant for Parents and Litigants in Person

    /0 Comments/in , /by

    For decades, the family courts have operated in a space that is both necessary and uncomfortable: decisions of the highest consequence, made largely out of public view. On 30 January 2023, that began to shift. As reported by BBC News, a new transparency pilot allowed journalists to report on family court proceedings in a way that had not previously been possible. It was presented as a step towards accountability. But for parents and litigants in person, the real significance runs deeper—because scrutiny is not just about visibility, it is about whether the system can be properly trusted.

    Why Family Court Transparency Matters: What the 30 January 2023 Reporting Pilot Meant for Parents and Litigants in Person

    For years, one of the deepest frustrations for families caught up in the family justice system has been this: life-changing decisions are made behind closed doors, yet the people most affected often come away feeling unheard, disoriented, and unable to explain what has happened to them. That is why the 30 January 2023 transparency pilot in the family courts mattered so much. It was not simply a procedural reform for journalists. It was a recognition that secrecy, however well-intentioned, can also shield poor process, weak accountability, and profound injustice. For parents and litigants in person, that moment marked something important: the beginning of a more serious public conversation about what really happens in family court.

    Key takeaways for litigants in person

    1. Greater transparency in family court is not about sensationalism. It is about accountability, scrutiny and public confidence.

    2. The family court deals with some of the most serious and intimate decisions the state can make about children and families.

    3. For too long, many parents have felt unable to challenge what happened because the system has been too closed for meaningful scrutiny.

    4. Journalists being allowed to report from family court was an important step, but it was never a complete answer on its own.

    5. Litigants in person still need to be organised, informed and strategically prepared. Transparency helps, but it does not remove the need to present your case properly.

    If you need strategic support with your family court case, chronology, statement, position statement, bundle preparation or hearing preparation, you can book a short initial call below.

    What changed on 30 January 2023?

    On 30 January 2023, a reporting pilot began in family courts in Leeds, Carlisle and Cardiff. Accredited journalists were to be allowed to report on proceedings in a way that had not previously been possible in any meaningful sense. The intention was to enable closer scrutiny of the family courts, the conduct of local authorities, and the broader decision-making machinery operating in cases involving children.

    That may sound modest. In reality, it was significant.

    The family courts decide some of the most sensitive issues the law can ever touch: whether a child should be removed from their family, whether parents should be restricted in seeing their children, whether allegations of neglect, abuse, coercion or risk are made out, and whether the state should intervene permanently in family life. These are not minor procedural questions. They are fundamental decisions with lifelong consequences.

    Yet despite the seriousness of those decisions, family proceedings have long existed in a space where privacy and secrecy have become difficult to disentangle. Privacy for children is essential. That is not in dispute. But privacy for children is not the same thing as insulation of institutions from scrutiny.

    Why this mattered so much

    The strongest part of the reporting around the pilot was not simply that a rule was changing. It was the explanation of why scrutiny mattered in the first place.

    One of the families referenced in the coverage was that of Liz Anstey, who described the family court process as surreal, traumatic and deeply confusing. She spoke of not knowing who was who, of hearings being adjourned, and of struggling to understand what was going on. That description will resonate with far too many parents.

    It should not be normal for people to come out of proceedings affecting their children feeling as though they have fallen into a procedural rabbit hole. Yet many do.

    For litigants in person especially, family court can feel like a system with its own language, its own hidden rules, and its own hierarchy of professionals speaking over the lives of ordinary people. Even where the legal process is attempting to do justice, the lived experience can still be one of disempowerment.

    That is why scrutiny matters. Not because every complaint made by every parent will be justified. Not because every judicial decision is wrong. But because a justice system that cannot be properly observed will always struggle to command confidence.

    The long road to transparency

    The 2023 pilot did not appear out of nowhere. It followed decades of pressure, criticism and frustration.

    There have been repeated calls over many years for family courts to be opened up to greater scrutiny. Those calls grew louder after cases in which serious errors or alleged miscarriages of justice became publicly known. The concern was never simply that family proceedings were private. The concern was that a private system can become a system in which accountability is too weak, patterns are too difficult to identify, and public understanding is distorted by the absence of real information.

    As the article explains, there were previous attempts to increase transparency. In 2009, journalists were allowed into family court hearings, but the practical effect was limited. The rules were too unclear. Reporting remained heavily constrained. Journalists could attend, but not in a way that made meaningful public reporting realistic in most cases.

    That distinction is important.

    There is a world of difference between being nominally allowed into a courtroom and being able to report in a way that actually informs the public. If a journalist cannot identify the local authority, cannot speak to the family, cannot explain the core facts, and cannot describe the decision in a coherent way, then what exists is not real open justice. It is a carefully managed appearance of it.

    Why “private” should never mean “beyond scrutiny”

    Family cases are heard in private for good reason. Children must be protected. Their identities, welfare and futures must not be exposed to public harm. That principle is sound and necessary.

    But there has always been a dangerous slippage in public debate: the assumption that because proceedings are private, detailed scrutiny is somehow inappropriate or impossible.

    That is wrong.

    The justice system should be capable of doing two things at once: protecting children’s anonymity while also allowing the conduct of professionals and institutions to be examined. Those aims are not contradictory. In fact, they should sit together. If anything, a system making decisions about vulnerable children should attract more careful scrutiny, not less.

    The transparency debate has never really been about whether children should be named. They should not. It has been about whether the operation of the system itself should remain largely shielded from view.

    That is where the reporting pilot mattered. It accepted, at least in principle, that anonymity for the child can coexist with proper public-interest reporting.

    Why this issue matters to litigants in person

    For litigants in person, the transparency issue is not abstract. It affects confidence, fairness and the perceived legitimacy of the whole process.

