Archive for category: 2. Family Court Procedure

You are here: / / 2. Family Court Procedure

This category covers the key considerations and practical steps to take before making an application to the family court. It addresses pre-application requirements, early decision-making, and alternatives to court where appropriate.

Articles here are designed to help litigants in person understand when court proceedings may be necessary, what preparation is required, and how early choices can affect safeguarding, case management, and outcomes later in the process.

Family Court Changes August 2026: What Parents Need to Know

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

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.

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

  1. Primary-source verification: check legislation, rules, judgments and official guidance at source.
  2. Citation testing: confirm that every authority exists and supports the proposition attributed to it.
  3. Audit trail: preserve the material used, the date checked and relevant versions.
  4. Confidentiality: do not place sensitive family-court material into an AI system without a lawful and secure basis.
  5. Human responsibility: a named human must review, understand and take responsibility for the final document.
  6. 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

  1. Read the current order first. Identify every deadline, restriction, disclosure requirement and hearing purpose.
  2. Confirm which procedural model applies. Child Arrangements Programme and Child Focused Model cases do not always follow the same route.
  3. Check the law at source. Use legislation, the Family Procedure Rules, Practice Directions and official guidance—not an unattributed summary.
  4. Verify any proposed expert. Check regulation, discipline, necessity, questions, availability, cost and the effect on the timetable.
  5. Separate evidence from argument. Label facts, allegations, disputed matters, professional opinion and inference accurately.
  6. Build a focused chronology. Include dates, events, source documents and welfare consequences; avoid unnecessary commentary.
  7. 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.
  8. Ask for participation support early. Raise vulnerability, safety, separate waiting arrangements, screens, remote attendance or other measures before the hearing where possible.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.

Who Judges the Judges? Judicial Accountability, Litigants in Person and the Family Court Transparency Problem

/0 Comments/in , /by

A practical JSH Law guide for litigants in person on judicial accountability, complaints about judges, JCIO routes, transcripts, family court transparency and how AI could help scrutinise patterns of poor judicial conduct.

Family Court Accountability | Litigants in Person | Judicial Conduct

Who Judges the Judges? Judicial Accountability, Litigants in Person and the Family Court’s Transparency Problem

Most judges work under immense pressure and many treat litigants in person with patience, fairness and humanity. But where a judge bullies, humiliates, intimidates, stereotypes, dismisses or abuses the authority of the court, that is not simply a “bad day”. It is an access to justice issue. It is a public confidence issue. And in the family court, where parties are often gagged by privacy rules, fear and trauma, it is an issue that urgently needs proper scrutiny.

By Jessica Susan Hill, JSH Law | For litigants in person, McKenzie Friend support, family court preparation and access to justice commentary

The core point

Judicial independence is essential. Nobody should want judges frightened into popularity contests or pressured by social media campaigns. But judicial independence is not the same thing as judicial impunity. A fair justice system must protect judges from improper pressure while also protecting court users from improper judicial conduct.

For litigants in person, particularly in private family law proceedings, the problem is acute. A represented party may have a solicitor or barrister to object, take a note, request clarification, advise on appeal, or identify misconduct. A litigant in person may leave court not even knowing whether what happened was normal, lawful, appealable, reportable, or simply wrong.

Why the Proudmans / Judge Lancaster example matters

A recent post by Proudmans, the specialist law firm founded by Dr Charlotte Proudman, highlights a wider public concern about judicial accountability. The post states that ten women reported Employment Tribunal Judge Philip Lancaster to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office over alleged inappropriate behaviour and misconduct, and that their complaints were initially dismissed before the JCIO agreed to reconsider them following a sustained campaign and legal challenge.

The reported allegations include intimidation, bullying, inappropriate conduct, shouting, hostile comments, excessive interruption and alleged misogynistic treatment. One complainant, Alison McDermott, has publicly described being left traumatised and ill after her hearing. The Proudmans post also raises a particularly important procedural concern: some complainants were reportedly criticised for not providing precise timestamps, despite being unable to access transcripts or recordings of their hearings.

That matters. If a complaints system demands forensic precision from traumatised or unrepresented court users, while those same court users cannot easily access the recording, transcript, or full evidential material needed to particularise the complaint, the system is structurally tilted against accountability.

