Canada Is Treating Coercive Control as a Pattern — Are UK Family Courts Doing Enough?

August 8, 2026/0 Comments/in 4. Domestic Abuse & Safeguarding Cluster, 6. Tools Templates Research & Cases, Children and Family Justice, McKenzie Friend Support/by jessica susan hill

Canada is taking a notably joined-up approach to coercive control, recognising it not just as a criminal justice issue but as a pattern of behaviour with consequences across family law, civil liability and the welfare of children. That matters because coercive control is rarely understood properly when the evidence is broken into isolated incidents. This article looks at Canada’s developing three-layer framework, compares it with the law and procedure in England and Wales, and asks whether our family courts are consistently equipped to identify the pattern, power imbalance and post-separation harm that coercive control can create.

JSH Law | Family Justice, Domestic Abuse & Coercive Control

“`

Canada’s New Approach to Coercive Control: What England and Wales Can Learn From a Three-Layer Response to Family Violence

Canada is building something increasingly significant around coercive control: recognition in family law, a new civil cause of action for intimate partner violence, and now a specific criminal offence. The important question for England and Wales is not simply whether our law contains similar words. It is whether our family justice system is consistently capable of recognising the pattern those words are supposed to describe.

“`

In summary

“`

Canada has not simply created a new “tier” of family violence. What is emerging is a broader legal architecture in which coercive control is recognised across family law, civil law and criminal law.

That matters because coercive control is rarely understood properly by examining isolated incidents. It is about patterns, power, autonomy, fear, restriction and the cumulative effect of behaviour over time — including behaviour which continues after separation and through children or legal proceedings.

“`

An important clarification

“`

Social-media discussion has sometimes described the Canadian development as a new “tier” of family violence. That is not quite the legal position. The more important development is that coercive control is increasingly being recognised across several different areas of Canadian law, with family, civil and criminal law all moving towards an understanding of domestic abuse as a cumulative pattern rather than simply a collection of isolated incidents.

“`

What Canada actually means by “family violence”
Why coercive control has been part of Canadian federal family law since 2021
How children are recognised as victims of family violence
The Supreme Court of Canada’s 2026 decision in Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia
Canada’s new criminal offence of coercive control
Why the offence is not yet operational
How the Canadian framework compares with England and Wales
The Domestic Abuse Act 2021, PD12J and Re H-N
Why incident-by-incident analysis can fail victims and children
Post-separation abuse and the use of children as instruments of control
What family courts in England and Wales could learn from Canada
Practical implications for litigants in person

“`

This is not simply a new criminal offence

The most interesting thing about what is happening in Canada is not one statute.

It is the direction of travel.

Canadian law is increasingly recognising coercive control in three distinct but connected ways.

1. Family law: coercive and controlling behaviour is expressly incorporated within the federal Divorce Act definition of family violence and the best-interests analysis.

“`

2. Civil law: in May 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada recognised a new tort of intimate partner violence in Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia, addressing the distinctive harm caused by coercive control.

3. Criminal law: the Protecting Victims Act, which received Royal Assent on 18 June 2026, creates a specific Criminal Code offence concerning coercive or controlling conduct towards an intimate partner.

“`

That matters because coercive control has always been difficult for legal systems built around identifying discrete events.

A punch is an event.

A threat is an event.

A particular abusive message is an event.

Coercive control is often something different.

It may consist of hundreds of individually explainable acts which, when viewed together, establish an architecture of domination: surveillance, isolation, intimidation, financial restriction, manipulation of children, threats, humiliation, regulation of everyday life, interference with relationships, litigation pressure and the systematic erosion of another person’s autonomy.

Look at only one incident and the abuse may appear insignificant.

Look at the pattern and the case may look completely different.

Canada has recognised coercive control in family law since 2021

Canada did not suddenly discover coercive control in 2026.

Important amendments to the federal Divorce Act came into force on 1 March 2021.

The Act defines “family violence” broadly. Crucially, the definition is not restricted to behaviour which constitutes a criminal offence.

It includes violent or threatening behaviour, conduct causing fear for someone’s safety and a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour.

It can include:

physical abuse;
sexual abuse;
threats to kill or cause bodily harm;
harassment and stalking;
psychological abuse;
financial abuse;
failure to provide necessities;
threats against animals or property; and
harm to animals or damage to property.

The definition is particularly important for children because it expressly includes a child’s direct or indirect exposure to family violence.

That distinction matters

“`

A family court is not conducting a criminal prosecution. The question is not simply whether conduct could be proved beyond reasonable doubt as a criminal offence. The court is concerned with the child’s welfare, risk and the reality of family functioning. Canada expressly puts that distinction into its federal family-law framework.

“`

Children do not need to be physically assaulted to be affected by abuse

This is an area where both Canadian law and the law of England and Wales have moved significantly.

A child can be harmed by domestic abuse even where the abusive parent never lays a hand on the child.

Children can live inside the consequences of coercive control.

They may watch one parent modify everything they say and do to avoid another parent’s reaction.

They may understand which subjects cannot safely be discussed.

They may become messengers.

They may be questioned after spending time with the other parent.

Their telephone contact may be monitored.

Their relationships with grandparents, siblings or the other side of their family may become contested territory.

They may learn that affection itself carries consequences.

They may therefore experience the abusive system even when they are not its original target.

Canada’s Divorce Act expressly requires courts examining family violence to consider whether a child was directly or indirectly exposed to it and the resulting physical, emotional or psychological harm or risk of harm.

This is not a peripheral issue. It is part of the best-interests assessment.

Canada asks courts to identify the pattern

Section 16 of the Canadian Divorce Act requires courts dealing with family violence to consider a number of factors, including:

the nature, seriousness and frequency of the family violence;
when it occurred;
whether there is a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour;
whether the violence was directed at the child;
whether the child was directly or indirectly exposed to it;
physical, emotional and psychological harm or risk of harm;
whether the safety of the child or another family member has been compromised;
whether the behaviour caused fear for safety; and
what steps, if any, the person responsible has taken to prevent further violence and improve their parenting.

Justice Canada’s explanatory material goes further.

It recognises that coercive and controlling family violence is cumulative.

It also recognises something practitioners dealing with post-separation abuse will immediately understand: children and parenting arrangements themselves may be used as instruments of continued control.

Justice Canada gives examples including refusing to comply with parenting orders or threatening the former partner with the loss of parenting time.

The critical question is often not “What happened on Tuesday?” It is “What system of behaviour existed before, during and after Tuesday — and what did that system do to the adults and children living inside it?”

Then came Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia

On 15 May 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada delivered a major judgment in Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia.

The case concerned whether Canadian law should recognise a civil claim capable of addressing the distinctive harm caused by intimate partner violence.

The Court concluded that existing torts did not fully capture that harm and recognised a new tort of intimate partner violence.

This is important because traditional civil claims may identify particular wrongs — such as assault or intentional infliction of emotional distress — while still missing what coercive control does as a whole.

The Supreme Court described intimate partner violence in terms of coercive and controlling conduct capable of undermining a person’s dignity, autonomy and equality.

It is not limited to physical violence.

Relevant behaviour may include:

isolation;
humiliation;
surveillance;
financial control;
sexual coercion;
intimidation; and
other behaviour which, understood contextually, amounts to coercive control.

The significance is difficult to overstate.

The law is recognising that there can be a distinct injury in stripping another person of meaningful autonomy over time.

That injury cannot always be understood by separating the relationship into a spreadsheet of incidents.

The new Canadian criminal offence

Canada then took another major step.

The Protecting Victims Act, formerly Bill C-16, received Royal Assent on 18 June 2026.

Among a wider package of criminal justice reforms, the legislation creates a specific offence aimed at a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct towards an intimate partner.

The legislation is intended to capture combinations or repeated instances of conduct including violence, sexual coercion and other controlling behaviour which would reasonably be expected to cause an intimate partner to believe that their physical or psychological safety is threatened.

The statutory scheme identifies areas of a victim’s life which coercive behaviour may attempt to control, including:

social interactions;
communications;
childcare decisions;
employment;
education;
finances;
property;
physical appearance;
access to healthcare or medication;
expression of opinions; and
participation in linguistic or cultural communities.

Threats of suicide or self-harm used as part of a coercive pattern may also fall within the framework where the statutory requirements are satisfied.

The new offence carries a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment on indictment.

But there is an important caveat: it is not yet operational

Do not miss this

“`

Bill C-16 became law on 18 June 2026, but Justice Canada states that the coercive-control provisions will come into force no later than two years after Royal Assent.

They are therefore enacted, but at the time of writing in August 2026 they are not yet an operational criminal offence.

“`

The reason given for the delayed commencement is particularly telling.

Canada wants time for training and implementation.

That is a lesson in itself.

Coercive control legislation can fail if police, lawyers, social workers, prosecutors, judges and safeguarding professionals continue to search only for incidents.

You cannot legislate for patterns of abuse and then train professionals to look exclusively for episodes.

Nor can a legal system sensibly say that coercive control is cumulative and contextual while forcing victims to reduce years of behaviour to a small number of decontextualised allegations.

Canada has also connected coercive control with femicide

The 2026 reforms go further again.

Canada’s new legislation changes the treatment of certain murders occurring in circumstances involving coercive control, hate, sexual violence or exploitation and expressly uses the term femicide where the victim is female.

That is significant because coercive control is not merely being treated as unpleasant relationship behaviour.

It is being recognised within a risk continuum.

This reflects something domestic-abuse specialists have argued for years: coercive control is relevant not only because of the psychological damage it causes but because patterns of domination, stalking, threats, possessiveness and escalating post-separation behaviour can also be important indicators of serious risk.

Separation does not necessarily end coercive control.

In some cases, it changes its form.

So how does England and Wales compare?

England and Wales should not be presented as legally backward on coercive control.

We already have substantial legislation.

Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 created the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour.

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 subsequently broadened the framework, including removing the previous requirement that perpetrator and victim be living together for the coercive-control offence to apply.

That was crucial for recognising post-separation abuse.

The Domestic Abuse Act also provides a broad statutory definition of domestic abuse encompassing:

physical or sexual abuse;
violent or threatening behaviour;
controlling or coercive behaviour;
economic abuse; and
psychological, emotional or other abuse.

Importantly, section 3 recognises children as victims of domestic abuse where they see, hear or experience the effects of abuse between connected adults and are related to them.

So England and Wales already possess many of the building blocks.

The difficulty is often not whether the law recognises coercive control.

The difficulty is how reliably the family justice system identifies, evidences and responds to it.

PD12J is stronger than many litigants realise

Practice Direction 12J governs child-arrangements proceedings where domestic abuse is alleged, admitted or there is other reason to believe that domestic abuse has occurred.

It expressly recognises controlling and coercive behaviour.

It requires courts to consider domestic abuse at every stage of proceedings and, where relevant, identify factual and welfare issues and ensure that child arrangements do not expose a child or parent to further harm.

Where abuse is established, the court may need to consider its effect on:

the child;
the child’s relationship with each parent;
the parent with whom the child lives;
future arrangements;
the likelihood of future abusive behaviour; and
each parent’s capacity to understand the effect of the abuse.

PD12J also directs attention to whether a parent is genuinely promoting the child’s welfare or using the proceedings to continue domestic abuse against the other parent.

That provision should be read carefully.

Because post-separation coercive control can migrate directly into family proceedings.

The family court itself can become part of the machinery of control

Litigation is not inherently abusive.

Parents must be able to bring genuine welfare disputes before a court.

But proceedings can be weaponised.

That may happen through repeated applications, unnecessary communications, relentless allegations, financially exhausting procedural activity, demands for information, manipulation of handovers, monitoring through children or continued attempts to exercise control over the other parent’s daily life.

Parliament expressly recognised this risk when reforming section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989.

PD12J and Practice Direction 12Q acknowledge that further applications may themselves form part of a pattern of controlling or coercive behaviour.

The court can therefore restrict further Children Act applications without permission where the statutory criteria are met.

That is a safeguarding power, not simply a case-management convenience.

Re H-N: stop looking at abuse through a keyhole

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Re H-N and Others (Children) (Domestic Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearings) [2021] EWCA Civ 448 remains central to understanding coercive control in private children proceedings.

One of its most important implications is that the court must not lose the overall evidential picture by treating allegations as completely disconnected events.

Coercive control is, by definition, about pattern and context.

A traditional schedule of allegations may sometimes assist in identifying disputed facts.

But it can also become a poor analytical tool where the allegation is fundamentally that numerous behaviours worked together to establish domination, fear, dependency or control.

This concern has now been reinforced procedurally.

Amendments to PD12J taking effect from 5 January 2026 expressly moved away from an overly rigid focus on “Scott Schedules” and emphasised a holistic assessment of domestic-abuse allegations, including patterns of coercive and controlling behaviour.

This is a significant procedural development

“`

A victim should not be forced to prove the architecture of coercive control by pretending it is merely a collection of unrelated bricks.

“`

The real comparison: Canada has made the pattern unusually explicit

England and Wales recognise coercive control.

Canada recognises coercive control.

The difference is therefore more subtle than “Canada has it and we do not”.

The interesting feature of the Canadian approach is the degree to which the same underlying concept is becoming visible across multiple legal domains.

“`

Issue	Canada	England & Wales
Family-law recognition	Family violence under the Divorce Act expressly includes patterns of coercive and controlling behaviour.	Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and PD12J expressly recognise controlling and coercive behaviour.
Children	Direct or indirect exposure to family violence is expressly recognised.	Children who see, hear or experience the effects of domestic abuse can themselves be statutory victims.
Criminal coercive-control offence	Enacted in 2026; commencement delayed for training and implementation.	Section 76 Serious Crime Act 2015, subsequently extended to post-separation conduct.
Civil damages	Supreme Court recognised a distinct tort of intimate partner violence in 2026.	No directly equivalent standalone tort of coercive control.
Post-separation litigation abuse	Family-law guidance recognises use of parenting arrangements as a means of continued control.	PD12J and PD12Q allow the court to recognise proceedings or repeated applications as potential continuation of abuse.

“`

What England and Wales should learn from Canada

The lesson is not necessarily that Parliament needs another definition.

We have definitions.

We have statutory guidance.

We have PD12J.

We have appellate authority.

We have specific recognition of post-separation coercive control.

The harder question is whether the system consistently translates those principles into decision-making.

1. Pattern analysis needs to become routine

Courts should ask not merely whether individual allegations are proved but whether the evidence as a whole establishes a pattern and, if it does, what that pattern means for parenting capacity, risk and the child’s welfare.

2. Post-separation conduct matters

Separation should not create an artificial evidential cut-off.

Coercive control may continue through finances, digital surveillance, children, correspondence, handovers, schools, healthcare decisions or litigation.

3. Behaviour involving children needs to be analysed in context

A dispute about a child’s telephone, contact arrangements, passport, clothing, school information or relationships with relatives may be an ordinary parenting disagreement.

Or it may form part of a wider pattern.

Context decides which.

4. Professionals need pattern-recognition training

Canada’s decision to delay commencement of its new criminal offence while training is developed deserves attention.

Legislation cannot recognise coercive control effectively if professional practice repeatedly atomises it.

5. The child’s experience must not disappear behind the parental dispute

Family proceedings often speak about domestic abuse as though it concerns the adults and child arrangements as though they concern the child.

In reality, those questions may be inseparable.

A parent who controls, intimidates or terrorises the other parent may affect that parent’s capacity to care freely, the emotional environment in which the child develops and the child’s own understanding of relationships, loyalty, safety and autonomy.

6. Absence of prosecution is not absence of abuse

This point is fundamental.

Family courts work to a different evidential standard and perform a different function from criminal courts.

A person does not need to have been prosecuted or convicted before domestic abuse can be relevant to a welfare determination.

Canada makes this particularly explicit in its definition of family violence.

England and Wales should be equally clear in practice.

For litigants in person: evidence the pattern, not just the worst day

People experiencing coercive control often make one of two understandable mistakes when preparing family-court evidence.

Some describe everything.

The evidence becomes hundreds of pages long and the central pattern disappears.

Others describe only the most serious incidents.

The court then sees several apparently disconnected events and never understands the controlling system surrounding them.

The answer is not necessarily more evidence.

It is better organised evidence.

A useful coercive-control evidence structure may identify:

“`

The behaviour: what happened?
The repetition: how often did it happen?
The context: what else was happening around it?
The mechanism of control: what was the person trying to control or restrict?
The impact: what changed in the victim’s daily behaviour?
The child impact: what did the child see, hear, experience or change because of it?
Corroboration: what messages, records, witnesses, police material, school evidence, medical material or professional observations support it?
Post-separation continuation: did the behaviour stop, escalate or migrate into another form?
Current risk: why does the historical pattern matter to today’s child-arrangements decision?

“`

The objective is not to attach a sinister interpretation to every disagreement.

It is to make the evidence capable of answering the correct legal question.

Is this ordinary conflict?

Is it a handful of isolated incidents?

Or is there evidence of a sustained pattern in which one person has attempted to subordinate, frighten, isolate, monitor or control another?

Conflict and coercive control are not the same thing

This distinction matters enormously in private children proceedings.

“High conflict” can become a dangerously imprecise label.

Two adults arguing with each other is not necessarily the same phenomenon as one adult establishing a system of coercive control over another.

Calling both situations “conflict” risks flattening the power dynamics.

It may also create false symmetry.

A victim’s resistance, anxiety, protective behaviour or refusal to cooperate with unsafe arrangements should not automatically be treated as equivalent to the behaviour which produced that response.

Context matters.

Pattern matters.

Power matters.

And the child’s lived experience of that dynamic matters.

The deeper significance of Ahluwalia: autonomy itself can be harmed

Perhaps the most intellectually important aspect of the Canadian Supreme Court’s 2026 decision is its recognition that coercive control is capable of producing a distinctive injury to autonomy and equality.

That is useful far beyond damages litigation.

It helps explain why domestic abuse cannot always be measured by visible injury.

Imagine living for years while another person determines who you speak to, what money you can access, what you wear, where you go, when you sleep, what opinions you can safely express, how you parent, who you can contact and what consequences follow if you disobey.

There may be no single incident capable of explaining that experience.

The harm lies partly in the accumulated destruction of freedom.

That is precisely why coercive control requires contextual legal analysis.

And this matters profoundly in family court

Parenting requires more than an ability to feed a child, provide accommodation and get them to school.

It involves recognising that a child is an autonomous developing person with relationships, feelings, loyalties and emotional needs of their own.

Where a parent has engaged in coercive control, the family court may need to ask difficult welfare questions.

Can that parent distinguish the child’s needs from their own need for control?

Can they support the child’s relationship with the other parent?

Can they tolerate the child holding affection for people they dislike?

Can they respect appropriate privacy and boundaries?

Can they make joint decisions without using parental responsibility as leverage?

Do they understand the impact of the abuse?

Has the behaviour genuinely changed?

These are welfare questions, not punishment.

What I hope happens next in England and Wales

I do not think the answer is simply to keep passing legislation and assume the problem has therefore been solved.

The statutory architecture in England and Wales is already considerably stronger than many people realise.

What we need is consistent implementation.

I would like to see:

stronger and continuing judicial education on coercive control and post-separation abuse;
greater consistency between PD12J on paper and its application in individual cases;
proper use of holistic evidence rather than mechanically reducing abuse to isolated incidents;
clear analysis of the distinction between conflict and coercive control;
greater recognition of children as victims of the abusive environment, not merely witnesses to adult behaviour;
careful examination of the use of children, communication and litigation as potential mechanisms of post-separation control;
better coordination between criminal justice, family justice, safeguarding and domestic-abuse services;
greater emphasis on behaviour, impact and risk rather than stereotypes about how a “real victim” ought to present;
proper examination of whether a perpetrator demonstrates insight and sustained behavioural change; and
family-court decisions which explain transparently how domestic-abuse findings have affected the welfare analysis.

Most of that does not require inventing a new legal concept.

It requires using the concepts we already have properly.

The central point

“`

Coercive control cannot be understood by taking a relationship apart incident by incident and then asking whether each individual piece looks sufficiently serious. The legal system has to be capable of putting those pieces back together. Only then can it see the pattern, the power dynamic, the impact on autonomy and the consequences for children.

“`

Canada is worth watching

Canada has not solved domestic abuse.

No legislation can make that claim.

Nor should comparative legal analysis become a competition in which one jurisdiction is declared “better” than another.

England and Wales have themselves been internationally significant in criminalising coercive and controlling behaviour.

But Canada’s developing framework deserves serious attention.

Its federal family law tells courts explicitly to look for coercive and controlling patterns.

Its Supreme Court has recognised that intimate partner violence can cause a distinctive injury to dignity, autonomy and equality which traditional incident-based torts do not fully capture.

Its Parliament has now enacted a specific criminal coercive-control offence with a maximum penalty of ten years on indictment.

And, tellingly, Canada is delaying implementation of that offence to allow time for training.

There is a message in all of that.

Coercive control is not merely a category of behaviour. It is a way of understanding abuse.

Once the law accepts that, procedure, evidence gathering, professional training and judicial analysis need to follow.

That is where the next stage of reform in England and Wales should concentrate.