    Parents representing themselves often feel that professionals enter the room with authority already attached to them. Cafcass officers, local authority social workers, experts, guardians, counsel and judges all operate within a system they understand. The parent may be the only person in the room trying to navigate it in real time.

    When that process is then almost entirely shielded from outside scrutiny, the parent’s sense of powerlessness can intensify. Even where there are legal remedies, appeals or complaint routes, those mechanisms can be difficult, expensive, slow and procedurally complex. Many families do not have the resources to pursue them.

    Transparency does not solve that problem entirely. But it changes the climate. It creates at least the possibility that poor practice, inconsistency, or systemic patterns may be seen and discussed.

    And that matters, because courts and agencies behave differently when they know their conduct may be observed and reported.

    The limits of transparency

    It is also important to be realistic. Transparency is not a cure-all.

    Allowing journalists to report on cases does not automatically prevent bad decisions. It does not guarantee that all families will be treated fairly. It does not eliminate the structural disadvantages faced by litigants in person. And it does not remove the emotional and procedural pressure of family proceedings.

    In some respects, transparency may even expose a further uncomfortable truth: that the problem was never only secrecy. It was also resources, culture, delay, evidential inconsistency, and the enormous discretionary power exercised within a stressed and overburdened system.

    But transparency still matters because without it, those deeper problems are easier to ignore.

    A closed system can always reassure itself that it is functioning well. A scrutinised system has to show its workings.

    The human cost of family court decisions

    One of the most powerful features of the earlier article was its reminder that family court reporting is not simply about legal principle. It is about human consequence.

    There is a tendency in legal systems to become desensitised to process. Adjournments become routine. bundles become routine. directions become routine. expert reports become routine. But for the family living through the case, none of it is routine.

    When a child is removed, when contact is suspended, when allegations are made, when a case drags on, when a hearing ends in tears outside court, those events are not procedural footnotes. They are pivotal moments in people’s lives.

    That is one of the reasons meaningful reporting matters. It restores some human visibility to a system that can otherwise become dominated by anonymised process and professional shorthand.

    It forces a wider public to confront what family justice actually does.

    The issue of confidence in the system

    Sir Andrew McFarlane’s observation at the time that there was “an absence of confidence” in the family courts due to a “vacuum of information” was, in my view, a strikingly honest one.

    Confidence in family justice cannot be manufactured by insisting that the public should simply trust it. Trust has to be earned. And in any justice system, trust depends in part on visibility.

    Where information is too scarce, rumour fills the gap. Where reporting is too constrained, suspicion hardens. Where people are told that everything is being done properly but cannot see how, confidence erodes.

    That does not mean every criticism is well-founded. It means opacity is a poor foundation for legitimacy.

    What parents should take from this

    If you are a parent or grandparent involved in family proceedings, this issue should matter to you even if no journalist ever attends your hearing.

    It matters because it signals a broader recognition that the family justice system cannot remain culturally closed if it wants public trust.

    It matters because it validates something many families have been saying for years: that the system can feel inaccessible, confusing and unaccountable.

    And it matters because it underlines the importance of presenting your case in a way that is clear, disciplined and evidence-led. In a more transparent system, the quality of process becomes more visible. That means your own preparation matters too.

    If you are self-representing, ask yourself:

    Can I explain my case clearly?

    Do I have a proper chronology?

    Have I distinguished fact from allegation?

    Have I focused on the child’s welfare rather than only my own grievances?

    Do I understand what order I am asking the court to make and why?

    Transparency may shine more light on the system, but you still need to be ready to stand in that light with a properly prepared case.

    My own view

    I have long taken the view that privacy for children must be preserved, but that this should never be used as a reason to avoid examination of how the family courts actually operate.

    The stakes are simply too high.

    When the state intervenes in family life, when children are removed, when contact is curtailed, when professional opinions shape outcomes, and when judicial discretion carries lifelong consequences, accountability is not optional. It is essential.

    The 30 January 2023 pilot was important because it represented a serious move away from the idea that family justice can rely on closed-room legitimacy. It accepted that if the public is to have confidence in the system, the system must be prepared to be seen.

    That does not weaken justice. It strengthens it.

    Final thoughts

    The family courts deal with some of the most painful and consequential decisions in the legal system. They will never be easy places. Nor should they become spectacles.

    But neither should they remain so closed that only fragments of truth emerge, and only after years of campaigning, appeals, or extraordinary effort.

    The 2023 transparency pilot mattered because it recognised that accountability and child protection can coexist. It recognised that secrecy is not the same as safety. And it offered, at least in part, a route towards a family justice system that could be better understood, better scrutinised and, perhaps in time, better trusted.

    For litigants in person, that was and remains a development worth paying close attention to.

    Need help preparing for family court?

    If you are facing private children proceedings and need clear, strategic support, book a 15-minute initial consultation to discuss your case, your next steps, and how to approach proceedings with greater confidence.

    Practical litigation support. Clear strategy. Confidence before your next hearing.

    Useful links

    Regulatory & Editorial Notice: This article is published by JSH Law Ltd for general information, commentary and public legal education only. JSH Law Ltd is not a firm of solicitors and does not provide reserved legal activities or regulated legal services. Nothing in this article constitutes legal advice, representation, or the formation of a solicitor-client relationship. Family court cases turn on their own facts, evidence, judicial evaluation and procedural history. Readers should obtain advice tailored to their own circumstances before taking or refraining from any step in litigation. Commentary on public reporting, court reform, institutions or third-party materials is editorial in nature and is presented in good faith on the basis of sources believed to be reliable at the time of publication.