Why this example resonates beyond the Employment Tribunal

The Lancaster complaints arose in the tribunal system, not the family court. But the accountability issue is directly relevant to family justice. In family proceedings, parties are often vulnerable, traumatised, financially stretched, self-representing, and subject to strict rules about confidentiality and publication. If judicial behaviour is poor, many litigants do not know how to evidence it, where to report it, or whether reporting it could make their case worse.

The point is not that every complaint against a judge is valid. It plainly is not. Judges make difficult decisions, often under pressure, and disappointed parties may wrongly interpret robust case management as bias. But where multiple complaints arise about similar behaviour by the same judge, those complaints should not be treated as isolated fragments if the alleged pattern is itself the warning sign.

Good judges, bad judging and the danger of unchecked courtroom power

It is important to be fair. Many family judges are excellent. Many are careful, humane and deeply alive to the realities of domestic abuse, safeguarding, trauma, poverty, neurodivergence, disability and the difficulties faced by litigants in person. Good judges can make the difference between a party feeling crushed by the system and a party feeling heard, even when the decision goes against them.

But the opposite is also true. Some court users experience judges as dismissive, impatient, sarcastic, hostile, humiliating or openly contemptuous. Some litigants in person describe being spoken over, patronised, mocked, cut off, or made to feel that the court has already decided they are difficult before they have even opened their bundle.

That matters because the courtroom is not an ordinary workplace. The judge controls the room. The judge controls the timing. The judge controls who speaks. The judge controls the direction of the case. The judge decides what evidence is heard, what weight is given to it, and what order is made. In family proceedings, those orders can affect where a child lives, how often a parent sees their child, whether protective measures are put in place, and whether allegations of abuse are properly tested.

Power can be used well. Power can also be abused. A system that refuses to confront that reality is not protecting judicial independence; it is protecting institutional defensiveness.

Judicial independence does not mean “a law unto themselves”

Judges must be independent from improper political, media or personal pressure. But they must also conduct hearings fairly, courteously and impartially. Judicial authority exists to serve justice. It does not exist to shield bullying, bias, contempt, discrimination or humiliation.

The Guide to Judicial Conduct exists because judges are not above standards. The JCIO exists because judicial office carries public responsibilities. The problem is not the absence of a formal system. The problem is whether that system is accessible, credible, transparent and capable of identifying patterns before more people are harmed.

Complaint, appeal or both? Litigants in person need this distinction

One of the most confusing issues for litigants in person is the difference between:

  • complaining about a judge’s personal conduct;
  • appealing a judge’s decision;
  • asking a judge to recuse themselves because of apparent bias;
  • complaining about court administration; and
  • requesting a transcript or recording to prove what happened.

These are different routes. They have different tests, different forms, different deadlines and different outcomes.

Problem Usually the correct route Important point
The judge made an order you believe is wrong Appeal / application to vary / set aside, depending on the order and circumstances The JCIO will not overturn a court order.
The judge refused evidence, limited questioning or controlled the timetable Usually appeal, unless the conduct itself also raises misconduct Case management is generally not a conduct complaint unless it crosses into misconduct.
The judge shouted, mocked, humiliated, used offensive language, appeared discriminatory, or behaved in a personally inappropriate way Judicial conduct complaint to the JCIO Record the exact words, time, hearing date, witnesses and effect on fairness.
The judge appeared biased or had a conflict of interest Raise recusal/apparent bias issue in proceedings and consider appeal if necessary Bias may be both an appeal issue and, in some circumstances, a conduct issue.
The court lost documents, failed to send an order, listed the case incorrectly, or mishandled administration HMCTS complaint HMCTS cannot discipline judges.
The JCIO mishandled your complaint Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman The Ombudsman reviews complaint handling, not the original court decision.

Do not use a conduct complaint as a substitute appeal

If the real problem is that the judge made the wrong order, the remedy is normally an appeal, not a JCIO complaint. A conduct complaint will not change child arrangements, set aside findings, reopen evidence or suspend an order. Litigants in person need to be strategic: if the order is wrong, protect your appeal position. If the behaviour was improper, preserve the evidence and consider a conduct complaint.

What litigants in person can do if a judge behaves improperly

When a litigant in person is treated badly in court, the emotional instinct may be to argue back, freeze, leave, cry, or try to explain everything at once. That is understandable. But the practical task is to preserve the record, stay calm enough to protect your position, and separate the conduct issue from the legal issue.