Key legal sources and authorities

“`

This article has been prepared by reference to primary and official materials current as at 8 August 2026, including:

Canada, Divorce Act, particularly the statutory definition of family violence and section 16 best-interests provisions concerning family violence and coercive and controlling behaviour.
Justice Canada, The Divorce Act Changes Explained, including official guidance concerning family violence, coercive and controlling behaviour and children’s exposure to abuse.
Justice Canada HELP Toolkit, addressing identification and response to family violence in family-law practice.
Supreme Court of Canada, Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia (2026), concerning the recognition of a tort of intimate partner violence.
Protecting Victims Act / Bill C-16, receiving Royal Assent on 18 June 2026, together with Justice Canada’s accompanying legislative material.
Domestic Abuse Act 2021.
Serious Crime Act 2015, section 76, as amended.
Children Act 1989.
Family Procedure Rules, Practice Direction 12J — Child Arrangements and Contact Orders: Domestic Abuse and Harm.
Practice Direction 12Q concerning section 91(14) Children Act orders.
Re H-N and Others (Children) (Domestic Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearings) [2021] EWCA Civ 448.

“`

Legal information, not individual legal advice

“`

This article provides general legal information and commentary. Family proceedings are fact-sensitive and outcomes depend on the evidence, procedural history, orders sought, applicable law and the court’s assessment of the child’s welfare. If domestic abuse or coercive control is relevant to proceedings, careful legal and evidential analysis may be required.

“`

Need help making the pattern clear to the Family Court?

“`

Coercive-control cases can be particularly difficult for litigants in person because the evidence may be extensive while the court needs the issues presented clearly, proportionately and by reference to the child’s welfare.

JSH Law provides practical, evidence-led support with:

chronologies and evidence organisation;
witness statements and position statements;
schedules of allegations and pattern analysis;
safeguarding evidence;
Cafcass reports and responses;
non-molestation order paperwork;
appeal paperwork;
hearing preparation;
case reviews; and
practical support for litigants in person dealing with complex family proceedings.

The purpose is not to exaggerate a case. It is to identify the legally relevant issues, organise the evidence properly and make the court’s job easier.

“`

Start with a 15-minute consultation

If you are not sure what help you need, where to start, or whether JSH Law can assist with your case, you can begin with a short 15-minute initial telephone consultation.

You can use the call to explain where your case currently stands, identify the immediate problem and discuss what practical support may be appropriate.

Choose an available time below:

The initial call does not constitute legal advice and does not create a solicitor-client relationship.

“`

Follow JSH Law

Follow JSH Law for family justice commentary, practical support for litigants in person, domestic abuse and safeguarding analysis, legal technology, AI and access-to-justice developments.

JSH Law on Linktree

Website articles, social channels, updates and JSH Law resources in one place.

“`

Family Court Changes August 2026: What Parents Need to Know

August 4, 2026/0 Comments/in 2. Family Court Procedure, 5. Court Skills for Litigants in Person, Family Court Procedure, McKenzie Friend Support/by jessica susan hill

Family justice is changing—and some of the most consequential developments will directly affect parents representing themselves. New controls on expert evidence are already in force, revised family court listing guidance begins on 31 August 2026, Cafcass is managing a significant increase in private-law cases, and the legal-aid system continues to leave many single parents without representation. At the same time, concerns about AI-generated and unverifiable court material are moving rapidly from theory into judicial reality.

JSH Law • Family Justice Briefing • 3 August 2026

Family Justice Is Changing: New Expert Rules, the Legal Aid Gap, FHDRA Reform and the AI Trust Test

Several important changes are reshaping how children cases are prepared and argued. For litigants in person, the practical message is clear: check the status of every expert, prepare first hearings with precision, verify every source and do not mistake a proposed reform for law already in force.

The short version

The family justice system did not suddenly become simpler in July 2026. What changed was where responsibility and risk now sit. The rules place sharper controls on expert evidence in many children proceedings; Parliament has documented a legal aid system that leaves large numbers of working parents without representation; Cafcass is managing materially higher demand; revised listing guidance is intended to create more space at first hearings; and the courts are confronting a deeper problem with AI-assisted material: not merely whether it was generated by a machine, but whether its sources exist and can be verified.

Development	Status	Why it matters
Regulated experts in specified children proceedings	In force from 20 July 2026	Regulatory status, necessity, questions and any claimed exception must be addressed properly.
Revised Family Listing Guidance	Takes effect 31 August 2026	The suggested FHDRA maximum reduces to four cases per day, but no litigant is guaranteed a longer or problem-free hearing.
Legal aid delegated functions for Child Focused Model cases	Operational from 15 July 2026	A narrow procedural improvement for an existing eligible cohort; it is not a general expansion of legal aid.
Repeal of the presumption of parental involvement	Proposed in legislation; not yet a change to current law	Parties must continue to apply the law currently in force while keeping the child’s welfare paramount.

1. The family court’s new expert-witness rules are already in force

The Family Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2026 came into force on 20 July 2026. They amended Part 25 and introduced rule 25.5A. In specified children proceedings, expert evidence must ordinarily be provided by a regulated expert, subject to defined exceptions.

The amended framework defines a regulated expert by reference to regulation by a UK statutory body, inclusion on a register accredited by the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care, or regulation by an approved regulator under the Legal Services Act 2007. The framework also recognises defined categories of technical expert, including expertise in digital forensics, DNA testing, handwriting analysis and toxicology testing.

A professional title is not enough

An impressive website, a long CV, previous instructions in family cases or the use of a protected-sounding title does not, by itself, prove that an expert meets the new rule. The relevant regulator or accredited register, the expert’s current status and the precise field of evidence must be checked.

The corresponding amendments to Practice Direction 25B require confirmation and evidence of regulated status in the expert’s instructions and report. Amendments to Practice Direction 25C require parties to address whether the proposed expert is regulated and, where an exception is relied upon, why a suitable regulated expert is not available.

This sits alongside the existing controls on expert evidence. Expert evidence is not ordered simply because a party would find it helpful. The court’s permission is required, and in children proceedings the evidence must be necessary to assist the court in resolving the case. The proposed questions must be focused. Cost, delay, proportionality and the effect on the child all matter.

What a litigant in person should check

Is the case within the amended regime, including the transitional provision for proceedings issued before 20 July 2026?
What exact issue requires expert evidence, and why can the court not determine it using other evidence?
Who regulates the proposed expert, and is the registration current?
Does the proposed evidence fall within a technical or other specified exception?
If an exception is relied upon, what searches were made for a suitable regulated expert?
Are the questions neutral, necessary and within the expert’s actual field?
What will the evidence cost, how long will it take and who is expected to pay?
Does the draft order identify the expert or discipline, questions, timetable, letter of instruction and reporting arrangements?

JSH Law view: this reform is not an invitation to attack experts as a class. It is an instruction to scrutinise expertise properly. Children can be profoundly affected by a report placed before the court. The correct response is disciplined checking, fair questions and transparent reasoning.

2. Parliament has documented a family legal aid justice gap

The Justice Committee’s Access to Justice: Legal Aid report, published on 17 July 2026, is blunt. It records evidence that 76% of single parents with one primary-school-aged child would fall into the gap between qualifying for legal aid and being able to afford private representation.

The Committee also found that real-terms legal aid spending per person fell by 36.3% between 2007–08 and 2023–24. It identified severe strain in the civil provider base and noted evidence that family, housing, mediation and other legal aid work can be financially unviable. Eligibility on paper is of little comfort if no provider has capacity to take the case.

Too rich for legal aid does not mean rich enough for litigation. That gap is now a defining feature of family justice.

A limited operational change took effect on 15 July. The Legal Aid Agency announced that family providers may use delegated functions to grant legal representation in Child Focused Model cases where representation has already been granted up to Family Help (Higher). The LAA describes this as an interim measure to address accelerated pilot timetables.

That change is useful for the people within its scope. It does not remove the means test, widen the substantive scope of legal aid or create a new entitlement for every parent in a Child Focused Model area.

What this means in practice

People should still check legal aid eligibility, including whether evidence of domestic abuse or child abuse brings the case within scope. But the honest advice cannot stop at “find a solicitor”. Where full representation is unavailable or unaffordable, a safe access-to-justice pathway may include targeted, clearly scoped help with:

early case triage and identifying the order actually required;
reviewing a C100, C1A, C2 or response before filing;
organising evidence and building a focused chronology;
preparing a position statement and a realistic draft order;
analysing a Cafcass safeguarding letter, Child Impact Report or section 7 report;
preparing questions, submissions and a hearing plan; and
identifying when the risk or complexity means full regulated representation should be pursued urgently.

Unbundled support is not a replacement for properly funded legal representation in a complex or dangerous case. It can, however, prevent a person from being left entirely alone with a process they do not understand.

3. Four FHDRAs per day: helpful guidance, not a guarantee

The President of the Family Division’s revised Family Listing Guidance takes effect on 31 August 2026. One of its two substantive changes is a reduction in the suggested number of First Hearing Dispute Resolution Appointments listed each day to four cases. It also updates references to the principles governing remote participation and remote family hearings.

This could create more realistic space for early issue identification, safeguarding discussion, negotiation and case management. But it would be wrong to present it as a promise that every FHDRA will last a full hour, start on time or resolve the case. The guidance expressly does not impose an inflexible national listing regime. Local resources, urgent work, judicial discretion and the complexity of the day’s cases still matter.

Make the extra space count

A less crowded list only helps if the court can identify the real issues quickly. The strongest preparation is not the longest document. It is a short, child-focused position statement, a usable chronology, clear safeguarding points, realistic proposals and a draft order that shows exactly what should happen next.

Before an FHDRA, be able to answer

What is agreed, and what remains disputed?
Are domestic abuse, coercive control, substance misuse or other safeguarding concerns alleged?
Does the court need to consider Practice Direction 12J, a fact-finding hearing or further safeguarding evidence?
Are participation directions or special measures required?
What does the child need while the case is ongoing?
What interim arrangement is safe, workable and properly evidenced?
What report, disclosure or expert evidence is truly necessary?
What directions and timetable should appear in the order?

4. Cafcass demand is rising—and volume is not a substitute for clarity

Cafcass data for 1 April to 30 June 2026 shows total demand up by 9.7% compared with the same period in 2025. Private law demand rose by 12.6%, reaching 10,889 new private law children cases involving 16,511 children.

At the end of June, Cafcass had 17,611 open private law cases involving 26,664 children. That represented year-on-year increases of 9.5% in cases and 10.3% in the number of children.

Those figures show system pressure. They do not prove delay, error or inadequate work in any individual case. Nor should they be used as a generic attack on a Family Court Adviser. They do explain why concise, structured and verifiable material matters.

A better evidence pack is usually a smaller one

For a safeguarding interview or response to a Cafcass report, consider preparing:

a one-page case overview;
a dated chronology separating fact, allegation and documentary support;
a focused table of disputed incidents showing the alleged behaviour, context, effect on the child and supporting evidence;
a short list of any factual errors in the Cafcass material, each tied to a document or reliable source;
the orders currently in force and the precise order now sought;
the child’s needs and any properly obtained wishes and feelings evidence; and
proposals that address risk without treating safeguarding as a contest between adult narratives.

Do not bury a serious point under fifty weaker points. Do not send repeated emotional emails when one calm, indexed response will do. And do not confuse the child’s welfare impact with the unfairness experienced by the adult: both may matter, but they are not the same legal question.

5. The real legal-AI trust test is provenance

The debate about AI in court documents is moving beyond obviously invented cases. The deeper question is whether the human relying on a document can show where each material proposition came from, whether the cited source exists and whether it actually supports the point being made.

On 30 June, the Civil Justice Council’s working group reported an emerging direction of travel that would maintain the current position for professional legal drafting, consider proportionate transparency for expert evidence and recognise the distinct challenges affecting litigants in person. Questions concerning AI-assisted witness statements remain under examination, with a final report anticipated later in 2026.

A separate Upper Tribunal case, reported on 28 July, involved a Home Office refusal letter citing country-policy material that the judge said appeared never to have existed. The judge observed that the letter bore hallmarks consistent with AI use and said hallucination was a possibility. AI use has not been confirmed, and the underlying asylum case continues. The legally important point is not the technology alone. It is that official or apparently authoritative material must still be traceable and testable.

Children’s rights bring the risk into even sharper focus. The Home Office is testing facial age estimation to support disputed-age decisions in immigration cases. Its own published guide says the tool would be supplementary and would not replace a holistic assessment. The guide also acknowledges that, around the critical ages of 16 to 18, even leading systems have an error margin of about 2.5 years.

An error measured in years is not an abstract technical defect when the result may affect whether a person is treated as a child and receives child safeguarding protections.

The JSH Law responsible-AI standard

Primary-source verification: check legislation, rules, judgments and official guidance at source.
Citation testing: confirm that every authority exists and supports the proposition attributed to it.
Audit trail: preserve the material used, the date checked and relevant versions.
Confidentiality: do not place sensitive family-court material into an AI system without a lawful and secure basis.
Human responsibility: a named human must review, understand and take responsibility for the final document.
Honest limits: distinguish verified fact, allegation, inference, opinion and uncertainty.

Responsible legal AI is neither blind enthusiasm nor blanket refusal. It is useful technology under meaningful human control, with a professional able—and required—to identify when the machine is wrong.

6. Children’s rights: opportunities to influence reform now

Three current initiatives deserve attention from families, practitioners and organisations supporting litigants in person:

Kinship care law

The Law Commission proposes a possible Kinship Care Order, parental responsibility agreements in some circumstances without court proceedings and more consistent local-authority assessment.

Deadline: 16 October 2026. Read the consultation summary.

Social care inspections

Ofsted is consulting on revised inspection frameworks, increased engagement with children and families, report cards and stronger treatment of unregistered placements.

Deadline: 28 September 2026. Read the Ofsted proposals.

Care-experienced youth voices

The Children’s Commissioner is recruiting up to ten care-experienced young people aged 16 to 18 for inspection-design workshops in London on 25 and 26 August.

Application deadline: 23:59 on 9 August 2026. See the Youth Voices details.

Consultation should not be reduced to professional voices speaking about children. The point is to make participation safe, accessible and meaningful, including for kinship carers and families who have navigated complex proceedings without representation.

7. What has not yet changed

The presumption of parental involvement has not yet been repealed

The Courts and Tribunals Bill includes provision to repeal the presumption in section 1(2A) of the Children Act 1989. A Bill is not the same as an operative change to the law. Unless and until the relevant provision is enacted and commenced, parties and courts must apply the current statutory framework.

The current presumption is not a presumption of equal time, shared care or direct contact in every case. It is subject to the child’s welfare, which remains the court’s paramount consideration when determining a section 8 application. Evidence of harm, risk, domestic abuse and the individual child’s circumstances must be assessed properly.

The proposed repeal is important, particularly in the continuing debate about pro-contact culture and failures to identify domestic abuse. But changing statutory wording will not, by itself, repair poor risk assessment, lack of representation, delayed evidence, weak participation or inadequate judicial and professional training. Reform has to work in the courtroom, not merely on the statute book.

8. Practical checklist for a litigant in person

Read the current order first. Identify every deadline, restriction, disclosure requirement and hearing purpose.
Confirm which procedural model applies. Child Arrangements Programme and Child Focused Model cases do not always follow the same route.
Check the law at source. Use legislation, the Family Procedure Rules, Practice Directions and official guidance—not an unattributed summary.
Verify any proposed expert. Check regulation, discipline, necessity, questions, availability, cost and the effect on the timetable.
Separate evidence from argument. Label facts, allegations, disputed matters, professional opinion and inference accurately.
Build a focused chronology. Include dates, events, source documents and welfare consequences; avoid unnecessary commentary.
Prepare for the actual hearing. A position statement for an FHDRA should identify issues, safeguarding, proposals and directions—not attempt to become a final witness statement.
Ask for participation support early. Raise vulnerability, safety, separate waiting arrangements, screens, remote attendance or other measures before the hearing where possible.
Check legal aid and realistic alternatives. Do not assume eligibility or ineligibility; obtain an assessment and consider carefully scoped help if full representation cannot be secured.
Review every AI-assisted word. Never file a case, quote, statistic or factual assertion you have not personally verified and understood.

Frequently asked questions

Do the new expert rules apply to every existing children case?

No. The amendment includes transitional provision so that the expert-evidence changes do not apply to proceedings issued before 20 July 2026. The precise procedural history and any later application should still be checked carefully.

Does an unregulated expert automatically become unusable?

Not necessarily. The rule contains specified exceptions, and technical experts are treated separately. The party seeking permission must identify the legal basis relied upon and provide the information the court needs to make a reasoned decision.

Will four FHDRAs per day give me a one-hour hearing?

No guarantee is created. The guidance may improve the realism of lists, but the length and conduct of a hearing remain affected by the case, local resources, urgent work and judicial decisions.

Does the July legal aid change mean I now qualify?

No. The delegated-functions measure is narrow and applies where a legal aid decision has already been made up to Family Help (Higher) in a Child Focused Model case. Eligibility, scope and evidence requirements still need to be assessed.

Can I use ChatGPT or another AI tool to help prepare family court documents?

AI may assist with structure or plain-language drafting, but it cannot take responsibility for accuracy, confidentiality or compliance with a court order. Do not upload sensitive information without understanding the privacy and legal implications. Verify all facts, quotations, legislation and authorities against reliable sources before filing anything.

Has the presumption of parental involvement been abolished?

Not at the date of publication. Repeal is contained in the Courts and Tribunals Bill, but the current law continues unless and until the relevant provision is enacted and brought into force.

Should I send Cafcass every document I have?

Usually not. Follow any directions and the purpose of the assessment. Provide material that is relevant, properly identified and proportionate. A concise chronology and indexed evidence can be more useful than a large, repetitive document dump.

JSH Law: making complex family cases usable

Family proceedings can overwhelm people with documents while still leaving the court without a clear account of what happened, what is disputed and what the child needs. JSH Law provides practical, evidence-led and safeguarding-aware support for litigants in person.

Support may include evidence organisation, chronologies, position statements, schedules of disputed events, Cafcass report analysis, application and appeal paperwork, hearing preparation and clearly scoped assistance with court documents.

Contact JSH Law

Legal information notice: This article provides general information about family justice developments in England and Wales as at 3 August 2026. It is not legal advice and does not create a solicitor-client relationship. The correct procedure and likely outcome depend on the facts, evidence, court orders, applicable procedural model and judicial discretion. Urgent safeguarding concerns require case-specific advice and, where anyone is in immediate danger, contact with the emergency services.

Source note: Primary sources include the Family Procedure Rules and 2026 updates, Practice Directions 25B and 25C, the President of the Family Division’s revised listing guidance, the Justice Committee’s legal aid report, Legal Aid Agency guidance, Cafcass demand data, the Civil Justice Council’s AI project update, the Law Commission’s kinship care consultation, Ofsted and the Children’s Commissioner. Links appear throughout the article.

Can You Qualify as a McKenzie Friend Online? What Fast-Track Courses Can—and Cannot—Do

August 3, 2026/0 Comments/in 5. Court Skills for Litigants in Person, McKenzie Friend Support/by jessica susan hill

A short online course may teach useful court skills, but it cannot confer rights of audience, authorise someone to conduct litigation or guarantee that a judge will allow them to speak. This guide explains the truth about becoming a McKenzie Friend in England and Wales—and why competence, safeguarding and professional boundaries matter more than a fast-track certificate.

McKenzie Friend Support | Family Court Skills | Access to Justice

Can You Qualify as a McKenzie Friend Online? What Fast-Track Courses Can—and Cannot—Do

There is no statutory fast-track qualification that turns somebody into a court advocate or regulated legal professional. A good course may teach valuable skills, but a certificate does not create rights of audience, confer authority to conduct litigation or guarantee that a court will permit a particular person to assist.

Updated August 2026 | England and Wales

The direct answer

No official government, judicial or statutory qualification is required before someone can assist a litigant in person as a McKenzie Friend.

However, that does not mean the work is simple, risk-free or suitable for anyone who has completed a few hours of online training. The absence of compulsory regulation makes competence, honesty, safeguarding awareness and clear professional boundaries even more important.

What is a McKenzie Friend?

A McKenzie Friend is a layperson who provides reasonable assistance to somebody representing themselves in court. The person receiving the help remains a litigant in person. The McKenzie Friend does not become the litigant’s legal representative simply by sitting beside them, helping with their papers or giving them quiet advice.

The current judicial guidance says that litigants ordinarily have a right to reasonable assistance from a layperson. However, the McKenzie Friend has no independent right to participate. The court retains control over the hearing and may limit or refuse assistance where this is necessary in the interests of justice or because the assistance is disrupting the proper administration of the case.

In private family proceedings, including cases concerning children, hearings will often take place in private. The litigant should tell the court as early as possible that they wish to be assisted. The proposed McKenzie Friend should be ready to provide a short CV or written statement explaining their relevant experience and confirming that they:

understand the limits of the role;
have no improper personal interest in the case;
understand the duty of confidentiality;
will not disrupt the hearing or attempt to control the litigant; and
will comply with the judge’s directions.

A McKenzie Friend is a function performed in a particular case. It is not a professional status awarded by purchasing a certificate.

Do you need a qualification to become a McKenzie Friend?

There is no prescribed legal qualification, licence or statutory training route which a person must complete before offering ordinary McKenzie Friend assistance.

That means a friend, relative, support worker, charity volunteer or paid professional may potentially act as a McKenzie Friend. It does not mean that every person using that description is competent to advise on family proceedings, evidence, domestic abuse, safeguarding or court procedure.

Private organisations may provide courses and certificates. Those courses may be useful. They may show that someone has undertaken study or passed a private assessment. What they cannot do is:

grant a right to address the court;
authorise someone to question witnesses;
grant a right to conduct litigation;
make the person a solicitor, barrister or regulated legal executive;
guarantee admission to a private family hearing;
guarantee that a judge will accept the person’s assistance in every case; or
remove the individual’s responsibility to work within their competence.

