A McKenzie Friend is someone who supports a litigant in person during Family Court proceedings by providing practical assistance (e.g., note-taking, help organising documents, quiet support in court).

Not automatically. A McKenzie Friend does not have rights of audience unless the judge grants permission in that case.

There is no single statutory regulator for McKenzie Friends. Standards can vary widely, which is why due diligence matters.

Yes. Some McKenzie Friends are unpaid; others charge. Fees should be transparent, proportionate and agreed in writing.

Yes. They may help you prepare and organise documents (e.g., chronologies, position statements, draft witness statements). You remain responsible for what is filed.

A McKenzie Friend may provide general information and practical guidance. They should be clear about the limits of their role and must not misrepresent themselves as a solicitor or barrister.

No. A solicitor is a regulated legal professional. A McKenzie Friend is a support person for a litigant in person.

Usually yes, unless there are exceptional reasons to refuse (e.g., conduct issues, confidentiality concerns, disruption). Permission is at the court’s discretion.

It is best practice to notify the court (and the other party) in advance, especially for remote hearings or where you want the McKenzie Friend to assist actively.

Usually yes, subject to courtroom layout and the judge’s directions.

Often yes, but you should request it in advance. The court controls attendance links and participation.

They may help draft correspondence, but you (the party) should usually send it unless the court directs otherwise. Courts often prefer communication from the litigant directly.

No. You must sign your own documents, including statements of truth.

Yes. Note-taking is a core permitted function.

Yes. They can assist with structure, pagination, indexing and compliance preparation, but you remain responsible for what is filed.

It is permission to address the court (speak) and, in some cases, examine witnesses. McKenzie Friends do not have this automatically.

Only in limited circumstances, at the judge’s discretion, considering fairness, the interests of justice, and the McKenzie Friend’s suitability.

Not as a default. Cross-examination is usually done by the party unless the court permits otherwise or makes specific arrangements.

Yes, they can help you prepare questions and structure a cross-examination plan.

Yes, quiet advice and prompts are generally allowed, provided it does not disrupt proceedings.

Key case documents: application, orders, statements, core exhibits, chronology, position statement, and any reports (e.g., Cafcass, expert).

Typically, Cafcass engages with parties directly. A McKenzie Friend may help you prepare for contact with Cafcass, but should not attempt to “take over” the professional interaction.

Yes. Interpreting directions into a practical task list is a key part of effective support.

Yes. They can help structure it, ensure relevance and clarity, and link it to evidence. You must ensure it is true and accurate.

It is a formal declaration that the contents are true. False statements can have serious consequences. You must understand and accept what you sign.

Yes. This is often one of the most useful documents for hearings: short, focused, and aligned to what the court must decide.

They may help you draft proposals and plan negotiation, but negotiations are normally conducted by the parties unless the court permits otherwise.

Not automatically. Privilege is a legal concept that usually applies to solicitor/client communications. Treat confidentiality seriously and agree it in writing.

The court should not. Judges may appreciate organised presentations, but the decision is based on law, evidence and welfare considerations.

Yes, in exceptional cases—e.g., if they are disruptive, have a conflict of interest, or pose confidentiality/safeguarding concerns.

Unclear boundaries, unrealistic expectations, poor communication, lack of procedural competence, fee disputes, or conduct in court.

Often because there is no clear written agreement on scope, hourly rates, cancellations, or deliverables.

Scope of support, fees, what is included/excluded, confidentiality, cancellation policy, data handling, and boundaries about speaking in court.

Not legally required, but professional indemnity-style cover (where available) can be a reassuring indicator of professionalism.

No. Anyone guaranteeing outcomes is a red flag. No one can promise a judge’s decision.

No. You remain the litigant and decision-maker. A McKenzie Friend supports; they do not replace you.

Ask about relevant experience, request examples of document structures (anonymised), check references, and assess how they explain procedure and safeguarding.

Promises of guaranteed outcomes, hostility toward the court, refusal to provide written terms, vague fees, pressure tactics, or encouraging vexatious applications.

Helping you understand procedure, prepare documents, organise evidence, and support you in hearings—within lawful boundaries.

They can help you understand the process and draft supporting documents, but appeals are technical and time-limited—specialist advice may be needed.

Yes, but safeguarding competence matters. They should understand PD12J principles and the importance of evidence clarity and proportionality.

Yes. They can help you structure allegations and cross-reference supporting evidence.