1. Stay polite, but make a clear record

If safe and appropriate, a litigant in person can calmly say:

Suggested wording:

“Sir / Madam, I am finding it difficult to follow because I feel I am being interrupted. May I please finish my point?”

“I am a litigant in person. I understand the court must manage the hearing, but I would be grateful if I could be allowed to make my submission on this issue.”

“May the order please record that I asked to address the court on this issue and was not permitted to do so?”

“If the court is refusing that request, may I please have the reason recorded?”

This is not about being confrontational. It is about making the issue visible. If something is not recorded, it becomes much harder to prove later.

2. Take a detailed note immediately after the hearing

As soon as possible after the hearing, write down:

  • the date, time and court;
  • the judge’s name;
  • the type of hearing;
  • who was present;
  • what was said, as close to the exact words as possible;
  • whether the judge shouted, interrupted, laughed, mocked, threatened, stereotyped or used offensive language;
  • whether the conduct affected your ability to present your case;
  • whether your opponent, their representative, Cafcass, a legal adviser or court staff witnessed it;
  • which part of the hearing it happened in; and
  • what order was made afterwards.

3. Request the order and consider whether it accurately reflects what happened

In family proceedings, the sealed order matters. If the order does not reflect an important procedural event, consider whether you need to write promptly to the court asking for clarification or correction. Keep the letter factual. Do not vent. Do not insult the judge. Set out the issue plainly.

4. Consider requesting a transcript

Family hearings are generally recorded unless the court directs otherwise. Under Family Procedure Rule 27.9, hearings are tape recorded or digitally recorded unless the court directs otherwise, and parties may usually require a transcript on payment of the authorised charges. The official route for requesting a transcript is Form EX107.

Do not secretly record the hearing

Parties should not use unofficial recording equipment in court without permission. Family Procedure Rule 27.9 expressly restricts unofficial recording, and unauthorised recording can amount to contempt of court. If you need the record, use the proper transcript route or ask the court for permission where appropriate.

5. Get early help if the conduct affected the fairness of the hearing

If the judge’s conduct affected your ability to participate, present evidence, challenge allegations, respond to safeguarding concerns, or make submissions, do not wait. Time limits for appeals and complaints can be short. Take advice or structured procedural support quickly.

Where and how to report judicial conduct concerns

The correct route depends on the nature of the problem.

Route Use it for Link
JCIO Misconduct by salaried or fee-paid court judges, tribunal judges, coroners and some judicial office holders Make a JCIO complaint
What can I complain about? Checking whether the issue is misconduct rather than disagreement with the decision JCIO guidance
JACO Complaints about how the JCIO or other investigating body handled your conduct complaint Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman
HMCTS complaint Court administration: lost documents, delay, staff handling, listing problems, missing orders HMCTS complaints procedure
Transcript request Obtaining a written record of what was said at the hearing Form EX107
Appeal Wrong decision, unfair process, procedural irregularity or unsafe findings Check the appeal route and deadline urgently. Family appeal deadlines can be short.

What a strong judicial conduct complaint should include

A strong complaint is specific, evidenced and focused on conduct. It should not simply say “the judge was biased” or “the judge was rude”. It should explain what happened.

Judicial conduct complaint checklist

  • Judge’s full name and court.
  • Case number, hearing date and hearing type.
  • Whether the hearing was in person, remote or hybrid.
  • Who was present.
  • What the judge said or did, using exact words where possible.
  • Approximate timing within the hearing.
  • Whether the conduct was repeated.
  • Whether anyone else witnessed it.
  • Whether a transcript has been requested.
  • Why the conduct was misconduct, not merely disagreement with the outcome.
  • Whether the conduct affected your ability to participate fairly.
  • Any relevant documents, orders, emails, notes or transcript extracts.

Examples of conduct that may justify a complaint

  • shouting, bullying or humiliating a party;
  • sexist, racist, ableist, homophobic or otherwise discriminatory language;
  • mocking a litigant in person’s lack of legal knowledge;
  • refusing to allow a party to speak in a way that appears personally hostile rather than case-management based;
  • repeatedly interrupting one party but not the other in a way that suggests hostility or bias;
  • making inappropriate personal comments;
  • appearing to prejudge a party because they are a litigant in person, survivor of abuse, father, mother, disabled person, neurodivergent person or migrant;
  • failing to declare a conflict of interest;
  • using judicial status for personal advantage;
  • sleeping during a hearing; or
  • behaviour that creates a hostile or intimidating court environment.