What may a McKenzie Friend do?

The judicial guidance identifies four core forms of assistance.

Moral support

Helping a litigant remain calm, focused and able to participate in an unfamiliar and stressful process.

Taking notes

Keeping an accurate note of what was said, what directions were made and what deadlines now apply.

Helping with papers

Helping the litigant organise, locate and understand the documents needed during the hearing.

Quiet advice

Quietly prompting or advising the litigant about the conduct of their own case.

What may a McKenzie Friend not do automatically?

A McKenzie Friend does not automatically have permission to:

address the judge or magistrates;
make oral submissions;
question or cross-examine witnesses;
act as the litigant’s agent;
take over management of the case;
sign court documents in place of the litigant;
issue proceedings in the litigant’s name;
accept formal responsibility for conducting the litigation; or
describe themselves in a way which falsely suggests that they are regulated or authorised.

The right to speak in court is a right of audience. The right to carry responsibility for formal steps in proceedings is the right to conduct litigation. These are separate reserved legal activities under the Legal Services Act 2007.

A court can grant a layperson a right of audience or a right to conduct litigation in a particular case. However, neither right should be treated as routine. Each must be requested and justified separately.

The judicial guidance says courts should be slow to grant these rights to laypeople. Where someone holds themselves out as a professional advocate or regularly seeks to exercise those rights, permission will be granted only in exceptional circumstances.

Helping someone present their case is not the same as taking their case over

The litigant must remain the decision-maker and the person conducting their own proceedings. A McKenzie Friend who treats the litigant as a vehicle for the McKenzie Friend’s arguments risks crossing the legal boundary and may be removed from the hearing.

How to assess a McKenzie Friend course before paying

The question is not simply whether a course is described as accredited, certified or fast-track. The important question is what the course actually teaches, who teaches it, how competence is assessed and whether the provider is honest about the legal limitations of the role.

1. Check exactly what the certificate represents

Ask who awards the certificate, whether that organisation is a statutory regulator and whether the qualification is listed on any recognised qualifications framework. A private certificate may still be valuable, but it should be described accurately.

2. Examine the syllabus

A credible family court course should cover more than courtroom etiquette. At minimum, it should address:

the 2010 McKenzie Friend Practice Guidance;
the Family Procedure Rules and relevant practice directions;
the distinction between assistance, advocacy and conducting litigation;
court structure and the stages of family proceedings;
applications, responses, statements, position statements, schedules and orders;
the purpose and limits of bundles;
evidence, relevance, hearsay, allegations and findings of fact;
confidentiality and the restrictions applying to family proceedings;
professional boundaries, conflicts and complaints;
domestic abuse, coercive control and trauma-informed practice;
child safeguarding and welfare;
vulnerable parties and participation directions;
data protection and secure document handling;
when to refer a person to a regulated lawyer, IDVA, ISVA or safeguarding agency; and
how to work calmly and constructively without escalating conflict.

3. Check the tutors

Look for transparent biographies and verifiable experience. Relevant experience may include legal practice, family court work, advocacy, safeguarding, domestic abuse services, court administration or supervised support for litigants in person.

A vague statement that a tutor is a “family law expert” or “court professional” is not enough. Check what that description actually means.

4. Look for real assessment and feedback

Watching videos and answering a short multiple-choice quiz is not the same as demonstrating competence. A serious programme should assess practical tasks such as:

identifying the issues in a case;
distinguishing evidence from assertion;
preparing a clear chronology;
organising a hearing file;
recognising safeguarding concerns;
explaining the limits of the role to a client;
responding to an ethical problem; and
knowing when not to advise.

5. Check whether the materials are current

Family procedure, legal aid, domestic abuse law, transparency rules, bundle requirements and court practice change. The course should identify when its materials were last reviewed and explain how updates will be provided.

6. Read the claims made in the advertising

Treat the following claims as warning signs:

“Become a qualified court advocate in a weekend.”
“Represent clients in any family court.”
“Guaranteed right to speak for clients.”
“Equivalent to a solicitor or barrister.”
“The court must let you attend.”
“You can manage the whole case for the litigant.”
“No legal background or further supervision is needed.”

7. Check the provider’s own professional standards

A training provider teaching professional conduct should itself have clear terms, transparent prices, a complaints process, a privacy notice and an honest refund or cancellation policy.

What does the 2026 Mazur judgment mean for McKenzie Friends?

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Julia Mazur and another v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP and others [2026] EWCA Civ 369 considered when an unauthorised person working within a regulated legal organisation may carry out litigation tasks under the supervision of an authorised individual.

The Court of Appeal held that an unauthorised employee may lawfully perform delegated litigation tasks for and on behalf of an authorised solicitor or other appropriately authorised individual, provided that proper management, supervision and control are in place. The authorised professional remains responsible for the work.

That does not create a parallel right for independent McKenzie Friends.

The critical distinction

A solicitor has statutory authorisation and professional responsibility for the conduct of litigation. The solicitor may delegate work while retaining responsibility and supervision.

A litigant in person has a personal right to conduct their own litigation. They cannot simply transfer that right to an unauthorised third party by calling the third party a McKenzie Friend, caseworker or representative.

The court also declined to produce an exhaustive definition of every task that amounts to conducting litigation. Issuing proceedings and certain formal steps are clearly within the statutory territory. Other activities may depend on who is assuming responsibility, the nature of the task and the surrounding facts.

The practical lesson is straightforward: do not use Mazur as authority for an independent McKenzie Friend to take control of somebody’s proceedings. It is a judgment about supervised delegation within an authorised legal service structure, not a licence for unregulated representation.

The family court requires more than procedural knowledge

Family proceedings involve human beings under pressure. A litigant may be frightened, traumatised, angry, exhausted or struggling to understand what is happening. Children may be living through conflict, disrupted relationships, allegations of abuse or significant uncertainty.

A McKenzie Friend must not become another source of escalation.

Good support is calm, evidence-led and focused on what the court needs to decide. It helps the litigant separate:

facts from suspicion;
evidence from opinion;
relevant history from general grievance;
the child’s welfare from the parents’ conflict;
a pattern of behaviour from an isolated disagreement; and
the order actually required from every other problem in the family.

Domestic abuse and coercive control

Domestic abuse cases require specific competence. Coercive control is rarely explained adequately by reducing everything to one dramatic incident. The relevant picture may involve isolation, monitoring, financial control, threats, manipulation through children, repeated breaches of boundaries, litigation abuse and post-separation conduct.

Equally, allegations must not be embellished or treated as findings before the court has determined them. A responsible McKenzie Friend helps the litigant identify dates, examples, supporting records, impact and the safeguarding relevance of the conduct.

They should also understand that apparently neutral suggestions may be unsafe. Direct negotiation, joint meetings, shared waiting areas or unrestricted disclosure of addresses may expose an abused party to further risk.

Children’s welfare

In children proceedings, the child’s welfare is central. A McKenzie Friend should not encourage a parent to:

question a child repeatedly about the other parent;
ask the child to gather evidence;
share adult court documents with the child without proper reason;
turn the child’s expressed view into a slogan without considering age, understanding, pressure or context;
post details of the proceedings online; or
use inflammatory language which makes safe co-parenting or judicial decision-making more difficult.

Confidentiality is not optional

Family court documents frequently contain intimate information about adults and children. A McKenzie Friend must understand the restrictions on communicating and publishing information from family proceedings.

Files should not be stored casually, forwarded through insecure channels or reused as marketing material. Names and identifying details should not be published merely because a case is interesting or because one party feels that public exposure would be strategically useful.

Confidentiality should also be distinguished from legal professional privilege. A promise to keep information confidential does not automatically give communications with an unregulated adviser the same legal status as privileged communications with a lawyer.

Trauma-informed practice does not mean agreeing with everything a distressed person says. It means listening properly, avoiding further harm, identifying risk, maintaining boundaries and helping the person present their evidence accurately.

Can a McKenzie Friend charge fees?

Yes. The judicial guidance recognises that a litigant may agree to pay a McKenzie Friend for lawful assistance, including reasonable help in or out of court, clerical or mechanical assistance and advice connected with proceedings.

However, payment does not expand the McKenzie Friend’s legal powers. A paid McKenzie Friend has no greater automatic right to speak in court or conduct litigation than an unpaid friend or relative.

The guidance also states that McKenzie Friend fees cannot ordinarily be recovered from the opposing party. Fees for unlawfully conducting litigation without the necessary authorisation or case-specific permission cannot lawfully be recovered.

A paid service is a real business with real responsibilities

Someone charging members of the public should have, at minimum:

clear written terms of engagement;
an accurate description of the service;
a defined scope of work;
transparent fees and payment terms;
a cancellation and refund policy;
a complaints procedure;
a conflicts-of-interest process;
secure file storage and communication systems;
a privacy notice and data retention policy;
appropriate professional indemnity and public liability insurance;
a procedure for safeguarding disclosures; and
a reliable method of recording instructions, advice, deadlines and work completed.

Under consumer law, paid services must be provided with reasonable care and skill. A provider should not assume that describing themselves as unregulated removes contractual, consumer protection or negligence risks.

A commercial provider who processes client information may also need to pay a data protection fee to the Information Commissioner’s Office unless an exemption applies. Family cases routinely involve special category data, allegations, health information, children’s details and highly confidential records. Data protection must be designed into the service from the beginning.

What should a prospective client check?

Litigants in person should not be embarrassed to ask direct questions before handing over money or confidential documents.

Question to ask	Why it matters
Are you regulated by a legal services regulator?	The answer affects professional duties, complaints routes, insurance and consumer protection.
What does your qualification actually certify?	A private course certificate does not automatically create legal authority or regulated status.
What family court experience do you have?	General confidence is not a substitute for relevant procedural and safeguarding experience.
Do you have professional indemnity insurance?	This may matter if negligent advice or document handling causes loss.
Who is responsible for filing and serving documents?	The litigant must understand who is doing what and avoid unlawful delegation of formal litigation steps.
What happens if you are unavailable before a deadline?	A litigant remains responsible for complying with the court timetable.
How do you protect confidential information?	Family court files contain highly sensitive personal and children’s information.
What is your complaints process?	An unregulated provider may not fall within the Legal Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

A responsible route into McKenzie Friend work

There may be no compulsory route, but there is a responsible one.

Read the official guidance in full.
Do not rely on social media summaries or the wording used by a course provider.
Learn the limits of reserved legal activities.
Understand the separate concepts of legal advice, rights of audience and the conduct of litigation.
Study the procedure relevant to the cases you intend to support.
Family, civil, employment and tribunal work have different rules, forms and expectations.
Complete safeguarding and domestic abuse training.
This is particularly important before accepting private children or protective injunction cases.
Seek supervised experience.
Volunteering, mentoring, supervised casework and observing public hearings where permitted are safer than immediately charging vulnerable people.
Develop document and evidence skills.
Learn how to create accurate chronologies, schedules, indexes and concise case summaries without rewriting the evidence to suit a preferred narrative.
Set up proper business systems before charging.
Put contracts, insurance, data protection, complaints, secure storage and conflicts procedures in place.
Build a referral network.
Know when a case requires a solicitor, barrister, IDVA, ISVA, social worker, mental health professional or emergency safeguarding response.
Maintain ongoing learning.
A one-off course cannot keep somebody competent in a changing area of law and procedure.

Start with competence, not branding. The most trustworthy McKenzie Friend is not the person with the grandest title. It is the person who understands the limits of the role, protects the client, respects the court and knows when specialist legal advice is required.

Frequently asked questions

Is there an official McKenzie Friend qualification?

No statutory or court-created qualification confers the status of McKenzie Friend. Private organisations may award their own course certificates, but these do not create regulated status, rights of audience or authority to conduct litigation.

Can anyone call themselves a McKenzie Friend?

The term describes a person giving lay assistance to a litigant. However, nobody should use it in a misleading way or imply that it carries powers, regulation or qualifications which they do not possess.

Does completing a course guarantee entry to family court?

No. The litigant ordinarily has a strong right to reasonable assistance, but the court controls attendance and participation in each case. The judge may limit or refuse assistance where there are sufficient reasons connected with fairness or the proper administration of justice.

Can a McKenzie Friend speak to the judge?

Not automatically. Speaking for the litigant, making submissions or examining witnesses requires a right of audience. A court may grant one in a particular case, but it should not be assumed and must be requested and justified.

Can a McKenzie Friend conduct the case for the litigant?

Not automatically. The litigant remains responsible for conducting their own proceedings. Formal responsibility for issuing proceedings and carrying out other litigation steps cannot simply be transferred to an unauthorised person.

Can a McKenzie Friend prepare a witness statement?

A person may help a litigant organise information and put a statement into a clear structure. The statement must remain the witness’s own evidence, expressed honestly and approved by that witness. The McKenzie Friend must not invent evidence, coach a false account or take over responsibility for the proceedings. Because the boundary between assistance and conducting litigation can be fact-sensitive, formal case management should not be assumed to be lawful merely because it is described as drafting support.

Can a McKenzie Friend charge money?

Yes, a fee may be agreed for lawful assistance. Payment does not create additional rights. The provider should use clear terms, transparent fees, appropriate insurance, secure data systems and a complaints process.

Can the client recover McKenzie Friend fees from the other party?

The judicial guidance states that McKenzie Friend fees cannot be lawfully recovered from the opposing party.

Is a McKenzie Friend the same as an IDVA?

No. An Independent Domestic Violence Adviser provides specialist domestic abuse support. Practice Direction 27C makes specific provision for the attendance of IDVAs and ISVAs in family proceedings. An IDVA may also have a separate role from any person assisting as a McKenzie Friend.

Is a fast-track course worthwhile?

It may provide a useful introduction if the course is accurate, current, properly assessed and honest about the limits of the role. It should be treated as the beginning of learning, not proof that somebody is ready to handle complex family cases alone.

The wider access-to-justice issue

McKenzie Friends exist because people often have to navigate serious proceedings without representation. Many litigants cannot afford full legal services, do not qualify for legal aid or need practical support between limited appointments with a lawyer.

Good McKenzie Friends can help people organise overwhelming evidence, understand the hearing process, remain calm and communicate their position more effectively. That work can make a real difference.

But access to justice is not improved by replacing one inaccessible system with an unaccountable one.

Vulnerable litigants should not be sold false certainty, inflated credentials or advocacy rights which the provider does not possess. Responsible support requires transparency about regulation, competence, limits, fees and redress.

“A course may teach someone how to support a litigant. It cannot, by itself, authorise them to become the litigant’s lawyer.”

What this means in practice

Someone considering this work should not ask only, “How quickly can I obtain a certificate?”

They should ask:

Do I understand the legal boundary of the role?
Can I identify when a case is beyond my competence?
Do I understand safeguarding and domestic abuse?
Can I protect confidential information properly?
Can I help without taking control away from the litigant?
Can I remain calm when the client is distressed or angry?
Can I distinguish evidence from assumption?
Will my involvement make the court’s job easier rather than harder?
Am I prepared to be honest when the client needs regulated legal advice instead?

Those questions matter considerably more than how quickly a course can be completed.

Practical support for litigants in person

JSH Law provides practical, evidence-led and safeguarding-aware support for people navigating family proceedings without full representation. Support may include evidence organisation, chronologies, schedules, position statements, witness statement preparation, Cafcass material, hearing preparation and appeal paperwork.

The scope of any work should be agreed clearly in advance. Court outcomes always depend on the facts, evidence, procedural position, applicable law and judicial discretion.

Book a consultation

Official sources and further reading

Pressured Into Swinging? UK Consent and Court Guide

July 29, 2026/0 Comments/in 4. Domestic Abuse & Safeguarding Cluster, Coercive Control, McKenzie Friend Support/by jessica susan hill

Being married, joining a swingers’ website or sending apparently enthusiastic messages does not automatically prove free consent. This practical guide explains how to report sexual coercion, preserve digital evidence, challenge a no-further-action decision, seek protection and present relevant allegations in the Family Court.

Consent, coercive control and court evidence

Pressured into swinging or sex with strangers? Consent, reporting and court options in England and Wales

Being married, registering on a swingers’ website, attending an encounter or sending apparently enthusiastic messages does not automatically prove free consent. This guide explains what the law asks, how to report sexual abuse or coercive control, how to preserve digital evidence, what to do after a “no further action” decision, and how the same history may be relevant in the Family Court.

By Jessica Susan Hill, JSH Law | 29 July 2026

Jurisdiction: England and Wales. Law and links checked: 29 July 2026.

The short answer

In England and Wales, sexual consent means agreeing by choice while having the freedom and capacity to make that choice. Compliance, appeasement, a previous “yes”, participation in a sexual lifestyle, or a message that looks enthusiastic when read alone is not necessarily consent to a particular act with a particular person at a particular time.

Pressure is not automatically a criminal offence. The precise words, conduct, surrounding pattern, effect on you, sexual act, other person’s knowledge and the date of the conduct all matter. Depending on the evidence, possible issues include rape, assault by penetration, sexual assault, causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent, controlling or coercive behaviour, harassment, assault, or an intimate-image offence. Police and prosecutors must assess the elements of each offence; a Family Court applies a different process and standard of proof.

1. What the BBC Swingers investigation changes—and what it does not

BBC Radio Wales’ Swingers, presented by Catrin Nye, reported Ruth O’Grady’s account that her former husband pressured her into a swinging lifestyle and that she had sex with strangers more than 100 times. The reporting examined extensive WhatsApp material, including 711 pages containing 321,983 words. O’Grady described messages which, outside the relationship’s wider context, could look willing or enthusiastic.

The programme and subsequent reporting brought a difficult evidential issue into public view: a person experiencing coercive control may organise, facilitate or appear to agree to conduct as a way of managing risk, avoiding conflict or surviving within the relationship. That does not mean every unhappy, reluctant or later-regretted encounter is a crime. It means the evidence must be assessed in context rather than by treating a selected message as a complete answer to consent.

BBC follow-up reporting said that around 50 women contacted the broadcaster after the series and that the FabSwingers website was mentioned in 329 police records since 2023. Reports or allegations are not proof of criminal liability. FabSwingers has said that it has moderation and safety measures and has disputed suggestions that it is indifferent to abuse. O’Grady’s former husband was given an opportunity to respond to the allegations and did not respond; the reported police investigation did not result in a charge. There has been no court finding determining the allegations described in the programme.

This article is not about condemning consensual non-monogamy or swinging between adults who choose it freely. It is about what happens when apparent participation is said to have been secured through fear, threats, humiliation, monitoring, financial dependency, punishment, sexual pressure or a wider course of controlling behaviour.

3. Which criminal offences may be relevant?

The correct offence depends on the facts and the law in force when the conduct happened. The table below is an orientation guide, not a charging decision.

Possible legal issue	Conduct it may cover	Important qualification
Rape: section 1, Sexual Offences Act 2003	Intentional penile penetration where the complainant did not consent and there was no reasonable belief in consent.	Rape has a specific statutory definition. Other forms of penetration may fall under assault by penetration.
Assault by penetration: section 2	Intentional sexual penetration of the vagina or anus with a body part or object, without consent and without reasonable belief in consent.	The prosecution must prove every statutory element.
Sexual assault: section 3	Intentional sexual touching without consent and without reasonable belief in consent.	Touching has a broad statutory meaning, but the facts still have to prove the offence.
Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent: section 4	Intentionally causing another person to engage in sexual activity where they do not consent and there is no reasonable belief in consent.	This may be relevant where a partner is said to have caused sexual activity with somebody else. Liability always turns on the evidence and precise statutory elements.
Controlling or coercive behaviour: section 76, Serious Crime Act 2015	A repeated or continuous course of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship which has the required “serious effect”.	The statutory relationship, knowledge and serious-effect tests must be met. The offence was extended to certain post-separation conduct from 5 April 2023; that extension is not retrospective.
Sharing or threatening to share intimate images: section 66B, Sexual Offences Act 2003	Depending on intent and date, sharing an intimate photograph or film without consent, or threatening to share one.	Section 66B applies to relevant conduct on or after 31 January 2024. Earlier conduct is assessed under the law then in force. A threat may be an offence even if the image does not exist.
Harassment, stalking, assault or other offences	Repeated unwanted contact, surveillance, threats, violence or related conduct.	These offences have their own definitions and defences. Do not assume one label covers the whole history.

What about the strangers or other participants?

Each person’s potential liability is assessed individually. A third party may genuinely have believed the person consented, or the evidence may support a different conclusion. For a sexual offence, the investigation will consider what that participant knew, what they observed, what was said, and what steps they took to establish consent. A partner’s alleged pressure does not automatically make every participant guilty, but nor does a website profile automatically provide reasonable belief in consent to everything that later happened.

If the conduct predates 1 May 2004, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 may not be the governing law. Historical allegations can still be reported, but investigators must apply the offence in force at the time.

For controlling or coercive behaviour, the required “serious effect” means either causing fear on at least two occasions that violence will be used, or causing serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on usual day-to-day activities. Examples of day-to-day impact may be relevant evidence, but the statutory test and the defendant’s knowledge still have to be proved.

4. What to do now: safety, health, evidence and reporting

You do not have to decide every legal route at once. A useful order is safety first, healthcare where needed, preservation of evidence, specialist support, then a considered decision about reporting or court action.

If the risk is current

Call 999 if you or a child is in immediate danger.
Use a safe device if your phone, email, location or browsing may be monitored.
Do not announce that you are gathering evidence if doing so could increase the risk.
Ask the police or a domestic-abuse service for safety planning, including risks around separation.
If safe, change important passwords, end unknown sessions and enable two-factor authentication. Consider a new email address that the other person cannot access.