Yes—issue framing, evidence mapping, questioning structure, and hearing preparation are common areas of support.

Yes. They can help you identify what is evidence vs opinion, what can be challenged, and how to respond proportionately.

They can help you draft a focused response and highlight factual inaccuracies, but should avoid inflammatory language and keep it evidence-led.

Yes, including structure and PD27A awareness (page limits, indexing, pagination, relevance).

Emotional support helps you cope; strategic support helps you present your case clearly. The best support recognises both but prioritises court-focused preparation.

Sometimes, but it’s often better for communications to be in writing and sent by you to avoid confusion about authority and representation.

They should have secure storage practices, clear retention periods, and confidentiality terms. Avoid anyone casual about data security.

Yes. If support is not working, you can change. Make sure you manage handover of documents and clarify any fees owed.

Yes—chronologies are core to readiness and hearing clarity.

Yes—key points, orders sought, evidence references, and speaking notes.

Often yes, subject to the judge’s directions and remote-link permissions.

Yes—clear headings, neutral tone, correct attachments, and compliance with directions.

Yes—what they require, deadlines, and what you must file next.

That is usually inappropriate and may create conflicts. The court may refuse their assistance.

They should disclose it and step back. Conflicts can compromise your case.

Yes—organising documents and presenting disclosure logically, but you must be honest and complete.

No. That would be improper and could seriously damage your case.

The judge may remove them, restrict attendance, or refuse future involvement. It can also affect how your case is perceived.

Yes—focused, relevant questions linked to disputed issues.

Yes—good support keeps you anchored to issues, evidence, and welfare.

Yes—drafting structured proposals and explaining practical implications.

No. Communications should go through proper channels, typically from you (unless the court directs otherwise).

The judge decides. The objection must usually be based on a proper reason (e.g., conflict, confidentiality, disruption).

Yes—explaining what the form asks for and helping you draft concise supporting statements.

Yes—clear breach details, dates, and evidence of non-compliance are key.

Yes—hearsay may be admissible, but weight depends on reliability and corroboration.

Yes—issue-by-issue responses, evidence mapping, and tone discipline.

Share orders, application, key evidence, a draft position statement, and a chronology. Agree roles and boundaries before the hearing.

A short document summarising issues, what you seek, and why, with key evidence references.

Sometimes—more common in complex hearings. A McKenzie Friend can help structure it if appropriate.

Yes, including indexing, pagination, and relevance filtering.

It depends on complexity. Beware anyone who cannot explain what they’ll produce for the time billed.

With a clear cancellation policy in writing (notice periods, charges, rescheduling).

That depends on the agreement. A professional should have a fair complaints and resolution process.

There’s no single required background; competence is demonstrated by process knowledge, drafting quality, ethics, and experience.

Yes. They are subject to the judge’s control and courtroom rules.

Yes—especially around deadlines, directions, and document requirements.

Yes—PD12J is central where domestic abuse is alleged.

Yes—good support improves proportionality and focus.

Yes—issues, interim proposals, and safeguarding concerns should be clear.

Yes—offers, disclosure issues, and negotiation strategy can be structured.

Yes—where relevant and directed by the court.

Notes, prompts, and short guidance given to you without interrupting proceedings.

Be cautious. Witness handling must be proper and non-influential. Always keep to ethical boundaries.

Yes—neutral, child-focused language improves credibility and judicial engagement.

Yes—structured proposals aligned to welfare and practical logistics.

Yes—tone, content, and evidence-friendly phrasing matter.

Orders, key documents, a position statement, a note of issues, and a working copy of the bundle (if provided).

Yes—this is often a key practical benefit.

Yes—focused procedural questions can be prepared in advance.

Start with their written complaints process (if they have one). If misconduct affects proceedings, you may raise it with the court.

It depends. Keep communications factual and calm. Focus on resolving issues without distracting from the proceedings.

Clarity and structure — turning confusion into a focused plan and credible presentation.

Procedural damage, poor drafting, inflaming conflict, or misleading you about what the court will do.

Yes—family proceedings have strict privacy expectations, and publishing details can create legal risk.

Not without the court’s permission. Recording can breach court rules.

Yes—concise case summaries can be highly effective when permitted and properly framed.

If you feel overwhelmed by procedure, evidence organisation, or hearing preparation — and you cannot access legal representation — structured McKenzie support can be a practical solution.