The JCIO guidance makes clear that it deals with misconduct by judicial office holders, not appeals against decisions. That limitation is important. But it must not become a shield for behaviour that is dressed up as “case management” when, in substance, it is bullying, humiliation, hostility or discriminatory conduct.

The family court transparency problem: gagged, frightened and often unheard

Judicial accountability is especially difficult in the family court because family proceedings are generally private. The reasons are obvious: children must be protected, identities often need to be anonymised, and intimate details of family life should not be exposed unnecessarily.

But privacy has a cost. It can make the family court feel like a closed room where poor professional conduct is hidden from public view. Litigants in person often describe feeling gagged, not because there is no route at all, but because the rules are complex, the consequences of getting it wrong can be serious, and the emotional pressure is enormous.

The transparency reforms are important. The family court reporting provisions were extended to all family courts in England and Wales from 27 January 2025, and government guidance explains how journalists and legal bloggers may attend and report on family court cases subject to transparency orders and anonymity protections.

That is progress. But it is not enough. Transparency that depends on journalists and legal bloggers attending a tiny fraction of hearings will not capture the day-to-day experience of litigants in person across the country. Many problematic interactions will never be observed by the press. Many poor hearings will never produce a published judgment. Many litigants will never complain because they fear retaliation, delay, cost or being labelled difficult.

The access to justice issue

If a represented party is mistreated, their advocate may intervene. If a litigant in person is mistreated, they may not know what to say, what to record, what to request, or where to complain. That imbalance is itself an access to justice problem.

Family justice cannot depend on silence. Privacy for children should not become privacy for poor conduct. The system needs a better way to protect anonymity while allowing patterns of judicial behaviour to be identified, reviewed and addressed.

Could AI help scrutinise judicial behaviour?

Artificial intelligence should not replace judges. It should not decide children’s futures. It should not become an unaccountable black-box evaluator of human decision-making. But AI could have a legitimate role in judicial accountability if designed carefully, transparently and with proper safeguards.

The family court already records hearings. Transcripts can be produced. Orders can be reviewed. Complaints can be logged. The missing piece is pattern recognition. One isolated complaint may be dismissed. Ten similar complaints may reveal something very different. AI, used responsibly, could help identify those patterns earlier.

Possible responsible uses of AI

  • Pattern detection: identifying repeated complaints about the same judge, same type of conduct, or same protected characteristic.
  • Transcript analysis: measuring interruption patterns, speaking time, hostile language, repeated dismissive phrases or asymmetric treatment between parties.
  • Litigant in person impact analysis: identifying whether unrepresented parties are interrupted more frequently or given less time to speak.
  • Safeguarding sensitivity review: identifying whether domestic abuse, coercive control, disability, neurodivergence or trauma issues are being minimised or mishandled.
  • Complaints triage: helping complaints bodies spot systemic concerns rather than treating every complaint as an isolated event.
  • Training feedback: providing anonymised feedback to judicial training bodies about recurring courtroom behaviour issues.

AI scrutiny must be independent, explainable and anonymised

AI should not become another opaque institution marking its own homework. Any AI-assisted judicial accountability system would need independent oversight, human review, transparent methodology, bias testing, anonymisation, data protection controls, and clear appeal mechanisms for judges and court users alike.

The objective is not to create a hostile environment for judges. It is to build a fairer evidence base. Good judges should welcome proper scrutiny because scrutiny protects public confidence. Poor conduct should not be hidden behind the fact that most litigants cannot afford a transcript, do not understand the complaints route, and are terrified of speaking out.

What reform should look like

If judicial accountability is to be meaningful, reform needs to go beyond telling court users to fill in a complaint form.

1. Complaints should be assessed collectively where patterns are alleged

Where multiple people complain about similar behaviour by the same judge, the complaints body should consider whether there is a pattern. Treating each complaint as an isolated event can obscure precisely the thing the system needs to see.

2. Litigants should have better access to transcripts where conduct is challenged

If a complaint is rejected because a litigant cannot provide sufficient detail, but that litigant cannot access the material needed to provide that detail, the process becomes circular and unfair. There should be a clearer, faster and more affordable transcript route where alleged judicial misconduct is in issue.

3. The boundary between “case management” and “misconduct” must be applied realistically

Judges must manage cases. They must stop irrelevant questioning, control time, prevent abuse of process and keep hearings focused. But “case management” should not become a magic label that excludes bullying, intimidation, hostility or discriminatory treatment from scrutiny.