If an assault was recent

Seek medical help promptly. The Government’s rape and sexual-assault reporting guidance explains immediate reporting and evidence options. A SARC may be able to arrange a forensic medical examination and preserve samples while you decide whether to involve the police. If possible after a very recent assault, avoid washing or changing clothes until you have received advice—but your wellbeing comes first, and washing does not prevent you from reporting.

If the conduct was months or years ago

There is no general time limit for reporting rape or another sexual offence to the police. Delay is common and is not, by itself, proof that an allegation is untrue. Tell the police why you are reporting now and, if relevant, what prevented you reporting earlier. The date still matters because it decides which criminal law applies and may affect available evidence.

5. How to report to the police

A victim reports an alleged crime; the state, through the police and Crown Prosecution Service, decides whether a criminal case should be charged and prosecuted. You do not have to fund the prosecution or apply for criminal legal aid as the complainant.

A clear way to start the report

“I want to report sexual offences and a pattern of controlling or coercive behaviour by my current/former partner. I appeared to participate in encounters, but I say that I did not have freedom to choose. I was afraid that [briefly identify the threatened or experienced consequence]. The conduct happened between approximately [dates]. There are full message exports, platform data and [identify other evidence]. I need a safe method and time for police contact.”

Use your own words. You do not need to identify the correct statutory offence. Avoid trying to make the report sound more legally sophisticated than the facts.

Information that helps at the outset

Your safe contact details and whether messages, calls or post could put you at risk.
The broad date range, locations and names or usernames of the people involved.
One or two clear examples of sexual conduct you say was not freely chosen.
The consequences you feared or experienced when you resisted.
Whether children were present, overheard events or experienced their effects.
Whether there are weapons, stalking, strangulation, threats, escalating behaviour or separation risk.
Where the original devices, accounts, messages, images and platform records are held.
Any risk that data will be deleted and any platform preservation request already made.

Ask for a crime or incident reference and the officer’s contact details. Ask whether a specialist sexual-offence or domestic-abuse investigator will be involved and for a referral to an Independent Sexual Violence Adviser (ISVA), if appropriate. An ISVA can provide independent practical support; they do not decide whether a charge is brought.

Do not wait for a perfect evidence pack

A concise initial account is enough to begin a report. It is better to preserve material and identify where it is than to spend months producing a polished dossier while data disappears or risk escalates. Tell the officer if you have more material and ask how they want it supplied. Keep a log of what you provide, to whom, when and in what format.

6. How to preserve messages, accounts and other digital evidence

Digital evidence can show both an individual incident and the environment in which a decision was made. It can also contain material that appears inconsistent with your account. Preserve first; analyse on a working copy.

Preserve the original context

Keep the original phone, computer and storage media safe where possible.
Export complete conversations with dates, times and attachments, rather than relying only on screenshots.
Keep original image, audio and video files with their available metadata.
Record the platform name, profile URL, usernames, account identifiers and relevant dates.
Download account data through the platform’s legitimate export function, if safe and available.
Save emails and documents in their native format as well as producing readable copies.
Keep an untouched master copy and use a duplicate for highlighting, redaction or court preparation.
Record when and how each export was made. Do not change file dates, crop originals or overwrite source files.

Ask the platform to preserve records

Report the relevant account or content using the platform’s official route and ask it to preserve account, login, message, upload and moderation records because a police report or legal proceeding is contemplated. Save the ticket number and the exact request. A user’s preservation request does not guarantee retention or disclosure; the police may need to make the appropriate formal request.

Does the website become legally responsible?

Not automatically. The fact that a service was used, or was mentioned in police material, does not by itself establish that the operator committed an offence or owes damages. A potential claim against a platform can raise different issues about the operator’s acts and knowledge, contractual terms, data protection, content reporting, causation, jurisdiction and limitation. Preserve the platform’s response and moderation history, but obtain specialist advice before threatening or issuing a claim. A complaint to the platform is not a substitute for reporting an alleged sexual offence to police.

Keep the account lawful and safe

Do not guess another person’s password, install surveillance software, impersonate them, provoke a response, or ask a witness to adopt your version. Do not circulate intimate images to friends or upload them to a public AI service. Tell police that relevant images exist and ask for a safe, lawful transfer method. Never create, copy or transmit unlawful child sexual material.

Build a chronology without losing the source

A chronology is an index, not a substitute for the underlying evidence. A useful working structure is:

Date/time	What happened	Boundary, hesitation or request	Response or consequence	Impact	Source reference	Witness/other record
12–13 May 2024	Partner proposed and arranged meeting through account.	Message at 18:42: “I don’t want to go tonight.”	Threat concerning housing; later friendly message confirming attendance.	Fear, no sleep, missed work next day.	WhatsApp export, chat A, lines/time stamps; original phone retained.	Contemporaneous message to sibling; employment absence record.

The example is illustrative. Use neutral language. If a message looks consensual, include it and explain its sequence and significance rather than omitting it. Distinguish what you remember, what a record proves, what another person said, and what you infer.

Useful evidence may come from outside the sexual encounters

Messages showing rules, monitoring, punishment, threats or pressure.
Location, travel, calendar, booking or payment records.
Medical, counselling or SARC records.
Work absence, performance or occupational-health records showing impact.
Bank statements or benefits records relevant to financial control.
Contemporaneous disclosures to friends, family or professionals.
Police call-outs, body-worn video, incident logs or previous reports.
Evidence of account control, device access, deleted content or threats involving images.

Evidence of impact can support a coercive-control investigation, but distress is not a substitute for proving the conduct. Equally, an absence of medical records or an immediate disclosure does not automatically disprove abuse.

7. What may happen in a criminal investigation

Initial report and risk assessment. Police should record the allegation, assess immediate safeguarding and decide which specialist team should investigate.
Your account. You may be asked for a detailed written or video-recorded interview. Say when you are unsure. Correct mistakes promptly; do not fill gaps by guessing.
Evidence gathering. Police may seek devices, platform records, medical material, witnesses, financial records, previous incidents and evidence from the suspect. Ask what is being taken, obtain a receipt and explain any material you need for daily life.
Charging decision. Depending on the offence and evidence, police may decide no further action or refer the case to the CPS. The CPS applies its evidential and public-interest tests.
Court. If charged, the defendant is presumed innocent unless proved guilty. A complainant is normally a prosecution witness, not a party conducting the case.

Privacy and support at a criminal trial

A person who alleges a qualifying sexual offence normally has automatic lifelong anonymity under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, subject to statutory exceptions. Ask police or a qualified lawyer how it applies to your particular allegation, especially where the report is limited to a non-sexual or intimate-image offence.

Tell the police and ISVA about communication needs, disability, trauma, fear of the defendant and any risk created by attending court. Depending on eligibility and the court’s decision, special measures may include screens, a live link, a recorded interview as evidence-in-chief or pre-recorded cross-examination. Special measures support the giving of evidence; they do not predetermine guilt.

8. What to do after a no-further-action decision

First identify who made the decision. The review route and deadline differ.

Decision-maker	Review route	Usual timing	Practical first step
Police, where the case was not referred to the CPS	Police Victims’ Right to Review: scheme information	Request the review within three months of the decision. A late request may be considered under the scheme.	Ask for the written decision, reasons, review form or route, and confirmation of the deadline.
Crown Prosecution Service	CPS Victims’ Right to Review: scheme information	The CPS says a request should ordinarily be made within 10 working days of the decision letter. A later request can be submitted, but one made more than three months after the decision was communicated is unlikely to be accepted without exceptional circumstances.	Use the details in the CPS letter. You do not have to provide legal submissions or have a lawyer to request a review.

A useful review request identifies the decision, asks for the whole decision to be reconsidered and points precisely to any material evidence or context you believe was missed. It should not simply repeat every allegation or accuse the decision-maker of bias. Ask your ISVA for support with the process. A review is not an appeal against an acquittal and does not guarantee a charge.

9. Children and the Family Court

Sexual coercion and controlling behaviour may also be relevant to child arrangements, parental responsibility, contact safety and a child’s welfare. This is a different jurisdiction from the criminal court.

The court is concerned with welfare and risk

Under section 3 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, a child who sees, hears or experiences the effects of domestic abuse and is related to the victim or perpetrator is also recognised as a victim of domestic abuse. A child does not need to have witnessed a sexual act. They may have experienced fear, conflict, disrupted care, secrecy, threats, a parent’s distress or the consequences of control.

In child-arrangements proceedings, Practice Direction 12J requires the court to address domestic-abuse allegations relevant to welfare and risk. The court decides whether a fact-finding hearing is necessary and proportionate; one is not automatic. The Court of Appeal in Re H-N and Others (Children) stressed that a pattern may be more significant than isolated incidents and that the court should focus on allegations necessary to determine welfare and risk.

Criminal and family outcomes can differ

A criminal court asks whether the prosecution has proved an offence beyond reasonable doubt. A Family Court determines disputed facts on the balance of probabilities and then considers welfare and risk. A police decision not to charge, a CPS no-further-action decision or the absence of a criminal complaint does not automatically prevent the Family Court from considering the alleged conduct. Equally, an allegation is not a finding, and the Family Court must decide disputed facts fairly.

Forms and information the court may need

If starting or responding to private child-arrangements proceedings, use the current Form C1A where allegations of harm or domestic abuse need to be raised, together with the correct main application or response route.
If an existing case needs an urgent application or directions, the appropriate form may be C2. Check the order, the Family Procedure Rules and court guidance rather than assuming the form.
If revealing your address or contact details would create a risk, consider Form C8 and avoid placing the protected information elsewhere in a statement or attachment.
State the findings or protective directions sought and explain their relevance to the child. Do not file every intimate detail merely because it exists.
If relying on an exemption from a Mediation Information and Assessment Meeting (MIAM), identify the applicable exemption and evidence under the current rules.

Participation and protection inside the Family Court

Tell the court at the earliest opportunity if domestic abuse affects your ability to participate or give evidence. Part 3A and Practice Direction 3AA require the court to consider participation directions. Depending on the circumstances, arrangements may include separate waiting areas, screens, a video link, adjusted arrival times, a different courtroom layout, ground rules or other measures.

In some cases direct cross-examination in person is prohibited. The court may appoint a publicly funded qualified legal representative to conduct specified questioning if the statutory conditions are met. That appointment is for the questioning directed by the court; it is not general representation for the whole case. An IDVA or ISVA may also be able to attend in accordance with Practice Direction 27C.

Repeated applications used as a continuation of abuse may justify consideration of a section 91(14) order, which restricts further Children Act applications without permission. Such an order is protective, not punitive, and depends on the circumstances.

10. Non-molestation and occupation orders

If protection is needed from a current or former partner or another “associated person”, the Family Court can consider:

a non-molestation order, which can prohibit violence, threats, harassment, intimidation, contact or other specified conduct; and
an occupation order, which regulates who may live in or enter a home and, in some cases, the surrounding area.

The application is made on Form FL401. There is no court fee. The supporting statement should set out the key history, current risk, significant recent events, any risk to children and the precise protection sought. If the application needs to be made without notifying the respondent first, explain the urgency and why notice may create danger, deter you from pursuing the application or defeat its purpose. The court decides whether a without-notice order is justified and will usually list a later hearing.

Consider Form C8 if contact details must be withheld. A breach of a non-molestation order without reasonable excuse is a criminal offence. Keep a sealed copy, understand its exact terms, and report alleged breaches promptly. An order is not a substitute for an emergency call when danger is immediate.

11. Criminal injuries compensation and civil claims

Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority

A person injured by a violent crime in Great Britain, including sexual assault, may be able to apply to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA). The Government application guidance says the crime must be reported to the police and an application should normally be made as soon as reasonably practicable, usually within two years. Exceptions can apply, including in some sexual-abuse cases. Do not wait for a trial to finish before checking the deadline. A conviction is not essential, but CICA decides whether the statutory scheme is satisfied and may consider cooperation, conduct and other eligibility rules.

The application itself is free. Be careful about paid claims-management services that imply they can guarantee an award. Keep the police reference, medical information, loss evidence and CICA correspondence. Obtain advice promptly if the usual time limit has passed or the application is refused.

A civil claim against a perpetrator or another defendant

A civil damages claim may sometimes be possible, but it is not the same as a criminal prosecution, Family Court application or CICA claim. Limitation, the defendant’s ability to pay, evidential issues, costs risk, service, insurance and the psychological burden all matter. Personal-injury claims commonly engage a three-year limitation period, subject to different rules and a possible judicial discretion in some cases. Obtain specialist advice urgently rather than assuming that an old claim is either automatically in time or automatically barred.

12. Does this qualify for legal aid?

It may. “Legal aid for a sexual-abuse or coercive-control case” is not one single test. Scope, evidence, financial eligibility and merits depend on the proceeding for which help is needed.

What you need help with	Legal-aid position in outline	What to do
Reporting a crime or acting as a prosecution witness	You do not apply for legal aid to fund the police or CPS prosecution. The prosecution is brought by the state. ISVA support is free and independent of the prosecution.	Ask police or a SARC for an ISVA referral. Seek separate qualified advice if you need advice about privacy, another proceeding or your own legal exposure.
Non-molestation or occupation order	These protective injunction proceedings are within civil legal-aid scope, subject to the applicable means and merits rules. For an order protecting a person from domestic abuse, the Legal Aid Agency can waive the usual upper financial eligibility limits, although a contribution may still be required.	Contact a family legal-aid provider promptly and say if the application is urgent. Do not assume that being above an ordinary income threshold ends the enquiry.
Private child-arrangements or related family proceedings	Usually requires prescribed evidence of domestic abuse or child abuse, plus means and merits eligibility. The evidence rules are technical; a general account without an approved form of evidence may not be enough.	Use the current Government legal-aid evidence guide and ask an authorised evidence provider for the prescribed letter or record.
Civil damages claim arising from a sexual offence	Paragraph 39 of Schedule 1 to LASPO can bring civil legal services for a victim in relation to a sexual offence within scope. Means, merits, proportionality and the particular claim still have to be assessed.	Ask a solicitor experienced in sexual-abuse civil claims about legal aid, limitation and other funding methods without delay.
Exceptional case outside ordinary scope	Exceptional Case Funding may be available in limited circumstances where failure to fund would breach, or risk breaching, Convention or retained enforceable rights. It is not a general hardship discretion.	Ask a legal-aid specialist whether an application is realistically available on your facts.

Evidence for legal aid in a private family case

The Legal Aid Agency’s private family evidence guidance, version 15 (15 June 2026) lists the evidence that can be accepted. Depending on the route, examples include:

an arrest, caution, charge or conviction for a relevant domestic-abuse offence;
a protective injunction, undertaking or relevant Family Court finding;
specified evidence from a doctor, other health professional or referral to specialist support;
evidence from a MARAC, IDVA, ISVA or approved domestic-abuse support organisation;
specified evidence from a local authority, housing officer or other public authority; or
evidence relevant to child protection or abuse under the applicable route.

A police report which ended without an arrest, caution or charge may not, by itself, satisfy the arrest/caution/charge evidence category. Another permitted route—such as an appropriate ISVA, healthcare or specialist-service letter—may be available. The evidence must contain the information the regulations require. Government sample evidence letters can help the professional provide the correct details.

Financial eligibility

Financial rules change. Under the civil legal-aid means guidance current from April 2026, receipt of Universal Credit can passport the income assessment, but capital is still assessed. For non-passported applicants, the ordinary upper figures include £2,657 gross monthly income, £733 disposable monthly income and £8,000 disposable capital, subject to detailed allowances, aggregation and exceptions. A person may qualify but have to pay a contribution.

Do not self-reject based on a headline figure. The type of case, household circumstances, disputed resources, property, benefits and the domestic-abuse protective-order rules can change the result. Use the Government’s legal-aid checker and ask a legal-aid provider to assess scope, evidence, means and merits.

13. A practical evidence-to-court toolkit

A court needs relevant evidence linked to an issue it must decide. It rarely needs hundreds of unexplained screenshots. The following structure helps a litigant in person turn a large history into a usable case presentation.

Step 1: Separate preservation from presentation

Preserve the complete material. For a hearing, select only what is relevant to the pleaded allegations, welfare issue, risk or order sought. Keep a clear reference back to the complete source.

Step 2: Define the decision

Write one sentence identifying what the court must decide. For example: whether specific domestic-abuse allegations require findings because they affect the safety and structure of child contact. This keeps the evidence focused on a judicial decision, not simply the history’s emotional weight.

Step 3: Use an allegation-and-evidence schedule only if directed

No.	Date/period	Specific alleged act	Evidence reference	Response	Relevance to child/risk	Finding sought
1	May–July 2024	Concise fact capable of being admitted or denied—not a broad label.	Statement §; exhibit page; full export reference; third-party record.	Space for the other party’s concise response.	Explain the welfare or future-risk issue.	A precise factual proposition.

Do not create a sprawling schedule if the court has ordered a different format. Follow the current order and local directions.

Step 4: Make the statement readable and provable

Identify the relationship, children, current orders and purpose of the statement.
Give a short overview of the alleged pattern and why it is relevant.
Set out the necessary incidents in chronological numbered paragraphs.
For each incident, distinguish the act, your response, the consequence, impact and supporting source.
Address apparently inconsistent conduct, including friendly or sexual messages, directly and factually.
Explain the child’s experience without attributing adult conclusions to the child.
End with the directions or orders sought and why they are proportionate.
Use the required statement of truth and comply with page limits, filing dates and service directions.

Step 5: Test every important sentence

Ask: Is this something I saw, heard or experienced? Is it supported by a document? Is it what another person told me? Or is it my inference? The answer determines how it should be written and evidenced. Avoid asserting that an allegation “proves” a criminal offence when no court has made that finding.

JSH Law’s existing resources on chronologies and timelines and organising evidence and exhibits provide further practical structure for litigants in person.

14. Privacy, publication and the careful use of AI

Do not litigate the case on social media

Public posts can identify a complainant, another alleged victim or a child; alert a suspect to evidence; affect safety; breach a Family Court reporting restriction; or be used as evidence. Sexual-offence anonymity protects the complainant from being identified by others, but it does not give anyone a general right to publish allegations, private images, confidential documents or information from children proceedings.

Information from Family Court proceedings may only be shared within the rules, orders and statutory exceptions. Check the current Government guidance on sharing information outside Family Court and the terms of every order before disclosing documents to a journalist, campaign group, friend or online service.

AI can organise, but it cannot decide consent

Automated sentiment analysis may label appeasing or sexual language as “positive” without understanding fear, irony, a threat in another thread or a consequence established over months. AI may help create a first-pass index or identify dates, but every output must be checked against the original. It should not decide whether a person consented, whether a witness is truthful or which allegation a court should find.

Do not upload unredacted Family Court papers, intimate images, medical records or children’s data to a public AI tool.
Use anonymised working copies and the minimum necessary extract.
Check every quotation, date, source reference and legal citation manually.
Disclose AI use if a court direction, professional duty or the circumstances require it.
Keep the human-authored final document consistent with your own evidence and understanding.

Which route does what?

Route	Main purpose	Who makes the decision?	Key point
Police/CPS and criminal court	Investigate and, where the tests are met, prosecute an offence.	Police, CPS, then criminal court.	Guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Family Court—children	Determine facts necessary for child welfare and manage future risk.	Family Court.	Facts are determined on the balance of probabilities; welfare is paramount.
Non-molestation/occupation order	Provide personal or housing-related protection.	Family Court.	Can be urgent; no court fee for FL401.
CICA	Tariff compensation for eligible criminal injury.	Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.	Usually apply within two years and report to police; no conviction is required.
Civil damages claim	Seek compensation from a legally responsible defendant.	Civil court or settlement.	Limitation, evidence, funding, costs and enforceability need specialist assessment.

Frequently asked questions

1. I said yes and helped arrange the encounters. Can it still have been sexual abuse?

Potentially, yes. The legal question is whether you agreed by choice with freedom and capacity at the time of the specific act. Messages and arrangements are relevant, but they must be assessed with the surrounding pattern, feared consequences and the other person’s reasonable belief in consent. Participation does not automatically prove consent, and an allegation does not automatically prove an offence.

2. Does marriage or a long relationship amount to consent?

No. Marriage, a relationship, earlier sex or previous participation in swinging does not provide continuing consent. Consent is specific and can be withdrawn.

3. I never said “no”. Can I still report?

Yes. There is no legal requirement to have communicated a refusal. Explain what you did, what you feared, how the other person behaved and why you say you did not have freedom to choose.

4. Can I report sexual offences that happened years ago?

Yes. There is no general time limit for reporting rape or another sexual offence to the police. Report as soon as you feel able and identify any surviving records. The law applied will depend on when the conduct occurred.

5. Are the other people automatically offenders if my partner coerced me?

No. Each person’s conduct, knowledge and reasonable belief in consent must be assessed individually. Tell police what each participant said, saw and did, including any steps taken to check your consent.

6. What if the police take no further action?

Ask for the written decision and identify whether it was made by police or the CPS. A police Victims’ Right to Review request should normally be made within three months. The CPS asks for a request within 10 working days of its decision letter so that it can act promptly. Ask an ISVA for support.

7. Do I need a solicitor to report to the police?

No. You can report directly, and you do not need a lawyer to ask for a Victims’ Right to Review. Independent legal advice may still be useful where there are linked family proceedings, privacy issues, a civil claim or a risk that you may be treated as a suspect in relation to other conduct.

8. Will I qualify for legal aid?

Possibly. Protective injunctions are within scope, and private family cases may be covered where the prescribed domestic-abuse or child-abuse evidence, means and merits tests are met. A civil claim relating to a sexual offence can also be within scope under paragraph 39 of Schedule 1 to LASPO. Eligibility is case-specific and a contribution may be required.

9. Is a police report enough evidence for family legal aid?

Not always. A report which did not lead to an arrest, caution or charge may not satisfy that particular evidence category. Another prescribed form of evidence, such as a compliant ISVA, healthcare or specialist domestic-abuse service letter, may be available.

10. Can I get an urgent protective order and is there a court fee?

Form FL401 can be used to seek a non-molestation order, an occupation order or both, and there is no court fee. A without-notice application may be possible where the court is satisfied that the legal test is met. Explain the urgency and risk clearly and consider Form C8 if your address must be protected.

11. Do I need a criminal charge before raising this in the Family Court?

No. The Family Court can determine relevant disputed facts on the balance of probabilities. A charge, conviction or police report is not a prerequisite, although the court will assess the evidence fairly and an allegation is not the same as a finding.

12. Which Family Court form should I use?

Form C1A is used to provide information about harm and domestic abuse when making or responding to certain Children Act applications. C100, C2, a response form, FL401 or C8 may also be relevant, depending on what proceeding already exists and what order or direction is needed. Check the current order and official form guidance.

13. Does a child have to witness the sexual conduct for it to matter?

No. A child who sees, hears or experiences the effects of domestic abuse can be a victim under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. Explain the actual effect on the child rather than assuming an effect or exposing the child to unnecessary adult detail.

14. What if intimate images were uploaded or used to threaten me?

Preserve the URL, username, date, messages and platform report without republishing the image. Tell police. For relevant conduct on or after 31 January 2024, section 66B of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 may apply to sharing or threatening to share intimate images without consent, depending on the facts and intent. Earlier conduct is governed by the law then in force.

15. Can I claim compensation without a conviction?

A CICA award does not require a conviction, but the statutory eligibility and evidence requirements still apply. The incident must normally be reported to police and the application is usually required within two years, subject to exceptions. A separate civil claim also does not depend automatically on a criminal conviction, but limitation and costs need urgent specialist advice.

16. Can AI analyse all my messages and prove coercive control?

AI can help index dates or group material, but it cannot reliably decide consent, coercion or credibility. Sentiment labels can misunderstand appeasement and context. Keep the originals, verify every output, protect confidential data and let the court assess the evidence.

How JSH Law can support a litigant in person

If this history is relevant to a Family Court case, JSH Law can provide practical litigation support with:

turning a long history into a focused chronology;
organising messages and exhibits while retaining clear source references;
preparing a workable allegation schedule where the court has directed one;
structuring statements, position statements and hearing notes in the litigant’s own case;
identifying gaps, contradictions and apparently “friendly” messages that need to be addressed;
preparing for Cafcass discussions and court hearings; and
helping a litigant understand orders, deadlines and the practical presentation of their evidence.

JSH Law does not investigate crimes, decide whether an offence was committed, guarantee findings or replace a police officer, ISVA, regulated solicitor or barrister. For support with the presentation of your own Family Court case, use the JSH Law contact page.

Primary law and official guidance

Background reporting: BBC Sounds, Swingers; BBC News, original investigation; BBC News, follow-up reporting.

No More “Too Late”: The 2026 Time Limit Reform for Child Sexual Abuse Claims

June 30, 2026/0 Comments/in 4. Domestic Abuse & Safeguarding Cluster, Civil Justice & Survivor Rights, McKenzie Friend Support/by jessica susan hill

For years, survivors of child sexual abuse have faced a legal system that asked the wrong question. Instead of asking what happened, what harm was caused, and whether justice was still possible, the law too often began with: “Why did you wait?” From 29 June 2026, that position changes. The fixed three-year time limit for bringing civil personal injury claims arising from child sexual abuse has been removed in England and Wales, marking a significant shift in how the law understands trauma, delayed disclosure and survivors’ access to justice.

Abuse | Civil Justice | Survivors’ Rights

Changes to time limits for child sexual abuse claims: what survivors need to know

Published: 29 June 2026 | JSH Law

For many survivors of child sexual abuse, the greatest barrier to justice has never been lack of seriousness. It has been time. The law expected survivors to come forward quickly, while trauma often makes disclosure delayed, fragmented, frightening or impossible for many years.

That position has now changed. From 29 June 2026, the fixed three-year limitation period for civil personal injury claims arising from child sexual abuse is removed in England and Wales.

This is a major reform. It does not make every claim straightforward. It does not remove the need for evidence. It does not guarantee compensation. But it does remove one of the most unfair procedural barriers survivors have faced: being told that they were legally “too late” because they were not able to disclose abuse by the age of 21.

The law is finally recognising what trauma specialists, survivors and safeguarding professionals have long understood: delayed disclosure is not unusual. It is often part of the harm.

What was the old rule?

Historically, child sexual abuse claims were usually treated as personal injury claims under the Limitation Act 1980. That meant a survivor generally had three years from their 18th birthday to bring a civil claim.

In practice, many survivors were expected to start proceedings by their 21st birthday.

If a claim was brought after that date, the defendant could raise limitation as a defence. The survivor then often had to ask the court to exercise its discretion to allow the claim to continue. That process required the survivor to explain the delay and persuade the court that a fair trial was still possible.

For survivors of childhood sexual abuse, that was a deeply problematic starting point. It placed the emotional and forensic burden on the person who had already suffered the abuse.

Why was the old system unfair?

Child sexual abuse is not usually disclosed in a neat, immediate or legally convenient way. Survivors may be silenced by fear, shame, grooming, family pressure, institutional loyalty, dependency, dissociation, threats or a simple inability to process what happened to them.

Some survivors disclose in childhood. Many do not. Some do not fully understand the abuse until adulthood. Others may disclose only after therapy, a life event, another victim coming forward, the death of an abuser, or the collapse of a family or institutional silence.

The previous law did not adequately reflect that reality. It treated delay as a legal problem for survivors to justify, rather than as something often caused by the abuse itself.

What has changed from 29 June 2026?

Section 96 of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 inserts new sections 11ZA and 11ZB into the Limitation Act 1980.

The key change

There is no longer a fixed three-year limitation period for civil personal injury claims arising from child sexual abuse, provided the claim falls within the statutory conditions.

In plain English, survivors will be much less likely to be prevented from bringing a civil claim simply because many years have passed since the abuse.

Which claims are covered?

The new section 11ZA applies where the claim meets three core conditions:

the claim is for damages and includes damages for personal injury;
the claimant was under 18 when the cause of action accrued; and
the act or omission causing the injury constituted sexual abuse.

This may include claims against individuals and institutions, depending on the facts. Potential defendants may include schools, religious organisations, local authorities, care settings, clubs, youth organisations or other bodies where there is a proper legal basis for liability.

The reform is focused on child sexual abuse. Different time limits may still apply to other forms of abuse, harassment, negligence, assault, adult sexual abuse, domestic abuse or claims brought under other statutory routes.

Important

This reform does not mean that every historic abuse case will automatically succeed. Limitation is only one issue. A survivor will still need legal advice on evidence, liability, causation, medical evidence, quantum, defendant identity, insurance, records and litigation risk.

Does the change apply to non-recent abuse?

Yes. One of the most important parts of the reform is that section 11ZA applies to claims brought before or after the section comes into force, and to causes of action that accrued before or after it comes into force.

That means many survivors who were previously considered “out of time” may now be able to explore a civil claim.

However, there are limits. The new law does not apply where, before the section came into force, the claim was already settled by agreement or determined by a court.

The burden now shifts to defendants

The reform also changes how arguments about delay are approached.

Under the new section 11ZB, where a claim is brought after the old limitation period would have expired, the court must dismiss the action only if the defendant satisfies the court that it is not possible for a fair hearing to take place.

That is a significant shift. The survivor is no longer starting from the position of having to justify why they did not bring the claim sooner. Instead, if the defendant says too much time has passed, the defendant must satisfy the court that a fair hearing is not possible.

This protects both sides of the justice process. Survivors are not blocked by an arbitrary deadline, but defendants retain the right to argue that a fair trial cannot take place because of the passage of time, loss of evidence or other forensic prejudice.

What this means in practical terms

For survivors, the practical message is this:

You may no longer be prevented from bringing a civil child sexual abuse claim simply because you are over 21.
You may be able to explore a claim even if the abuse happened many years or decades ago.
You do not need to have reported the abuse to the police before seeking civil legal advice.
You do not need to decide immediately whether you want to litigate.
You can take advice first, understand your options, and then decide what feels right for you.

What evidence might matter?

Historic abuse claims are highly fact-specific. Evidence may include:

your own witness evidence;
medical or therapeutic records;
school, care, social services or local authority records;
police reports or criminal proceedings;
letters, diaries, photographs, messages or contemporaneous documents;
evidence from other survivors or witnesses;
institutional records, safeguarding files or complaint histories;
expert medical evidence about psychiatric injury and causation.

A claim does not necessarily fail because there is no criminal conviction. Civil claims apply a different standard of proof. However, evidence still matters, and specialist legal advice is essential.

Civil claims are not the same as criminal proceedings

It is important to distinguish between the civil and criminal systems.

A civil claim is usually about compensation, accountability and legal responsibility. It is brought by the survivor as claimant against the defendant. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.

Criminal proceedings are brought by the state and may result in conviction and sentence. The standard of proof is higher.

A survivor may have civil options even where there has been no prosecution. Equally, a civil claim should be considered carefully where criminal proceedings are ongoing or possible.

Why this reform matters

This reform is not just a technical amendment to limitation law. It is a recognition that the justice system has too often misunderstood trauma.

For years, survivors were expected to meet legal deadlines that bore little relationship to the psychological reality of childhood sexual abuse. The law asked: “Why did you wait?” A more informed system asks: “What happened to you, what stopped you speaking, and what justice is still possible now?”

That shift matters.

It matters because child sexual abuse is frequently hidden by power, grooming, fear and institutional failure. It matters because children rarely have the language, safety or autonomy to disclose abuse at the time. It matters because a justice system that penalises delayed disclosure risks reinforcing the very silence abuse depends upon.

What should survivors do now?

If you are a survivor and you are considering whether to explore a claim, you do not need to have everything perfectly organised before seeking advice.

A sensible first step is to write down, in your own time and only if safe to do so:

what you remember happened;
where and when it happened, even approximately;
who the abuser was;
whether any institution may have been involved;
whether anyone was told at the time or later;
whether there are records, witnesses or other people affected;
what impact the abuse has had on your life, health, relationships, education, work or wellbeing.

Do not destroy documents. Do not contact a potential defendant before taking advice. Do not feel pressured into making decisions before you are ready.

If there is a current safeguarding risk

If a child may currently be at risk, this is not just a civil claim issue. Safeguarding advice should be sought urgently. In an emergency, call 999. Otherwise, contact the police, children’s services or the NSPCC for safeguarding guidance.

Where JSH Law fits in

JSH Law is particularly interested in the intersection between family justice, safeguarding, evidence, institutional accountability and access to justice.

Survivors and families often need help understanding what has happened, organising evidence, identifying the correct legal route, and knowing when specialist representation is required. In child sexual abuse civil claims, survivors should seek advice from a solicitor with specific expertise in abuse litigation and personal injury claims.

Where appropriate, JSH Law can help with evidence organisation, chronology preparation, safeguarding context, document review and signposting so that survivors are better prepared when seeking specialist legal advice.

Need help understanding your options?

If you are dealing with historic abuse, safeguarding concerns, family court issues or complex evidence, you do not have to untangle it alone.

JSH Law can help you organise the facts, identify the issues, and understand what specialist advice may be needed.

Contact JSH Law to discuss how we may be able to help.

Sources and further reading

Crime and Policing Act 2026, section 96: removal of limitation period in child sexual abuse cases.
GOV.UK, Crime and Policing Act 2026 factsheets: Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse recommendations.
Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, Final Report, Recommendation 15: limitation.
Ministry of Justice, Limitation Law in Child Sexual Abuse Cases: Government response.

This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Survivors considering a civil claim should seek advice from a solicitor specialising in child sexual abuse claims and personal injury litigation.

Latest UK Family Court News for Litigants in Person: What Parents Need to Know Now

June 2, 2026/0 Comments/in 2. Family Court Procedure, McKenzie Friend Support, Procedural Updates/by jessica susan hill

The family court is changing quickly, and litigants in person need to understand what that means in practical terms. With Child Focused Courts being rolled out nationally, new bundle guidance for unrepresented parties, ongoing Cafcass pressures and proposed changes to the presumption of parental involvement, parents cannot afford to prepare their cases casually. Clear evidence, structured documents and child-focused arguments matter more than ever.

Latest UK Family Court News for Litigants in Person: Child Focused Courts, Bundle Rules and What Parents Need to Know

The family court is changing. Child Focused Courts are being rolled out nationally, the Government is moving to repeal the presumption of parental involvement, and new bundle guidance has been issued specifically for litigants in person. This article explains what the latest developments mean in practical terms for parents dealing with child arrangements, safeguarding concerns, Cafcass, section 7 reports and family court hearings.

If you are a litigant in person in the family court, the latest developments matter. They are not abstract policy announcements. They affect how you should prepare your case, what the court is likely to focus on, how safeguarding concerns should be presented, and why your paperwork needs to be clear, proportionate and child-focused from the start.

The family justice system in England and Wales is under significant pressure. Private law children cases remain high. Many parents are representing themselves. Cafcass is carrying a heavy workload. Domestic abuse and safeguarding concerns continue to sit at the centre of many child arrangements disputes. At the same time, the court system is moving towards a new model designed to identify risk earlier, hear the child’s voice sooner and reduce unnecessary delay.

For litigants in person, the message is simple but important: the family court is becoming more child-focused, more document-sensitive and less tolerant of disorganised evidence.

This article explains the key family court news and, more importantly, what you should actually do with it if you are involved in private law children proceedings.

Key points for litigants in person

Child Focused Courts are being rolled out nationally across England and Wales.
The former Private Law Pathfinder model is now being expanded as a wider child-focused approach.
The Government has introduced proposals to repeal the statutory presumption of parental involvement.
The law has not fully changed yet, so litigants must be careful not to overstate the position.
New family court bundle guidance has been published specifically for litigants in person.
Cafcass private law workload remains high, meaning parents need to present evidence clearly and concisely.
The strongest cases are likely to be those that focus on welfare, safeguarding, evidence, chronology and practical proposals.

Child Focused Courts are being rolled out nationally

One of the most important developments for parents in private children proceedings is the national rollout of Child Focused Courts.

The model was previously known as the Private Law Pathfinder. The Judiciary has confirmed that Child Focused Courts are being rolled out across England and Wales, with the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, describing the development as a “game changer” for the family justice system. You can read the Judiciary announcement here: Judges welcome roll-out of Child Focused Courts.

The Ministry of Justice has also announced that the newly named Child Focused Courts will be expanded nationally following the Pathfinder pilot. The Government announcement refers to cases being resolved significantly faster in the pilot areas. You can read that announcement here: Children to get swifter justice as new family court approach expands nationally.

The practical point is this: private children proceedings are moving away from a model where the court waits for parents to argue their positions across repeated hearings, and towards a model where the court aims to understand the child’s situation, risks and welfare needs earlier.

That matters enormously for litigants in person.

If you are applying for, opposing, varying or enforcing child arrangements, you should not prepare your case as though it is simply about “my rights” or “the other parent’s behaviour”. The court’s central question is the child’s welfare. The newer model reinforces that the court wants to understand:

what the child is experiencing;
what risks may exist;
whether domestic abuse, coercive control, substance misuse, mental health issues or other safeguarding issues are relevant;
what arrangements are safe and realistic;
what information is needed from agencies at an early stage;
what support may help the family move forward; and
what order, if any, best serves the child’s welfare.

Practical takeaway

Do not wait until the first hearing to organise your evidence. If you are a litigant in person, you should prepare a short, structured case summary, a safeguarding summary, a chronology and a clear explanation of what order you are asking the court to make.

The court is not helped by long emotional narratives. It is helped by clear facts, dates, documents, risks and realistic proposals.

What is different about the Child Focused Court approach?

The Child Focused Court model is designed to reduce delay, improve early information-gathering and place the child’s experience closer to the centre of the process.

The Government’s written statement on the Child Focused Model explains that national rollout is intended to support “coordinated early identification of risk”, ensure that children are heard, and provide specialist support where domestic abuse is involved. You can read the written statement here: Child Focused Model written statement.

In practical terms, litigants in person should expect more emphasis on:

early safeguarding information;
the child’s voice;
agency information, where relevant;
clear identification of risk;
avoiding unnecessary repeat hearings;
focused reports rather than broad, unfocused investigation;
practical child arrangements that can actually work.

This does not mean every case will suddenly become quick or easy. It does not mean safeguarding concerns will always be handled perfectly. It does not mean Cafcass will always get it right. But it does mean the direction of travel is clear: private law children cases are being pushed towards a more investigative, child-centred and risk-aware model.

That should change how litigants in person prepare.

The Government is moving to repeal the presumption of parental involvement

The second major development is the Government’s proposal to repeal the statutory presumption of parental involvement from the Children Act 1989.

The Courts and Tribunals Bill factsheet says that the Bill would repeal the presumption of parental involvement from the Children Act 1989 “to prioritise the welfare of the child”. You can read the Government publication here: Courts and Tribunals Bill and the factsheet here: Courts and Tribunals Bill factsheet.

This is a significant proposed change. For years, the family court has operated within a statutory framework that includes a presumption that the involvement of a parent in a child’s life will further the child’s welfare, unless the contrary is shown. That presumption has been controversial, particularly where there are allegations or findings of domestic abuse, coercive control, sexual abuse, serious safeguarding risk or child harm.

The proposed repeal is part of a wider shift towards asking a more direct question: what is safe and in this child’s welfare interests on the evidence?

However, litigants in person need to be very careful here.

The proposal does not mean that the law has already fully changed in every case. A Bill must pass through the parliamentary process and relevant provisions must come into force. Until then, the existing legal framework remains important. Litigants should not write statements saying “the presumption has now gone” unless and until that is legally accurate at the time of their hearing.

The safer way to frame the point is this:

“The Government’s proposed reform reflects increasing recognition that parental involvement must not be treated as automatically safe or beneficial where there are unresolved safeguarding concerns. The court’s paramount consideration remains the child’s welfare.”

Important warning for litigants in person

Do not overstate the law. If you are relying on proposed reform, make clear that it is proposed reform unless it has already come into force by the date of your hearing.

The family court expects accuracy. A good argument can be weakened if it is presented as though a proposed change has already become binding law when it has not.

What does this mean if you are raising domestic abuse or safeguarding concerns?

If you are a parent raising domestic abuse, coercive control or safeguarding concerns, the recent developments may help you frame your case more clearly. But they do not remove the need for evidence.

The court still needs to know:

what happened;
when it happened;
whether the child saw, heard or was affected by it;
whether there is independent evidence;
whether police, social services, schools, medical professionals or domestic abuse services have been involved;
what risk you say exists now;
what arrangements you say would be safe; and
what order you are asking the court to make.

A common mistake made by litigants in person is to assume that because something was traumatic, the court will automatically understand its significance. That is not how court preparation works. The court needs the issue translated into a structured legal and welfare framework.

For example, instead of saying:

“He was abusive and Cafcass have ignored everything.”

It is usually more effective to say:

“I rely on the incidents set out in the attached schedule dated [date]. The incidents include controlling behaviour, threats, intimidation and behaviour witnessed by the child. My concern is that unsupervised contact would expose the child to emotional harm unless these issues are properly assessed.”

The second version gives the court something it can work with.

New court bundle guidance for litigants in person

Another important development is the publication of specific family court bundle guidance for litigants in person.

The Judiciary has published Preparing Court Bundles for Family Proceedings: A Guide for Litigants in Person. It applies to family court and Family Division cases in England and Wales. You can access the guidance here: Preparing Court Bundles for Family Proceedings: Guide for Litigants in Person.

The guidance sits alongside revised bundle practice requirements. This matters because bundles are not a technical afterthought. They are often the way the judge understands the case.

If your bundle is chaotic, duplicated, missing key orders, badly paginated or full of irrelevant material, it can make your case harder to understand. It can also waste valuable hearing time.

A strong family court bundle should usually include, where relevant:

an index;
the application, such as the C100;
any C1A or safeguarding form;
the latest court orders;
position statements;
witness statements;
Cafcass safeguarding letters or section 7 reports;
local authority documents, if relevant;
police disclosure, if permitted and relevant;
school records, if relevant;
medical evidence, if relevant;
a chronology;
a schedule of allegations, if domestic abuse is alleged;
any expert reports, if permitted;
draft orders or proposed child arrangements.

The bundle should not be used as a dumping ground for every email, message, screenshot and historic grievance. The court needs relevant material, not everything you have ever collected.

Bundle checklist for litigants in person

Before filing or relying on a bundle, ask yourself:

Is there a clear index?
Are the pages numbered?
Are the latest orders included?
Is the evidence in date order where possible?
Have duplicates been removed?
Is every document relevant to an issue the court has to decide?
Can the judge find the key document within seconds?
Have you complied with any court directions about filing and serving?

Family court demand remains high

The latest Family Court Statistics for October to December 2025 show that the family court continues to face significant demand. The Ministry of Justice reported that in October to December 2025, 64,336 new cases started in family courts, up 4% on the equivalent quarter in 2024. Private law cases were up 13% compared with the equivalent quarter. You can read the statistics here: Family Court Statistics Quarterly: October to December 2025.