4. Litigants in person need plain-English guidance at court

Courts should provide practical guidance explaining the difference between appeal, conduct complaint, HMCTS complaint, transcript request and recusal. Litigants should not have to discover these routes through trauma, internet searches and trial-and-error.

5. Family court transparency must be strengthened without exposing children

The expansion of reporting provisions is welcome, but more is needed. Anonymity for children must remain central. But anonymity should not be used as a reason to prevent proper scrutiny of institutional behaviour, judicial culture or repeated procedural unfairness.

6. Judicial training should include trauma, domestic abuse, coercive control and litigants in person

A judge who does not understand trauma can mistake distress for evasiveness. A judge who does not understand coercive control can mistake fear for hostility. A judge who does not understand litigants in person can mistake confusion for non-compliance. The courtroom atmosphere is not cosmetic. It is part of procedural fairness.

7. The complaints system must command confidence

A watchdog that is perceived as defensive, inaccessible or reluctant to investigate patterns will not command public confidence. Judicial accountability requires a complaints process that is independent in substance, not just in structure.

Practical summary for litigants in person

  1. Do not assume every bad outcome is misconduct. Sometimes the route is appeal.
  2. Do not assume every judicial behaviour issue is “just how court is”. Bullying and humiliation are not acceptable.
  3. Write a detailed note immediately after the hearing. Include exact words and who witnessed them.
  4. Request the sealed order. Check whether it accurately records key procedural issues.
  5. Consider a transcript. Use Form EX107 where appropriate.
  6. Keep complaints factual. Avoid insults, emotion-heavy generalisations or unfounded allegations.
  7. Separate the routes. Appeal the decision if necessary; complain about conduct if misconduct is the issue.
  8. Act quickly. Complaint and appeal deadlines can be short.
  9. Get support. A litigant in person should not have to navigate this alone.

Need help preparing for family court?

JSH Law supports litigants in person with family court preparation, statements, chronologies, hearing notes, bundle organisation, safeguarding issues, Cafcass concerns and practical procedural support.

If you are worried about how you were treated in court, or you need help separating an appeal issue from a conduct complaint, you can book an initial consultation below.

Final thought: accountability protects justice

The justice system depends on public confidence. That confidence is not built by pretending poor judicial behaviour never happens. It is built by confronting it honestly, investigating it properly, and ensuring that litigants in person are not left powerless in rooms where everyone else understands the rules.

Good judges deserve respect. Vulnerable court users deserve dignity. Children deserve decisions made in a fair process. And the public deserves a justice system where judicial power is exercised with humanity, restraint and accountability.

Judicial independence matters. So does judicial responsibility. The two are not enemies. They are both essential to the rule of law.

Useful links and further reading

Jessica Susan Hill of JSH Law

About the author

Jessica Susan Hill is the founder of JSH Law, supporting litigants in person with practical family court preparation, document organisation, hearing support, chronologies, position statements and procedural guidance. Jessica writes about access to justice, family court reform, domestic abuse, safeguarding and the role of legal technology in improving outcomes for court users.

JSH Law is focused on helping litigants in person feel more prepared, more organised and less alone when navigating the family justice system.

Regulatory & Editorial Notice

This article is provided for general public legal education and commentary only. It is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as a substitute for advice from a qualified solicitor, barrister or other authorised legal professional on the facts of an individual case.

JSH Law is not regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and does not conduct reserved legal activities. Support is provided to litigants in person in a practical, procedural and document-preparation capacity. Where advocacy, conduct of litigation, rights of audience, appeal advice or formal legal representation are required, readers should seek assistance from an appropriately authorised legal professional.

References to third-party posts, public commentary, judicial complaints or reported cases are included for public-interest discussion. Allegations remain allegations unless and until formally determined by the appropriate body or court. Readers should not publish identifying information from family proceedings without checking the applicable reporting restrictions, transparency order, court order and legal position.

“`

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

/0 Comments/in , , /by

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:

  1. Page / paragraph reference
  2. What Cafcass says
  3. Why you say it is wrong or incomplete
  4. 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

  1. Introduction — who you are and what hearing this is.
  2. Current position — what arrangements are currently in place.
  3. Key issues — the issues the court needs to decide.
  4. Safeguarding — any relevant risk concerns, briefly and clearly.
  5. Cafcass / reports — what you agree with and what you dispute.
  6. Welfare analysis — why your proposal meets the child’s welfare needs.
  7. 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.