This matters because court pressure affects real people. It affects listing times, hearing length, judicial preparation, Cafcass availability and the speed at which reports are produced.

Litigants in person often feel that nobody has properly read their case. Sometimes that fear is justified. Judges and court staff are under pressure. Cafcass officers are under pressure. The system is busy. That does not mean you should give up. It means your paperwork needs to be exceptionally clear.

A judge should not have to work hard to understand:

who the child lives with;
what order is currently in place;
what has changed;
what the dispute is actually about;
what safeguarding concerns are relied upon;
what evidence supports those concerns;
what order you seek; and
why that order is said to be in the child’s welfare interests.

Cafcass private law workload remains significant

Cafcass publishes monthly demand data. Its data gives an indication of the pressure within the private law children system. You can access Cafcass data here: Cafcass data.

For litigants in person, this matters because Cafcass involvement is often central to private children proceedings. Cafcass may prepare a safeguarding letter, undertake initial safeguarding checks, speak to the parties, speak to the child in some cases, prepare a Child Impact Report in Child Focused Court areas, or prepare a section 7 report where directed.

If you have concerns about a Cafcass report, do not simply say “the report is biased” or “Cafcass did not listen”. You need to identify the specific problem.

For example:

Did the officer fail to speak to a relevant agency?
Did they record something inaccurately?
Did they omit a key safeguarding incident?
Did they misunderstand the court order?
Did they fail to consider domestic abuse guidance?
Did they make recommendations unsupported by the evidence?
Did they fail to consider the child’s expressed wishes and feelings properly?
Did they treat contact as the automatic goal before assessing safety?

The court is more likely to engage with a focused, evidence-based critique than a general attack on Cafcass.

How to challenge a Cafcass report properly

If you disagree with a Cafcass safeguarding letter, Child Impact Report or section 7 report, prepare a short response table with four columns:

Page / paragraph reference
What Cafcass says
Why you say it is wrong or incomplete
What evidence supports your position

This is much stronger than a long emotional statement saying the report is unfair.

Transparency in the family court is continuing to develop

Family court transparency has been developing through reporting pilots and transparency orders. This means that more family cases may be capable of being reported by accredited journalists and legal bloggers, while protecting the anonymity of children and families.

This is part of a broader movement towards improving public understanding and scrutiny of the family justice system. However, litigants in person must be extremely careful. Family proceedings are not the same as ordinary public disputes. There are strict rules about publishing information relating to children proceedings.

Do not post court documents, Cafcass reports, children’s details, allegations, photographs, school information or hearing information online without understanding whether you are legally permitted to do so.

If a transparency order is made, read it carefully. It will usually explain what can and cannot be reported.

Social media warning

If you are involved in family court proceedings, be very careful about posting online. Even if you feel the system has treated you unfairly, publishing identifying material about your child, the other parent, Cafcass, social workers, school records or court documents may create serious legal problems.

If in doubt, do not post. Get proper legal advice before publishing anything connected to ongoing children proceedings.

What litigants in person should prepare now

The latest family court developments all point in the same direction. The court wants earlier clarity, better evidence, better bundles, more child-focused analysis and less procedural chaos.

If you are a litigant in person, you should consider preparing the following documents.

1. A one-page case summary

This should explain who the parties are, who the children are, what order exists, what application is before the court and what the main issues are. Keep it short. The purpose is orientation.

2. A short chronology

A chronology is often one of the most useful documents in a private children case. It should list important dates in order. It should not contain argument. It should help the court understand the sequence of events.

3. A safeguarding summary

If there are safeguarding concerns, summarise them clearly. Identify the nature of the concern, when it occurred, whether the child was affected, and what evidence exists.

4. A schedule of allegations

If domestic abuse, coercive control or serious harm is alleged, a schedule may be needed. It should be specific. Avoid vague wording. Include dates or approximate dates where possible.

5. A welfare checklist analysis

The welfare checklist in section 1 of the Children Act 1989 remains central. A short welfare analysis can help you explain why your proposed arrangements meet the child’s needs.

6. A response to Cafcass

If there is a Cafcass report, prepare a structured response. Identify what you agree with, what you dispute, what is missing and what evidence supports your position.

7. A position statement

Before each hearing, prepare a concise position statement. This should tell the court what has happened since the last hearing, what issues remain, what order you seek and why.

8. A proposed order

Where possible, draft the order you are asking the court to make. This helps the judge understand the practical outcome you want.

What a child-focused position statement should include

A good position statement is not a witness statement. It is not the place for every detail. It is a practical hearing document.

For a private children hearing, a strong position statement might include:

the name and date of the hearing;
the parties’ names;
the children’s names or initials, depending on the court’s requirements;
a short summary of the current arrangements;
a short summary of the application;
the key issues for the court;
any safeguarding concerns;
your response to Cafcass, if relevant;
what directions you seek;
what final or interim order you seek;
why your proposal meets the child’s welfare needs.

The best position statements are usually structured, calm and easy to navigate. They do not need dramatic language. They need clarity.

Example structure for a LiP position statement

Introduction — who you are and what hearing this is.
Current position — what arrangements are currently in place.
Key issues — the issues the court needs to decide.
Safeguarding — any relevant risk concerns, briefly and clearly.
Cafcass / reports — what you agree with and what you dispute.
Welfare analysis — why your proposal meets the child’s welfare needs.
Order sought — the exact directions or order you ask the court to make.

What litigants in person should stop doing

There are some common mistakes that can damage an otherwise important case.

Do not file everything

More paper does not mean a stronger case. A judge may have limited preparation time. If the key evidence is buried inside hundreds of pages of irrelevant messages, it may be missed.

Do not use your statement as therapy

Your feelings matter, but a court statement has a specific purpose. It must help the court decide the legal and welfare issues.

Do not make broad allegations without particulars

“He is controlling” is less useful than a dated example of controlling behaviour, its impact on the child, and the evidence relied upon.

Do not ignore court directions

If the court orders you to file a statement by a certain date, take that seriously. If you cannot comply, you may need to apply for more time or explain the position promptly.

Do not assume Cafcass will collect everything

Cafcass may not see every document you consider important. If something matters, identify it clearly and explain why it matters.

Do not treat the case as parent versus parent

The court is not there to decide who is the better person. It is there to decide what arrangements meet the child’s welfare needs.

The opportunity for litigants in person

Although the system is under pressure, these reforms create an opportunity for well-prepared litigants in person.

If the court is moving towards earlier risk identification, then a clear safeguarding summary matters.

If the court is moving towards hearing the child’s experience earlier, then a child-focused welfare analysis matters.

If the court is relying on better bundles, then a properly organised bundle matters.

If Cafcass is stretched, then a concise response to the report matters.

If the presumption of parental involvement is being reconsidered, then evidence-based safeguarding arguments matter.

The family court may be difficult to navigate, but litigants in person are not powerless. Good preparation can make a real difference.

The JSH Law view

The direction of family justice reform is clear: the court is moving towards earlier assessment, clearer evidence, child-focused preparation and better-organised documents.

But there is a serious access to justice problem. Many parents are expected to manage complex safeguarding, Cafcass, bundle and hearing preparation issues without legal representation.

Litigants in person need practical procedural support: help understanding directions, organising evidence, preparing chronologies, responding to reports, building bundles and drafting clear court documents.

How JSH Law can help litigants in person

JSH Law provides procedural and document support for litigants in person involved in family court proceedings. This may include help with:

understanding court directions;
preparing a case summary;
drafting a position statement;
organising evidence;
creating a chronology;
preparing a safeguarding summary;
responding to a Cafcass safeguarding letter or section 7 report;
preparing a schedule of allegations;
building or reviewing a court bundle;
drafting a proposed order;
preparing for a hearing as a litigant in person.

JSH Law does not replace regulated legal advice from a solicitor or barrister where that is needed. However, for many litigants in person, practical procedural support can help reduce overwhelm and improve the quality of the documents placed before the court.

Need help preparing for family court?

If you are a litigant in person dealing with a child arrangements dispute, Cafcass report, safeguarding concerns, court bundle or upcoming hearing, you do not have to prepare in chaos.

Book a short initial consultation with JSH Law to discuss what procedural support may be available and what documents may need urgent attention.

Use the form below to request a 15-minute initial consultation.

Request a 15-minute initial consultation

Please complete the booking form below and include the date of your next hearing, what documents you have received, and what you need help with.

Please note: A short initial consultation does not create a solicitor-client relationship and does not constitute legal advice. It is an opportunity to understand the procedural issue and consider whether JSH Law may be able to assist with document or litigation support.

Useful source links

About the author

Jessica Susan Hill is the founder of JSH Law. She supports litigants in person with practical family court preparation, including chronologies, position statements, evidence organisation, court bundles, safeguarding summaries and hearing preparation.

Jessica has over 10 years’ experience as a litigant in person and works with parents who need structured, practical support navigating private law children proceedings, particularly where Cafcass, safeguarding concerns, domestic abuse allegations, section 7 reports or urgent court directions are involved.

JSH Law is focused on access to justice, procedural clarity and helping litigants in person place better-organised material before the family court.

View JSH Law pricing or use the consultation form above to request a short initial appointment.

Regulatory & Editorial Notice

This article is provided for general information and public legal education only. It is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as a substitute for advice from a regulated solicitor or barrister about your specific circumstances.

JSH Law provides litigation support and procedural assistance for litigants in person. JSH Law is not authorised or regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority or the Bar Standards Board. JSH Law does not conduct reserved legal activities unless permitted by law and does not go on the court record as acting for clients.

Family court proceedings are highly fact-specific. If your case involves domestic abuse, safeguarding concerns, allegations of harm, relocation, enforcement, non-molestation orders, prohibited steps, social services involvement or urgent child welfare issues, you should consider obtaining legal advice from a qualified family solicitor or barrister where possible.

External links are included for reference and convenience. JSH Law is not responsible for the content of external websites. Court rules, legislation, guidance and procedure may change, so always check the current version of any source before relying on it in proceedings.

“`

BSB AI Guidance 2026: What Barristers Must Now Understand About AI, Ethics and Professional Competence

May 20, 2026/0 Comments/in AI & Legal Process, Legal Reflections, McKenzie Friend Support/by jessica susan hill

Almost a year after the decision in Ayinde v London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin) should have woken the sleeping bears in the legal profession, the Bar Standards Board has now published its long-awaited guidance on the use of Artificial Intelligence and emerging technologies by barristers. The message is unmistakable: competence in modern legal practice now includes understanding AI, its risks, its limitations and its ethical implications. This is no longer simply a technology discussion. It is now a professional standards issue.

Newsflash for Barristers: AI Competence Is Now a Professional Standards Issue

Almost a year after Ayinde v London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin), the legal profession has received another clear warning: artificial intelligence is no longer something barristers can treat as optional background noise. The Bar Standards Board’s new guidance on the use of Artificial Intelligence and other technologies, published on 18 May 2026, makes the position plain. AI is now firmly within the territory of professional competence, ethical judgment, client protection and duties to the court.

For barristers, this is not simply about whether they personally use ChatGPT, Copilot, Claude, Gemini or any other AI system. It is about whether they understand how these tools may affect their work, their clients, their opponents, the evidence before the court and the administration of justice itself.

The Core Message

AI is a tool. It is not a substitute for professional judgment.

Barristers remain responsible for every submission, every authority, every factual assertion and every document placed before the court. If AI has assisted in producing that work, the professional responsibility still sits with the human advocate.

Why This Guidance Matters

The Bar Standards Board has made clear that existing professional duties already apply to the use of AI and other technologies. This is important. The BSB has not created a separate “AI rulebook” sitting outside professional conduct. Instead, it has confirmed that the familiar duties of competence, honesty, confidentiality, independence and client protection all apply when technology is used in legal practice.

The guidance follows a period of growing concern about legal professionals relying on AI-generated material without proper verification. The most obvious warning sign came from Ayinde v London Borough of Haringey, where the court considered the use of false legal citations in court material. The case became a watershed moment because it exposed the risk of AI-generated legal content being treated as reliable when it had not been properly checked.

This should have woken the sleeping bears in the legal profession. In truth, some were already awake. Others are only just realising that AI is not simply a productivity tool. It is a professional standards issue.

Key Authority

BSB Guidance: New guidance supports barristers to safely adopt Artificial Intelligence and emerging technologies

Judgment: Ayinde v London Borough of Haringey and Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank

Core Duties: The BSB Core Duties

Core Duty 7: Competence Now Includes AI Literacy

Core Duty 7 requires barristers to provide a competent standard of work and service to each client. The BSB’s new guidance makes clear that competence now includes maintaining a sufficient level of awareness of technology and AI to understand how they may affect practice.

That does not mean every barrister must become a software engineer. It does mean that a barrister cannot responsibly ignore AI altogether.

A competent barrister now needs to understand, at least at a practical level:

how AI tools may generate inaccurate or fabricated material;
how AI-generated citations, summaries or submissions can mislead the court if not checked;
how client confidentiality and legal professional privilege may be compromised;
how AI may be used by clients, opponents, solicitors, experts or litigants in person;
how AI-generated evidence or prompt histories may arise in proceedings;
how bias may appear in AI outputs; and
what safeguards are needed before any AI-assisted work is relied upon.

Professional Standard

The “I do not use AI” answer is no longer enough.

Even barristers who do not personally use AI still need to understand how it may affect their cases, their clients, opposing parties, evidence and court submissions.

The Lesson from Ayinde

Ayinde was not just a case about fake citations. It was a case about professional responsibility.

The court was concerned with legal material being placed before it without proper checking. That concern goes directly to the administration of justice. Courts rely on lawyers to assist them accurately. When non-existent authorities, inaccurate quotations or unreliable legal propositions are put before the court, the problem is not merely technical. It undermines trust.

AI systems can produce text that looks confident, polished and legally plausible. That is precisely why they are dangerous when used without verification. A hallucinated authority may look entirely credible to a busy reader. It may contain a realistic case name, a neutral citation, judicial language and a convincing summary. But if it does not exist, it is not a minor drafting error. It is a serious professional problem.

Client Confidentiality and Privilege

One of the most important issues raised by AI in legal practice is confidentiality.

Barristers handle highly sensitive material. In family law, that may include allegations of domestic abuse, safeguarding concerns, medical information, children’s wishes and feelings, school records, police material, local authority records and private communications.

Putting that information into a free or general AI tool without proper safeguards may create serious risks. The questions are obvious:

Where is the data going?
Is it being stored?
Can it be reviewed by humans?
Can it be used to train future systems?
Has the client consented?
Has privilege been protected?

Confidentiality Warning

Free or general AI tools should not be treated as safe spaces for client information.

Where sensitive or privileged information is involved, barristers must consider confidentiality, data security, contractual protections, client consent and professional obligations before using AI.

Why Family Law Needs Particular Care

Family law is one of the areas where AI competence matters most.

Litigants in person are already using AI. They are using it to draft statements, prepare position statements, summarise messages, organise evidence, understand procedure and prepare questions for hearings. Some are using it carefully. Some are not.

This creates a new challenge for the family justice system. AI-generated material may appear in proceedings without being clearly identified. A parent may rely on an AI-generated summary of WhatsApp messages. A witness statement may contain legal phrases the party does not understand. A chronology may omit context because an AI tool compressed the material too aggressively. A safeguarding concern may be overstated, understated or framed in language that does not reflect the underlying evidence.

This does not mean AI should be dismissed. Used carefully, AI can help litigants in person organise complex information and reduce procedural overwhelm. But used carelessly, it can distort evidence, create false confidence and introduce material that may not withstand scrutiny.

Family Justice Reality

The family court is already in the AI era.

The issue is no longer whether litigants in person will use AI. They already are. The real question is whether lawyers, barristers, judges, regulators and support professionals can respond safely, ethically and intelligently.

Bias, Safeguarding and Vulnerable Court Users

AI systems are not neutral simply because they are technological. They are trained on data. That data may contain bias, assumptions and patterns that do not translate safely into legal decision-making.

In family proceedings, this matters. Cases may involve trauma, domestic abuse, coercive control, disability, neurodivergence, poverty, language barriers, cultural issues and safeguarding concerns. An AI system may not understand the lived reality behind the material it processes. It may miss context. It may flatten nuance. It may reproduce stereotypes. It may present speculation as analysis.

Barristers must therefore remain alert to bias in AI outputs and must not allow AI-generated material to replace human judgment, evidential analysis or professional responsibility.

The Duty to the Court Comes First

Core Duty 1 requires barristers to observe their duty to the court in the administration of justice. That duty remains central when AI is used.

If AI assists with drafting, research, summarising or analysis, the barrister must still ensure that anything placed before the court is accurate, properly sourced and not misleading. The court is entitled to expect that legal professionals have checked their work.

That includes checking:

case citations;
statutory references;
quotations;
procedural rules;
practice directions;
factual summaries;
chronologies;
and any legal propositions generated or assisted by AI.

The Non-Negotiable Rule

If you put it before the court, you own it.

AI cannot be blamed for inaccurate submissions. Professional responsibility remains with the barrister.

Transparency: When Should AI Use Be Disclosed?

The question of transparency is likely to become increasingly important. Not every use of AI will need to be announced. There is a difference between using AI to improve internal workflow and relying on AI-generated legal or evidential analysis in a way that affects the service provided.

However, barristers should consider whether AI use has a material impact on the work being done, the advice being given or the material being placed before the court. They should also consider whether the client needs to know that AI is being used and whether consent is required in the circumstances.

The safest approach is not performative disclosure. It is thoughtful, risk-based transparency.

The New Competence Standard for Modern Advocates

The future barrister will not be replaced by AI. But the barrister who understands AI may have a significant advantage over the barrister who ignores it.

The modern advocate will increasingly need:

legal expertise;
ethical judgment;
digital literacy;
evidence-handling skills;
data awareness;
an understanding of AI limitations;
and the ability to explain technology-related risks clearly to clients and courts.

This is particularly true in family law, where the volume of digital evidence is increasing and where litigants in person are often trying to navigate complex proceedings with limited resources.

The Bigger Point

AI competence is not about chasing trends. It is about protecting clients, protecting the court process and protecting the integrity of legal work.

Technology does not remove professional duties. It sharpens them.

What Barristers Should Be Doing Now

Barristers should now be taking practical steps to ensure that their use, understanding and supervision of AI is consistent with professional obligations.

At a minimum, that should include:

reading the BSB guidance in full;
reviewing chambers policies on AI and technology;
checking whether any AI tools used are secure and appropriate;
avoiding the input of confidential or privileged material into unsafe systems;
verifying all AI-assisted legal research against authoritative sources;
keeping records of how AI-assisted work has been checked where appropriate;
being alert to AI-generated material produced by clients or opponents;
considering whether AI use should be disclosed to clients;
and undertaking training sufficient to maintain technological competence.

For Those Training Toward Advocacy, the Message Is Clear

This guidance is not only relevant to practising barristers. It is also important for anyone training toward qualification, advocacy or a future role in modern legal practice.

The standards expected of the profession are moving. Those entering the profession now need to understand not only black-letter law and procedure, but also how technology interacts with evidence, ethics, confidentiality, client care and court duties.

That does not diminish the role of lawyers. It raises the standard.

Final Thought

The legal profession does not need to panic about AI. But it does need to stop pretending that AI is optional.

The BSB’s guidance is a significant marker in the development of professional standards. It confirms that AI is now part of the competence conversation. For barristers, the message is simple: understand the tools, understand the risks, protect your clients, protect the court, and never allow technology to replace professional judgment.

Almost a year after Ayinde, the warning has become impossible to ignore. The sleeping bears have been woken.

About the Author

Jessica Susan Hill is the founder of JSH Law, providing practical family court support, litigation strategy and evidence-led case analysis for litigants in person.

Jessica works at the intersection of family justice, access to justice and emerging legal technology, with a particular interest in how AI can be used safely and ethically to support litigants in person, improve procedural clarity and reduce overwhelm in complex family proceedings.

JSH Law is not an SRA-regulated firm and does not conduct reserved legal activities. Support is provided to litigants in person through litigation support, McKenzie Friend services, document preparation, hearing preparation and strategic case organisation.

Visit JSH Law

Regulatory & Editorial Notice: This article is published for general information and commentary only. It is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as a substitute for advice from a suitably qualified legal professional. References to the Bar Standards Board, reported cases, professional duties and external guidance are provided for public-interest discussion and educational purposes. JSH Law is not affiliated with the Bar Standards Board, the Bar Council or any chambers mentioned in related commentary.

Shocking, But Not Surprising: What the Latest Family Court Figures Reveal About Parents Going It Alone

May 14, 2026/0 Comments/in 5. Court Skills for Litigants in Person, McKenzie Friend Support/by jessica susan hill

The latest family court figures should stop us in our tracks. Cafcass recorded 42,172 new private law children’s cases involving 63,879 children between 1 April 2025 and 31 March 2026, while the Law Society reports that in 47% of private family law cases in 2025, both parties appeared without lawyers. Behind those numbers are parents trying to restore contact, protect children, respond to allegations, prepare evidence, deal with Cafcass, and stand before a judge without a solicitor beside them. It is shocking — but for anyone working with litigants in person, it is not surprising.

Private Children Proceedings | Litigants in Person | Family Court Support

Shocking, But Not Surprising: The Reality for Families in Private Law Children Proceedings Is Now Impossible to Ignore

Cafcass recorded 42,172 new private law children’s cases involving 63,879 children between 1 April 2025 and 31 March 2026. The Law Society has also reported that, in 2025, both parties appeared without lawyers in 47% of private family law cases. For parents entering the family court without legal representation, these figures are not abstract statistics. They describe the reality they are already living.

The family court system is under pressure — and parents are carrying the weight

The latest Cafcass figures should make everyone involved in the family justice system stop and think. Between 1 April 2025 and 31 March 2026, Cafcass received 42,172 new private law children’s cases, involving 63,879 children. Private law children proceedings usually involve disputes between parents or family members about where a child should live, how much time they should spend with each parent, and how parental responsibility should be exercised.

These are not minor administrative disputes. These are cases about children’s homes, routines, safety, identity, schooling, relationships, emotional wellbeing and long-term stability. They are cases where a parent may be asking to restore contact after months of separation. They are cases where one parent may be raising safeguarding concerns. They are cases involving allegations of domestic abuse, coercive control, alienating behaviours, emotional harm, substance misuse, mental health difficulties, parental conflict and entrenched mistrust.

At the same time, the Law Society has reported that in 2025, in 47% of private family law cases, both parties appeared without lawyers. That means that in almost half of these cases, both parents were trying to navigate the family court process without formal legal representation.

That is shocking. But for anyone who works with litigants in person, it is not surprising.

Why so many parents are now representing themselves

Many parents do not become litigants in person because they want to. They become litigants in person because they have no realistic alternative.

Some cannot afford private solicitors. Some are outside the legal aid threshold but still nowhere near able to fund full representation. Some have had legal aid refused. Some have started with solicitors but run out of money before the case reaches a final hearing. Some feel they have been let down by previous representation. Others are capable, organised and determined, and want to run their own case while paying for targeted help at the points where it matters most.

The difficulty is that private children proceedings are procedurally demanding. A parent may have to understand the C100 application process, safeguarding checks, the role of Cafcass, the First Hearing Dispute Resolution Appointment, interim contact, directions, position statements, witness statements, Scott schedules, Section 7 reports, drug or alcohol testing, psychological evidence, bundle preparation, cross-allegations, enforcement applications and the welfare checklist under section 1 of the Children Act 1989.

Most parents are trying to learn all of this while under extreme emotional pressure. They are worried about their child. They are worried about what the other parent is saying. They are worried about being misunderstood by the court. They are worried about missing deadlines, saying the wrong thing, filing the wrong application or failing to put their evidence forward properly.

That is the gap JSH Law exists to help fill: practical, structured, non-solicitor support for litigants in person who need clarity, organisation and court-focused preparation.

Private children cases are not “simple” just because they are common

One of the most dangerous misunderstandings about child arrangements proceedings is the idea that they are straightforward because they are common. They are not.

A case may start with what appears to be a simple issue: one parent says contact has stopped. The other parent says there are safeguarding concerns. Very quickly, the case can become much more complex. The court may need to consider whether there has been domestic abuse. Cafcass may need to speak to the child. Allegations may need to be particularised. The parties may be directed to file statements. The court may have to decide whether a fact-finding hearing is necessary. There may be questions about indirect contact, supervised contact, handovers, school information, parental responsibility, prohibited steps, specific issues or enforcement.

For a represented party, a solicitor will usually help identify the legal issues, prepare the documents, manage the deadlines and frame the evidence. For a litigant in person, all of that responsibility often falls on the parent directly.

That is a heavy burden. It is also one of the reasons why preparation matters so much.

What litigants in person often need most urgently

When a parent is urgently searching for help before a children hearing, they are rarely looking for theory. They usually need practical answers to immediate problems.

They may need to know:

whether they need a C100, C2 or C79 application;
how to explain that contact has stopped without sounding hostile or emotional;
how to respond to allegations made by the other parent;
how to prepare a short but effective position statement;
how to create a chronology that actually assists the judge;
how to organise WhatsApp messages, emails, school records, police material or professional correspondence;
how to respond to a Cafcass safeguarding letter or Section 7 report;
what to ask the court for at the next hearing;
how to make their case child-focused rather than parent-focused;
what a McKenzie Friend can and cannot do in court.

Most litigants in person do not need someone to take over their entire case. Many need focused support at the right time: before issuing an application, before filing a statement, before a Cafcass call, before a directions hearing, before a final hearing, or when evidence has become messy and overwhelming.

The court needs evidence, not just distress

One of the hardest truths for parents in family court is this: being right is not enough. Being distressed is not enough. Feeling that the situation is unfair is not enough. The court has to make decisions based on evidence, welfare analysis and the law.

That does not mean the emotional reality is irrelevant. It means it has to be translated into a format the court can use.

For example, a parent may say:

“The other parent has completely cut me out and is turning the children against me.”

That may be the truth. But the court will need more than a conclusion. The court will need dates, examples, messages, missed calls, cancelled arrangements, changes in the child’s language or behaviour, school information, professional concerns, previous orders, and evidence of attempts to resolve matters.

Equally, a parent raising safeguarding concerns must be able to explain those concerns clearly and proportionately. If domestic abuse, coercive control or risk of harm is alleged, the court will need to understand what happened, when, what evidence exists, how the child is affected, and what protective arrangements are being sought.

The central question is always the child’s welfare. A strong case is not the loudest case. It is the clearest, best evidenced and most child-focused case.

Why chronology is one of the most powerful tools in a children case

A properly prepared chronology can change the way a case is understood.

Many parents arrive with hundreds of screenshots, years of messages and a strong feeling that there is a pattern of behaviour. But unless that material is organised, the pattern can be lost. Judges do not have unlimited time. Cafcass officers are dealing with heavy caseloads. A litigant in person who can present the key events clearly has a real advantage.

A good chronology should not be a dumping ground for every grievance. It should identify the events that matter. In a private children case, that may include:

when the parents separated;
what contact arrangements were in place;
when contact changed or stopped;
what efforts were made to resolve the issue;
what the child said or did, where relevant;
what professionals became involved;
what allegations were made and when;
what orders were made by the court;
what breaches or safeguarding incidents occurred;
what evidence supports each important event.

A chronology helps the court see sequence, context and pattern. In children proceedings, that can be vital.

Litigants in person need clarity about Cafcass

Cafcass plays a central role in many private children cases. For some parents, the first Cafcass safeguarding call feels like the most important conversation of the case. It can also feel intimidating, especially if the parent does not understand what Cafcass is looking for.

Cafcass is not there to represent either parent. Its role is to advise the court about the child’s welfare. That may involve safeguarding checks, speaking to the parties, identifying risk issues, making recommendations about interim arrangements, and, in some cases, preparing a more detailed Section 7 report.

Parents often make two mistakes with Cafcass. The first is saying too little because they are frightened of sounding difficult. The second is saying too much in an unstructured way because they are desperate to be heard.

The better approach is preparation. A parent should be able to explain the child’s current arrangements, what is working, what is not working, what the risks are, what evidence exists, what outcome they seek, and why that outcome is in the child’s welfare interests.

That requires calm, structure and focus.

What a McKenzie Friend can do for a litigant in person

A McKenzie Friend can provide practical support to a litigant in person. This may include helping a parent understand the court process, organise documents, prepare chronologies, draft position statements, prepare hearing notes, identify key issues, and feel less alone in a system that can otherwise feel overwhelming.

A McKenzie Friend is not the same as a solicitor. JSH Law is not a firm of solicitors and does not conduct litigation. A litigant in person remains responsible for their own case, their own decisions, the accuracy of their documents and compliance with court directions. Rights of audience are not automatic and are always a matter for the court.

But for many parents, targeted non-solicitor support can make an enormous practical difference. It can help them move from panic to preparation. It can help turn scattered evidence into a coherent case. It can help them understand what the court needs to decide and how to present their position in a child-focused way.

The real issue: access to justice

The figures from Cafcass and the Law Society point to a wider access to justice problem. If private children applications are increasing, and almost half of private family law cases involve both parties appearing without lawyers, then the system has to confront the reality of who is actually standing before the court.

These are not trained advocates. They are parents, grandparents and family members trying to protect relationships with children, respond to allegations, raise safeguarding concerns and comply with court orders, often while under intense personal stress.

The family court cannot function properly if the people using it cannot understand the process, cannot present their evidence, and cannot identify what the court is being asked to decide.

Access to justice is not only about whether someone can technically issue an application. It is about whether they can participate meaningfully once they are in the process.

What parents should do before the next hearing

If you are representing yourself in private children proceedings, the most important step is to get organised early. Do not wait until the night before the hearing to gather your evidence. Do not assume the judge will understand the full background unless you explain it clearly. Do not file long, emotional documents that obscure the key issues.

Before the next hearing, ask yourself:

What is the court being asked to decide?
What order do I want the court to make?
Why is that order in my child’s welfare interests?
What evidence supports my position?
What are the strongest points against me?
How do I answer those points calmly and properly?
Have I complied with all directions?
Is my position statement clear, concise and useful?
Are my exhibits properly organised?
Can the judge understand the case quickly?

Family court preparation is not about making the other parent look bad. It is about helping the court make safe, fair and child-focused decisions.

How JSH Law can help

JSH Law provides practical support for litigants in person involved in private children proceedings. This can include help with:

C100, C2 and C79 application preparation;
case strategy and issue identification;
chronologies and evidence summaries;
position statements;
witness statement structure;
responding to Cafcass letters and Section 7 reports;
organising screenshots, WhatsApp messages and correspondence;
hearing preparation;
bundle planning and exhibit organisation;
practical McKenzie Friend support where appropriate.

The aim is not to overwhelm parents with legal jargon. The aim is to help litigants in person understand the process, prepare properly and present their case in a way the court can use.

If your child arrangements case has become urgent, confusing or emotionally overwhelming, it is better to get structured support early than to wait until the case has already drifted, deadlines have passed or evidence has become unmanageable.

Need help preparing for family court?

If you are representing yourself in child arrangements proceedings and need help preparing your application, statement, chronology, evidence, bundle or next hearing strategy, JSH Law provides practical non-solicitor support for litigants in person.

You remain in control of your case. JSH Law helps you get organised, focused and court-ready.

Book a 15-minute enquiry call or send your case papers for an initial review.

Sources

Cafcass, “Our Data”, private law children’s cases, financial year 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2026: https://www.cafcass.gov.uk/about-us/our-data
The Law Society, “Family court cases rise as legal aid sinks”, 26 March 2026: https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/contact-or-visit-us/press-office/press-releases/family-court-cases-rise-as-legal-aid-sinks

About the author

Jessica Susan Hill

Jessica Susan Hill is the founder of JSH Law, providing practical litigation support and McKenzie Friend services for litigants in person involved in private children proceedings. Jessica is training to qualify as a family law solicitor and has extensive lived and practical experience of navigating the family court system, preparing court documents, organising evidence, and helping parents approach hearings with clarity and confidence.

JSH Law supports parents with child arrangements, Cafcass involvement, statements, chronologies, applications, hearing preparation and evidence organisation. The focus is practical, child-centred and court-ready support for people who are representing themselves.

JSH Law is not a firm of solicitors and is not SRA-regulated. Jessica does not conduct litigation or go on the court record. Clients remain responsible for their own case decisions, documents and court filings.

McKenzie Friends in Family Court: What the 2010 Practice Guidance Really Means

April 3, 2026/0 Comments/in 5. Court Skills for Litigants in Person, McKenzie Friend Support/by jessica susan hill

If you are facing court without a solicitor or barrister, the phrase “McKenzie Friend” can sound reassuring but also dangerously vague. Too many litigants in person are told conflicting things about what a McKenzie Friend can do, what a judge can refuse, and where the legal line is drawn. The 2010 Practice Guidance remains one of the key judicial documents on the subject, and if you strip away the legal density, its message is clear: you are usually entitled to reasonable assistance, but that assistance has strict limits.

McKenzie Friends in the Civil and Family Courts: What the 2010 Practice Guidance Actually Says

Published: 12 July 2010 guidance explained for litigants in person

Key takeaways for litigants in person

You generally have the right to reasonable assistance from a McKenzie Friend.
A McKenzie Friend may support you, take notes, help with papers, and quietly advise you.
A McKenzie Friend does not automatically have the right to speak for you, question witnesses, sign documents, or run your case.
If a court wants to refuse or limit your McKenzie Friend, there should be proper reasons.
Rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation are separate and only granted case by case.
Paid McKenzie Friend support is not automatically unlawful, but there are strict legal boundaries around what can and cannot be charged for.

If you are representing yourself in court, the official 2010 Practice Guidance: McKenzie Friends (Civil and Family Courts) is still one of the most important documents you can read. It is short, but it is dense. For litigants in person, the difficulty is not usually finding the guidance. The difficulty is understanding what it actually means in practice.

This article keeps the substance of the original guidance intact, but breaks it down into plain English so that litigants in person can understand what the court says a McKenzie Friend is, what a McKenzie Friend can do, what a McKenzie Friend cannot do, when a court can refuse one, and why the line between “support” and “conduct of litigation” matters so much.

The guidance was issued on 12 July 2010 by the Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, and the President of the Family Division, Sir Nicholas Wall. It applies to civil and family proceedings in the Court of Appeal (Civil Division), the High Court, the County Court, and the Family Proceedings Court in the Magistrates’ Courts. It was issued because of the growing number of litigants in person in civil and family cases, and it replaced earlier family guidance that was then withdrawn.

1. What this guidance is — and what it is not

The first thing to understand is that this is guidance. It is not a Practice Direction. That matters, because it does not create a new statutory code. What it does do is draw together the principles already established by the authorities and remind courts and litigants how those principles are supposed to work.

In other words, the judiciary recognised that more and more people were coming to court without solicitors or barristers, and that courts needed a clear framework for dealing with lay supporters, commonly known as McKenzie Friends.

2. The core principle: the right to reasonable assistance

The guidance states plainly that litigants have the right to have reasonable assistance from a layperson, sometimes called a McKenzie Friend. That is the starting point. It is not a favour. It is not something a judge should treat as a personal indulgence. It is a recognised right to reasonable assistance.

But there is an equally important second point: even where a litigant is assisted by a McKenzie Friend, the litigant remains a litigant in person. The McKenzie Friend does not become the advocate, does not become the representative of record, and does not acquire any independent right to act simply because they are sitting beside the litigant.

The guidance is very clear on this. A McKenzie Friend has no independent right to provide assistance beyond what the court permits, and no automatic right to conduct litigation or act as an advocate.

3. What a McKenzie Friend may do

The guidance identifies four things a McKenzie Friend may do:

provide moral support for litigants;
take notes;
help with case papers;
quietly give advice on any aspect of the conduct of the case.

That list is important because it reflects the real purpose of a McKenzie Friend. A litigant in person may be under extreme emotional pressure. They may struggle to keep up with the papers. They may need someone to help them organise documents, note what happened in court, and quietly point out what needs dealing with next. All of that falls within the proper scope of the role.

For many litigants in person, that kind of support is not a luxury. It is the difference between coping and falling apart. That is exactly why the guidance recognises the right.

4. What a McKenzie Friend may not do

The guidance is equally clear about the limits. A McKenzie Friend may not:

act as the litigant’s agent in relation to the proceedings;
manage the litigant’s case outside court, for example by signing court documents;
address the court, make oral submissions, or examine witnesses.

This is the line many litigants, and frankly many McKenzie Friends, fail to understand properly. Quiet assistance is one thing. Acting as though you are the litigant’s legal representative is another. The first is generally permitted. The second is not, unless the court makes a specific case-by-case grant.

That is why the distinction matters so much. A McKenzie Friend can sit beside you, help with your file, and advise you quietly. They cannot simply stand up and run the hearing because that would cross into rights of audience or conduct of litigation.

5. Can the court refuse a McKenzie Friend?

Yes — but not casually.

The guidance says that although litigants ordinarily have a right to reasonable assistance from a McKenzie Friend, the court retains the power to refuse to permit that assistance. The test is whether, in the particular case, the interests of justice and fairness do not require the litigant to receive such assistance.

That means the court does have control, but the existence of that control does not reverse the starting point. The starting point is that the litigant ordinarily has the right to reasonable assistance. If the right is going to be restricted or refused, there should be a proper reason.

6. What should a litigant do if they want to bring a McKenzie Friend?

The guidance says the litigant should inform the judge as soon as possible, identify who the proposed McKenzie Friend will be, and the proposed McKenzie Friend should produce a short curriculum vitae or other statement. That statement should set out relevant experience, confirm that the proposed McKenzie Friend has no interest in the case, and confirm that they understand the role and the duty of confidentiality.

This is practical and sensible. If you are a litigant in person, do not leave this to chance. Tell the court promptly. Identify your McKenzie Friend. Put in writing who they are, what relevant experience they have, that they understand the limits of the role, that they have no personal interest in the case, and that they will respect confidentiality.

7. Who has to justify excluding the McKenzie Friend?

The guidance deals with this directly. If the court considers there may be grounds for limiting the right to assistance, or if another party objects to the McKenzie Friend’s presence or assistance, it is not for the litigant to justify the exercise of the right. It is for the court or the objecting party to provide sufficient reasons why the litigant should not receive that assistance.

That is a significant point. Too often litigants in person are put on the back foot and made to feel as though they must somehow “earn” the right to support. The guidance says otherwise. The right exists as the starting position. The burden falls on the person seeking to interfere with it to explain why.

8. What if the court is considering refusing or limiting the McKenzie Friend?

The guidance says the matter must be considered carefully because the litigant’s right to a fair trial is engaged. The litigant should be given a reasonable opportunity to argue the point. The proposed McKenzie Friend should not be excluded from that argument and should normally be allowed to help the litigant during that hearing.

That is common sense. If the issue is whether the litigant should be deprived of support, it would be fundamentally unfair to force the litigant to argue that point without the very support they are trying to retain.

9. What about private hearings, in chambers, or cases involving children?

The guidance recognises that where proceedings are in closed court — for example, in chambers, in private, or in proceedings relating to a child — the litigant is required to justify the McKenzie Friend’s presence in court. However, the guidance immediately adds that the presumption in favour of permitting the McKenzie Friend to attend such hearings is a strong one.

So yes, private proceedings raise confidentiality concerns. But no, confidentiality alone is not enough to displace the ordinary presumption in favour of allowing the litigant to have assistance.

That matters greatly in family proceedings. The fact that a case concerns children, sensitive allegations, or private family matters does not, by itself, justify excluding a McKenzie Friend.

10. Can the court remove the McKenzie Friend once the hearing has started?

Yes. The guidance says the court may refuse the exercise of the right at the start of a hearing, and it can also limit or remove it during the course of the hearing. This may happen where the court forms the view that the McKenzie Friend may give, has given, or is giving assistance which impedes the efficient administration of justice.

But the guidance does not encourage immediate exclusion as the default response. It says the court should also consider whether a firm and unequivocal warning to the litigant and/or the McKenzie Friend might suffice in the first instance.

That is important. The proper response to a problem is not always instant exclusion. A warning may be enough. Only where the conduct genuinely undermines justice or case management should the court move further.

11. What if the court first allows the McKenzie Friend and then changes its mind?

The guidance says that where the court decides not to curtail assistance from a McKenzie Friend, that decision should be treated as final unless there is subsequent misconduct by the McKenzie Friend or the court later concludes that the McKenzie Friend’s continuing presence will impede the efficient administration of justice.

If the court later curtails the right, it should give a short judgment explaining why. The litigant may appeal that decision. The McKenzie Friend has no standing to appeal in their own right.

Again, the guidance is structured to protect the litigant, not to turn the issue into repeated satellite arguments every time the other side becomes irritated by the litigant having support.

12. What are not good reasons to refuse a McKenzie Friend?

The guidance is unusually direct here. It says the following factors should not be taken to justify refusing a litigant the assistance of a McKenzie Friend:

the case or application is simple or straightforward, or is only, for example, a directions or case management hearing;
the litigant appears capable of conducting the case without assistance;
the litigant is unrepresented through choice;
the other party is not represented;
the proposed McKenzie Friend belongs to an organisation that promotes a particular cause;
the proceedings are confidential and the court papers contain sensitive family information.

This section is one of the most useful parts of the guidance for litigants in person because it deals with the excuses that are often raised in practice.

A simple hearing is not a reason. A capable litigant is not a reason. Being self-represented by choice is not a reason. The fact that the other side also has no lawyer is not a reason. Organisational affiliation is not a reason. Confidentiality on its own is not a reason.

Put bluntly: courts and opponents are not supposed to sideline a McKenzie Friend on flimsy grounds.

13. When can a litigant be denied assistance?

The guidance does identify circumstances in which assistance may properly be denied because it might undermine, or already has undermined, the efficient administration of justice. The examples given are:

the assistance is being provided for an improper purpose;
the assistance is unreasonable in nature or degree;
the McKenzie Friend is subject to a civil proceedings order or civil restraint order;
the McKenzie Friend is using the litigant as a puppet;
the McKenzie Friend is directly or indirectly conducting the litigation;
the court is not satisfied that the McKenzie Friend fully understands the duty of confidentiality.

These are serious matters. This part of the guidance is aimed at abuse of the role. It is not aimed at genuine, fair, sensible support for a litigant in person. The moment a McKenzie Friend starts using the litigant as a mouthpiece, starts really running the case from behind the scenes, or behaves in a way that undermines the court process, the risk of exclusion becomes real.

14. McKenzie Friends in care proceedings and advocates’ meetings

The guidance makes a specific point about care proceedings. It says that where a litigant is receiving assistance from a McKenzie Friend in care proceedings, the court should consider the McKenzie Friend’s attendance at any advocates’ meetings directed by the court, and in cases commenced after 1 April 2008 should consider directions in accordance with paragraph 13.2 of the Practice Direction Guide to Case Management in Public Law Proceedings.