“`

Have You Ever Paid for a Court Transcript — and How Much Did It Cost You?

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

Have you ever tried to get a transcript of your own court hearing — and been told it could cost hundreds, sometimes thousands of pounds? Most litigants in person don’t even realise transcripts aren’t automatically provided, let alone that access to the full record of what was said in their case sits behind a paywall. Yet that record can be the difference between a successful appeal and a dead end. With Parliament now debating whether court transcripts should be free, it raises a simple but uncomfortable question: should access to justice depend on your ability to pay for it?

Key Takeaways for Litigants in Person
  • You are entitled to a written court order or judgment — but this is NOT the same as a full transcript.
  • Transcripts can cost hundreds or thousands of pounds — creating a real barrier to appeals.
  • You can request transcripts using Form EX107 (and EX107H for sentencing remarks).
  • Part of the judge’s reasoning may appear in the order — but often crucial detail is missing.
  • If the other side drafts the order, it may not fully reflect what happened in court.

Have You Ever Paid for a Court Transcript — and How Much Did It Cost You?

This is not a theoretical question. It is a real, pressing issue for thousands of litigants in person across England and Wales.

A recent UK Parliament petition — “Make all court and tribunal transcripts available free of charge” — has brought the issue sharply into focus.

With over 200,000 signatures, it has now been debated in Parliament. The message from the public is clear:

Justice should not come with a price tag.

Why This Matters (Especially for Litigants in Person)

If you are representing yourself, your case does not end when you walk out of court.

What matters — often critically — is:

  • What the judge actually said
  • How findings were made
  • What reasoning underpins the decision

And here is the problem:

You usually don’t have access to that — unless you pay.

Transcripts are not automatically provided. In many cases, they must be:

  • Requested
  • Approved
  • Prepared by a transcription service
  • Paid for in advance

Costs can run into the hundreds or even thousands of pounds.

“But I Got a Court Order — Isn’t That Enough?”

No — and this is where many litigants in person are caught out.

The court order:

  • Summarises the outcome
  • May include limited reasoning
  • Is often drafted by one party’s legal representative

It does not capture:

  • The full judicial reasoning
  • Oral findings made during the hearing
  • Judicial comments on credibility or evidence

In practice, this means:

Key parts of your case may exist only in the courtroom — and nowhere else.

That becomes a serious problem if you need to:

  • Appeal
  • Challenge findings
  • Correct inaccuracies in an order

The Reality: A Paywall on Justice

The petition describes it plainly — and accurately:

A “paywall” for justice.

If you cannot afford a transcript, you are effectively locked out of:

  • Proper appellate review
  • Accountability of judicial reasoning
  • A complete record of your own case

For represented parties, this cost may be absorbed into legal fees.

For litigants in person, it is often prohibitive.

The Government’s Response (March 2026)

The Government has acknowledged the issue — but stopped short of committing to free transcripts.

Government Response (3 March 2026):

The Government is committed to strengthening transparency across the justice system and is already taking significant steps across all jurisdictions.

In the Crown Court, sentencing remarks are now published online in cases of significant public interest, and judges can also permit broadcasters to film Crown Court sentencing remarks, ensuring greater public visibility of judicial decisions. Victims of rape and serious sexual offences and bereaved families of victims of homicide, manslaughter and fatal road accidents are already entitled to free transcripts of Crown Court sentencing remarks.

These can be requested here: Apply for a transcript of a judge’s sentencing remarks: Form EX107H .

From Spring 2027, the Government is expanding free access to Crown Court sentencing remarks to all victims, ensuring these remarks are provided in time to support any application to the Unduly Lenient Sentencing Scheme.

In the family court, the Government is supporting increased publication of anonymised judgments and implementing Transparency Orders (effective 29 September 2025 for children’s cases).

In civil proceedings, parties already receive the written order or judgment without charge.

In tribunal proceedings, decisions and reasons are generally provided free of charge, with fuller reasons available on request in many cases.

However, the Government states that making all transcripts free would create significant financial and operational pressure. Producing transcripts is resource-intensive and requires careful quality assurance and compliance with reporting restrictions.

The Ministry of Justice is exploring the use of AI to produce transcripts more quickly and cost-effectively while maintaining accuracy and safeguarding standards.

Ministry of Justice

What This Means in Practice

The Government’s position is clear:

  • Transparency is increasing — but incrementally
  • Full free access to transcripts is not currently viable

That leaves litigants in person in a difficult position:

You are expected to navigate appeals and complex proceedings without access to the full record — unless you can afford it.

How to Request a Transcript (What You Need to Know)

If you decide you need a transcript:

  • You must complete Form EX107
  • Submit it to the court
  • Wait for judicial approval
  • Obtain a quote from an approved transcription provider

For sentencing remarks specifically, you can use:

Form EX107H — Apply for a transcript of a judge’s sentencing remarks

Before you apply, ask yourself:

  • Do I need the full hearing transcript — or just part?
  • Is there enough reasoning already in the order?
  • Can I narrow the request to reduce cost?

A Critical Point Most Litigants Miss

Part of the judgment is often embedded within the court order.

But here is the risk:

If the order is drafted by the other side’s barrister, it may:

  • Frame findings in their favour
  • Omit nuance
  • Exclude important oral reasoning

That is why:

You must always check the draft order against what actually happened in court.

If necessary, you can:

  • Challenge the wording
  • Submit your own draft
  • Request clarification from the judge

Where This Is Going: AI and the Future of Transcripts

The Government has signalled a clear direction:

AI-assisted transcription.

If implemented properly, this could:

  • Reduce costs dramatically
  • Increase accessibility
  • Improve consistency across courts

But until that becomes operational, the current system remains:

Expensive, slow, and unequal.

Final Thought — and a Question for You

If you have applied for a court transcript, your experience matters.

How much did it cost you?

Was it worth it?

And more importantly:

Should access to your own case depend on your ability to pay?

If you need support reviewing your court order, preparing for appeal, or deciding whether a transcript is necessary, you can book a consultation below.

Regulatory & Editorial Notice: JSH Law Ltd is not a firm of solicitors and does not provide regulated legal services. This article is for general information and strategic guidance only. It reflects publicly available materials and commentary on matters of public interest. Links to third-party content are provided for reference and do not imply endorsement.

Useful Links for Litigants in Person

The Unregulated Legal Support Market Is Changing – And Not Everyone Will Survive Mazur | JSH Law

/0 Comments/in , /by

For years, the unregulated legal support market has operated in a space shaped more by necessity than structure. As increasing numbers of litigants in person entered the family courts, support services evolved to fill a widening gap—often quickly, and not always with clearly defined boundaries. The High Court decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP marks a turning point. It does not change the law, but it does change how closely that law is now being examined in practice. The result is a shift that will not affect everyone equally—and not every model will survive it.

The Unregulated Legal Support Market Is Changing – And Not Everyone Will Survive Mazur | JSH Law
Key Takeaways
  • The unregulated legal support market is entering a period of increased scrutiny.
  • The distinction between support and conduct of litigation is now central.
  • Models that blur this line are likely to face challenge.
  • Structured, transparent support models will become the standard.
  • This shift will reshape access to justice, not remove it.

The Unregulated Legal Support Market Is Changing – And Not Everyone Will Survive Mazur

For years, the unregulated legal support market has operated in a space that was, if not undefined, then at least loosely interpreted in practice.

That space emerged out of necessity. As the number of litigants in person increased—particularly in the family courts—the demand for accessible, affordable support grew with it. In response, a wide range of support models developed, from informal assistance through to highly structured services.

Some of those models have provided genuine value. Others have blurred lines that were always present in law but not always enforced in practice.

The High Court decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) signals that this period of ambiguity is coming to an end.

The question is no longer whether the line exists. It is whether it is being respected.

—

A Market Built on Demand

To understand the significance of this shift, it is necessary to understand how the current landscape developed.

Over the past decade, the reduction in legal aid and the increasing cost of private representation have resulted in a substantial rise in litigants in person. In family proceedings, this is no longer the exception—it is the norm.

Where demand exists, supply follows.

The result has been the growth of an unregulated support sector, offering services that range from basic administrative help to full-scale case preparation.

In many instances, these services have filled a critical gap.

But the absence of clear structural boundaries has also led to inconsistency in how those services are delivered.

—

The Legal Position Was Always Clear

It is important to be precise about one point.

The legal framework has not changed.

The Legal Services Act 2007 has always made clear that “conduct of litigation” is a reserved legal activity. Only authorised or exempt individuals are permitted to carry it out.