This makes clear that the issue is not confined to what happens physically inside the courtroom. In appropriate public law cases, the court should also think about whether the McKenzie Friend should be permitted to attend procedural meetings that directly affect the litigant’s ability to participate effectively.

15. Can a litigant share documents and evidence with a McKenzie Friend?

Yes. The guidance expressly says that litigants are permitted to communicate any information relating to the proceedings, including filed evidence, to McKenzie Friends for the purpose of obtaining advice or assistance in relation to the proceedings.

This is an important practical point. Litigants in person often worry that they cannot show documents to their McKenzie Friend. The guidance says they can, for the purpose of seeking advice or assistance. That is one reason why the duty of confidentiality matters so much.

16. What are lawyers expected to do where the other side has a McKenzie Friend?

The guidance states that legal representatives should ensure that documents are served on litigants in good time so that they can seek assistance from their McKenzie Friend regarding the contents before any hearing or advocates’ meeting.

That is not a throwaway line. It recognises a basic fairness point: if the litigant is entitled to assistance, the papers must reach them in time for that assistance to be meaningful.

17. Can the High Court make orders against problematic McKenzie Friends?

Yes. The guidance states that the High Court can, under its inherent jurisdiction, impose a civil restraint order on McKenzie Friends who repeatedly act in ways that undermine the efficient administration of justice.

That underlines the seriousness of repeated misconduct. A McKenzie Friend is not beyond control simply because they are not formally on the record as a lawyer.

18. Rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation: the part most people get wrong

The guidance then turns to the issue that causes the most confusion: rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation.

It says clearly that McKenzie Friends do not have a right of audience or a right to conduct litigation. It also states that it is a criminal offence to exercise rights of audience or to conduct litigation unless a person is properly qualified and authorised by the relevant regulatory body or, if they are a lay person, the court grants those rights on a case-by-case basis.

This is where many people come unstuck. There is a world of difference between helping a litigant and becoming their courtroom mouthpiece or litigation manager. Unless the court specifically grants the right, a lay person cannot simply take it upon themselves to act in that way.

19. Why courts are told to be slow to grant those rights

The guidance says courts should be slow to grant applications by litigants for rights of audience or rights to conduct litigation to any lay person, including a McKenzie Friend.

The reason given is straightforward. People exercising those rights should ordinarily be properly trained, professionally regulated, insured against negligence, and subject to an overriding duty to the court. Those protections matter for all parties and for the proper administration of justice.

That is the policy logic behind the restriction. It is not simply professional gatekeeping. It is about training, accountability, insurance, and duties owed to the court.

20. When might a court grant a right of audience or a right to conduct litigation?

The guidance says any such application must be considered very carefully, and the court should only be prepared to grant those rights where there is good reason to do so, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. They should not be granted automatically, without due consideration, or for mere convenience.

Examples of special circumstances that have been held to justify a right of audience for a lay person include:

the lay person is a close relative of the litigant;
health problems prevent the litigant from addressing the court or conducting litigation, and the litigant cannot afford a qualified legal representative;
the litigant is relatively inarticulate and prompting by the lay person may otherwise unnecessarily prolong the proceedings.

Even then, the burden is on the litigant to persuade the court that the interests of justice justify the grant.

21. What about “professional” McKenzie Friends?

The guidance is particularly cautious here. It says that grants of rights of audience or rights to conduct litigation to lay persons who hold themselves out as professional advocates or professional McKenzie Friends, or who seek to exercise those rights regularly, whether for reward or not, will only be granted in exceptional circumstances.

The reason given is stark: to do otherwise would tend to subvert the will of Parliament.

That sentence matters. It tells you exactly how the senior judiciary viewed the risk. Quiet assistance is one thing. A parallel, informal, unregulated advocacy market routinely exercising reserved legal activities is another. The guidance makes clear that the courts are not to normalise that.

22. When must applications for these extra rights be made?

If a litigant wants a lay person to be granted a right of audience, the application must be made at the start of the hearing. If a right to conduct litigation is sought, the application must be made at the earliest possible time and in any event before the lay person does anything amounting to the conduct of litigation.

That timing matters. You do not get to act first and ask permission later.

The guidance also makes clear that rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation are separate rights. The grant of one does not automatically mean the grant of the other. If both are sought, both must be applied for individually and justified separately.

And even if granted, the court can later remove either right. A grant in one case does not create a precedent entitling the lay person to those rights in future proceedings.

23. Can a McKenzie Friend charge fees?

Yes, but only within lawful limits.

The guidance says litigants can lawfully agree to pay fees to McKenzie Friends for reasonable assistance in court or out of court, including clerical or mechanical work such as photocopying, preparing bundles, delivering documents, or providing legal advice in connection with court proceedings. But such fees cannot lawfully be recovered from the opposing party.

The guidance then draws a further distinction. Fees said to be incurred by McKenzie Friends for carrying out the conduct of litigation, where the court has not granted such a right, cannot lawfully be recovered from either the litigant or the opposing party.

If the court has granted a right to conduct litigation, then in principle those fees may be recoverable from the litigant for whom the work is done, but still not from the opposing party.

If the court has granted a right of audience, fees for exercising that right are in principle recoverable from the litigant and may also, in principle, be recoverable from the opposing party as a recoverable disbursement under CPR 48.6(2) and 48.6(3)(ii).

The practical lesson is simple. A McKenzie Friend may be paid for lawful assistance. But they cannot lawfully charge for reserved legal activities unless the court has actually granted the relevant right, and even then recovery rules remain limited.

24. Other sources of support: PSU and Citizens Advice

The guidance finishes by reminding litigants that they should also be aware of help from Personal Support Units and Citizens’ Advice Bureaux. At the time, it referred specifically to services at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.

The wider point remains useful. A McKenzie Friend is not the only source of help. Litigants in person should also explore court support organisations, advice services, and practical assistance bodies where available.

25. Why this guidance still matters

This guidance matters because it does two things at once. First, it protects litigants in person from being left isolated and overwhelmed. Second, it draws a firm legal boundary around what unqualified lay supporters can and cannot do.

That balance is the whole point. Courts are meant to recognise the reality that self-represented people often need real support. But the justice system is also entitled to protect the boundary around reserved legal activities, rights of audience, and the conduct of litigation.

So if you are a litigant in person, the correct position is not “a McKenzie Friend can do anything.” Nor is it “a McKenzie Friend is just a silent companion who can barely exist in the room.” The true position sits between those two extremes.

You are ordinarily entitled to reasonable assistance. That assistance is valuable and important. But it is assistance, not automatic representation.

26. A practical summary for litigants in person

In practical terms, the 2010 guidance means this:

You can usually bring a McKenzie Friend.
You should tell the court in advance who they are.
Your McKenzie Friend should be ready to confirm their role, experience, neutrality, and confidentiality.
The court should not exclude them without a proper reason.
Confidentiality, simplicity of the hearing, or the fact you appear capable are not enough on their own.
If the McKenzie Friend oversteps the mark, the court can warn, limit, or exclude them.
A McKenzie Friend cannot automatically speak for you, question witnesses, sign your documents, or run your litigation.
Those extra rights require a specific application and are granted only sparingly.

That is the real message of the guidance, and every litigant in person should understand it before walking into court.

27. Source and legal references

The original judicial guidance can be read here: Practice Guidance: McKenzie Friends (Civil and Family Courts).

The guidance refers to a number of authorities, including:

R v Leicester City Justices, ex parte Barrow [1991] 260
Chauhan v Chauhan [1997] FCR 206
R v Bow County Court, ex parte Pelling [1999] 1 WLR 1807
Attorney-General v Purvis [2003] EWHC 3190 (Admin)
Clarkson v Gilbert [2000] CP Rep 58
United Building and Plumbing Contractors v Kajla [2002] EWCA Civ 628
Re O (Children) (Hearing in Private: Assistance) [2005] 3 WLR 1191
Westland Helicopters Ltd v Sheikh Salah Al-Hejailan (No 2) [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 535
Agassi v Robinson (Inspector of Taxes) (No 2) [2006] 1 WLR 2126
Re N (A Child) (McKenzie Friend: Rights of Audience) Practice Note [2008] 1 WLR 2743

The guidance also refers to the Legal Services Act 2007, sections 12 to 19 and Schedule 3, in relation to reserved legal activities.

Regulatory & Editorial Notice

This article is provided for general information and commentary only. It is not legal advice and does not create a client relationship. JSH Law Ltd is not a firm of solicitors and does not provide reserved legal activities unless expressly stated otherwise. Commentary on case law, court procedure, or third-party materials is intended to support public legal understanding and should always be checked against the latest official sources, rules, practice directions, and case-specific orders.

Interim “No Contact” Orders in Private Law Children Cases: When “Temporary” Becomes Separation

March 24, 2026/0 Comments/in McKenzie Friend Support/by jessica susan hill

Interim “no contact” orders are often presented as temporary, protective steps in private law children cases. In reality, they can operate as something far more significant: the effective suspension of a parent-child relationship, sometimes for months, and sometimes on limited, untested evidence. A recent barrister’s commentary has brought this issue into sharp focus—raising the question of whether the family courts are, quietly and unintentionally, drifting toward a form of interim separation that the Court of Appeal has already warned must be treated as a last resort.

Interim “No Contact” Orders in Private Law Children Cases: A Quiet Drift Toward Interim Separation?

A recent LinkedIn post I spotted by a barrister raises an uncomfortable but important question: are interim “no contact” orders in private law children proceedings beginning to mirror, in effect if not in doctrine, the kind of interim separation that the Court of Appeal has warned must be approached with extreme caution?

For litigants in person, this is not an abstract debate. It goes directly to how quickly and how easily a parent can lose contact with their child—sometimes on limited evidence, and sometimes for months before a court fully tests the allegations.

This article unpacks what the barrister is really saying, the legal framework behind it, and what it means in practice if you are navigating the system without representation.

The Core Concern

The concern is simple but serious: in private law proceedings, courts are sometimes making interim “no contact” orders early in a case, often based on safeguarding information or initial Cafcass input, without the kind of evidential scrutiny or procedural safeguards that would exist in public law proceedings.

The result? A child stops seeing one parent—sometimes immediately—and that situation can persist for a long time.

The barrister’s comparison is with public law cases, where interim removal of a child from a parent is treated as a “drastic” step requiring strict justification.

The key authority cited is Re C (A Child) (Interim Separation), EWCA Civ 1998, where the Court of Appeal made clear that interim separation must be a last resort.

“Separation is only to be ordered if the child’s safety demands immediate separation and there is no other way of managing the risk.”

The question being posed is whether private law courts are, in practice, sometimes achieving the same outcome—separation—without applying the same level of discipline.

Legal Framework

Private law children proceedings are governed primarily by the Children Act 1989 and the Family Procedure Rules 2010.

The central statutory provision is Children Act 1989, s 1, which establishes that the child’s welfare is the court’s paramount consideration.

The court must also consider the welfare checklist under Children Act 1989, s 1(3), including:

The child’s wishes and feelings
Their physical, emotional and educational needs
The likely effect of any change in circumstances
Any harm suffered or risk of harm
The capability of each parent

In addition, Children Act 1989, s 1(2A) introduces the presumption that involvement of both parents furthers a child’s welfare, unless there is evidence to the contrary.

Procedurally, early hearings are governed by the Family Procedure Rules 2010 and Practice Directions, particularly:

FPR 2010, r 12.2 and Part 12 (Children Proceedings)
PD12B (Child Arrangements Programme)
PD12J (Domestic Abuse)

PD12J is especially important where allegations of abuse arise. It requires the court to consider risk carefully and, where necessary, determine allegations before making substantive welfare decisions.

What Is an Interim “No Contact” Order?

An interim “no contact” order is typically made at an early stage—often at the First Hearing Dispute Resolution Appointment (FHDRA)—and provides that the child will not spend time with one parent until further order.

It is usually framed as a temporary protective measure.

However, in practical terms, it can function as a complete cessation of the relationship, particularly if:

There is no immediate listing for a fact-finding hearing
The case is subject to delay
Contact is not replaced with supervised or indirect contact

The Public Law Comparison: Re C

In Re C (A Child) (Interim Separation), EWCA Civ 1998, the Court of Appeal emphasised several key principles:

Interim removal is a draconian interference with Article 8 rights
It requires solid evidence, not mere suspicion
The court must consider less intrusive alternatives
The decision must be necessary and proportionate

Public law cases also involve significant safeguards:

A Children’s Guardian
Local authority evidence
Structured assessments
Clear threshold criteria under Children Act 1989, s 31

The barrister’s concern is that none of these safeguards are typically present in private law at the early stage—yet the outcome (a child not seeing a parent) may be the same.

The Private Law Reality

In private law, the pathway often looks like this:

An application is issued
Safeguarding checks are carried out by Cafcass
A short telephone or initial interview takes place
A safeguarding letter is produced
At the first hearing, recommendations are made
The court adopts (or heavily relies on) those recommendations

This can all occur before:

Any cross-examination
Any findings of fact
Any detailed evidence gathering

In some cases, allegations are serious (e.g. domestic abuse), and protective steps are clearly justified. But in others, the evidence base may be thin or contested.

The Problem of “Status Quo”

One of the most important practical points—especially for litigants in person—is the concept of “status quo.”

Courts are often reluctant to disrupt arrangements that have been in place for some time, particularly where a child appears settled.

This is not a formal rule, but it is a powerful influence in decision-making.

So if an interim order results in no contact for several months, that arrangement can begin to look like the “new normal.”

By the time the case reaches a final hearing:

The child may not have seen the parent for a long period
Reintroduction may be seen as destabilising
The court may proceed cautiously or incrementally

This creates a risk that an interim measure effectively determines the outcome.

Article 8 Considerations

Both parent and child have a right to respect for family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Any interference must be:

Lawful
Necessary
Proportionate

In public law, courts explicitly engage with this analysis. In private law, the same principles apply, but they are not always articulated with the same rigour at interim stages.

The concern raised in the LinkedIn post is that the seriousness of stopping contact altogether is not always matched by the level of scrutiny applied.

Safeguarding vs Evidence

It is important to be clear: safeguarding is essential. Courts must act quickly where there is a risk of harm.

However, safeguarding information is not the same as tested evidence.

A Cafcass safeguarding letter may include:

Allegations made by one party
Police checks
Initial risk assessments

But it is not a substitute for:

Cross-examination
Findings of fact
Full evidential analysis

This distinction is critical. Interim decisions often rely heavily on safeguarding material, but that material may later be challenged or disproved.

Domestic Abuse and PD12J

Where allegations of domestic abuse arise, PD12J is engaged.

The court must:

Identify whether a fact-finding hearing is required
Avoid making final welfare decisions based on disputed allegations
Consider the impact of abuse on the child and the other parent

However, PD12J also recognises the need for protective measures in the interim.

This creates a tension:

Protecting against risk on limited information
Avoiding unfair or premature conclusions

Interim no contact orders often sit at the centre of that tension.

Is There a Risk of Miscarriages of Justice?

The barrister’s use of the phrase “miscarriages of justice” is deliberately provocative.

It does not suggest widespread wrongdoing, but rather highlights structural risks:

Decisions made quickly on limited evidence
Significant consequences flowing from those decisions
Delays that entrench interim arrangements

Whether this amounts to a “miscarriage” will depend on the individual case. But the risk is real enough to merit scrutiny.

The Pathfinder Model

The post also references the ongoing rollout of the Pathfinder model in private law proceedings.

Pathfinder aims to:

Improve early information gathering
Focus on safety and risk
Reduce adversarial conflict

In theory, this could address some of the concerns identified—particularly by improving the quality of early evidence.

However, it may also lead to earlier and more decisive interim outcomes, which could amplify the issues if not carefully managed.

What This Means for Litigants in Person

For those representing themselves, the implications are significant.

1. The First Hearing Matters More Than It Appears

The FHDRA is not just administrative. It can shape the entire trajectory of the case.

If a no contact order is made at this stage, it may persist for months.

2. Challenge the Evidential Basis

If a recommendation for no contact is made, it is important to scrutinise:

What evidence supports it?
Is it based on allegations or findings?
Are there inconsistencies or gaps?

Courts can and do depart from Cafcass recommendations where appropriate.

3. Propose Less Intrusive Alternatives

Drawing from Re C, the key question is whether risk can be managed in a less restrictive way.

Alternatives might include:

Supervised contact
Supported contact
Indirect contact (letters, video calls)

A complete cessation should not be the default if other options are viable.

4. Address Proportionality Explicitly

Even if not framed in legal language, the argument is straightforward:

Is stopping all contact necessary?
Is it proportionate to the level of risk?

5. Push for Timetabling

If contact is stopped, it is critical to seek:

A prompt fact-finding hearing (if allegations are disputed)
Clear directions and timelines

Delay increases the risk that interim arrangements become entrenched.

6. Distinguish Allegations from Findings

Courts must be careful not to treat allegations as established facts.

Where allegations are denied, that should be clearly stated and recorded.

A Balanced View

It would be wrong to suggest that interim no contact orders are inherently problematic.

In many cases, they are necessary and appropriate—particularly where there is credible evidence of harm.

The issue is not their existence, but their application:

Are they being made with sufficient evid ential basis?
Are less restrictive options being properly considered?
Is their impact fully appreciated?

Conclusion

The barrister’s post highlights a subtle but important shift in private law practice: interim decisions that can have final-like consequences.

The comparison with Re C (A Child) (Interim Separation), EWCA Civ 1998 is not exact—private and public law serve different functions—but it is instructive.

It reminds practitioners and litigants alike that stopping a child’s contact with a parent is a serious step, even on an interim basis.

For litigants in person, the key takeaway is this: early hearings matter, evidence matters, and interim orders are not as temporary as they may seem.

Careful, focused engagement at the outset of a case can make a decisive difference to its outcome.

Need help with a private law children case?

If you are dealing with interim no contact arrangements, Cafcass involvement, safeguarding allegations, or a hearing that feels like it could shift the whole direction of your case, early strategy matters.

I support litigants in person with family law strategy, case preparation, hearing documents, and practical guidance so you can approach the court process with more clarity and confidence.

Book a 15-minute initial consultation below:

Regulatory & Editorial Notice

JSH Law Ltd is not a firm of solicitors and is not regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Any content on this website is provided for general information, commentary, and public interest purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, regulated legal services, or the creation of a solicitor-client relationship.

This article may refer to legal principles, court procedure, public commentary, third-party publications, or reported cases. Such references are included for editorial analysis and educational discussion. Readers should not rely on this material as a substitute for obtaining advice on the specific facts of their own case.

Where you require advice or representation from a regulated solicitor, barrister, or other authorised professional, you should seek that advice separately and promptly.

Archive for category: McKenzie Friend Support

In summary

An important clarification

This is not simply a new criminal offence

Canada has recognised coercive control in family law since 2021

That distinction matters

Children do not need to be physically assaulted to be affected by abuse

Canada asks courts to identify the pattern

Then came Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia

The new Canadian criminal offence

But there is an important caveat: it is not yet operational

Do not miss this

Canada has also connected coercive control with femicide

So how does England and Wales compare?

PD12J is stronger than many litigants realise

The family court itself can become part of the machinery of control

Re H-N: stop looking at abuse through a keyhole

This is a significant procedural development

The real comparison: Canada has made the pattern unusually explicit

What England and Wales should learn from Canada

1. Pattern analysis needs to become routine

2. Post-separation conduct matters

3. Behaviour involving children needs to be analysed in context

4. Professionals need pattern-recognition training

5. The child’s experience must not disappear behind the parental dispute

6. Absence of prosecution is not absence of abuse

For litigants in person: evidence the pattern, not just the worst day

A useful coercive-control evidence structure may identify:

Conflict and coercive control are not the same thing

The deeper significance of Ahluwalia: autonomy itself can be harmed

And this matters profoundly in family court

What I hope happens next in England and Wales

The central point

Canada is worth watching

Key legal sources and authorities

Legal information, not individual legal advice

Need help making the pattern clear to the Family Court?

Start with a 15-minute consultation

Follow JSH Law

The short version

1. The family court’s new expert-witness rules are already in force

A professional title is not enough

What a litigant in person should check

2. Parliament has documented a family legal aid justice gap

What this means in practice

3. Four FHDRAs per day: helpful guidance, not a guarantee

Make the extra space count

Before an FHDRA, be able to answer

4. Cafcass demand is rising—and volume is not a substitute for clarity

A better evidence pack is usually a smaller one

5. The real legal-AI trust test is provenance

The JSH Law responsible-AI standard

6. Children’s rights: opportunities to influence reform now

Kinship care law

Social care inspections

Care-experienced youth voices

7. What has not yet changed

The presumption of parental involvement has not yet been repealed

8. Practical checklist for a litigant in person

Frequently asked questions

Do the new expert rules apply to every existing children case?

Does an unregulated expert automatically become unusable?

Will four FHDRAs per day give me a one-hour hearing?

Does the July legal aid change mean I now qualify?

Can I use ChatGPT or another AI tool to help prepare family court documents?

Has the presumption of parental involvement been abolished?

Should I send Cafcass every document I have?

JSH Law: making complex family cases usable

The direct answer

What is a McKenzie Friend?

Do you need a qualification to become a McKenzie Friend?

What may a McKenzie Friend do?

Moral support

Taking notes

Helping with papers

Quiet advice

What may a McKenzie Friend not do automatically?

Helping someone present their case is not the same as taking their case over

How to assess a McKenzie Friend course before paying

1. Check exactly what the certificate represents