What has changed is the level of attention being given to that distinction.

The decision in Mazur reinforces a strict interpretation of the law and, more importantly, signals that the courts are prepared to look beyond labels and examine what is actually happening in practice.

This is a shift from form to substance.

—

From Labels to Reality

For some time, the terminology used within the unregulated sector has allowed for a degree of flexibility.

Terms such as “support”, “assistance”, or “case help” can describe a wide range of activity.

The issue is that the law is not concerned with terminology. It is concerned with function.

If a person is, in substance, making decisions, managing the case, and acting on behalf of the litigant, then the question becomes whether they are conducting litigation—regardless of how their role is described.

This is where the impact of Mazur is most significant.

The focus is now on what is being done, not what it is called.

—

What This Means for the Sector

This shift is likely to have a filtering effect on the market.

Models that are clearly structured, transparent, and compliant with the legal framework are likely to adapt and continue.

Models that rely on blurred boundaries may find themselves under increasing pressure.

This pressure may come from multiple directions:

  • Opposing parties raising procedural challenges
  • Courts scrutinising the role of those involved in a case
  • Increased awareness among litigants themselves

Over time, this is likely to lead to a more defined and professionalised support landscape.

—

The Risk of Misinterpretation

There is, however, a risk that this development is misunderstood.

It would be easy to interpret Mazur as a restriction on support for litigants in person.

That would be the wrong conclusion.

The need for support has not diminished. If anything, it has increased.

The issue is not whether support should exist.

It is how that support is structured.

Well-structured support enhances access to justice. Poorly structured support can undermine it.

—

A Turning Point for Professional Standards

This moment represents an opportunity as much as a challenge.

For those operating within the unregulated sector, it creates a clear incentive to:

  • Define their role precisely
  • Ensure that litigants remain in control of their cases
  • Operate transparently and consistently

In doing so, the sector has the potential to evolve.

From a loosely defined collection of services into a more structured, credible, and trusted component of the justice system.

—

The Future of Legal Support

Looking ahead, the likely trajectory is not the disappearance of unregulated support, but its refinement.

We are likely to see:

  • Clearer distinctions between support and representation
  • More structured service models
  • Greater awareness among litigants of their own role and responsibility

This aligns with a broader trend within the legal system.

One in which accessibility, transparency, and accountability are becoming increasingly central.

—

Final Thoughts

The unregulated legal support market was shaped by necessity.

It is now being shaped by scrutiny.

The decision in Mazur does not close the door on support.

It defines the terms on which that support can operate.

Those who adapt to that structure will continue to provide value. Those who do not may find that the space they have relied upon no longer exists in the same way.

This is not the end of the sector.

It is the beginning of a more defined one.

—

Structured Support That Works With the Law

If you are navigating proceedings as a litigant in person and want support that is both effective and properly structured, you can book an initial consultation below.

—

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

McKenzie Friend vs Running Your Case: Where the Legal Line Now Sits After Mazur

/0 Comments/in , /by

There has always been a quiet grey area in the family courts around what a McKenzie Friend actually does in practice. Many litigants in person rely heavily on support, and in some cases that support can become so involved that it begins to look like the case is being run for them. Following the High Court decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP, that grey area has now been brought into sharp focus. The court has made it clear that there is a legal boundary between supporting a case and conducting it—and understanding that boundary is now essential for anyone navigating proceedings without a solicitor.

McKenzie Friend vs Running Your Case: Where the Legal Line Now Sits | JSH Law Legal consultation and court paperwork discussion
Key Takeaways for Litigants in Person
  • A McKenzie Friend provides support — they do not run your case.
  • Only authorised or exempt individuals can conduct litigation.
  • The key legal test is who is in control of the case.
  • Crossing the line can expose your case to challenge.
  • Structured support strengthens your position; loss of control weakens it.

McKenzie Friend vs Running Your Case: Where the Legal Line Now Sits

There has always been a degree of confusion around the role of a McKenzie Friend.

For many litigants in person, the distinction feels blurred. You have support. That support may be experienced, knowledgeable, and heavily involved in your case. In practical terms, it can sometimes feel as though that person is “handling things” for you.

But following the High Court decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), that distinction is no longer something that can be left unclear.

The law draws a firm line between supporting a case and conducting it.

Understanding where that line sits is now essential.

—

The Role of a McKenzie Friend — What It Is Meant to Be

The role of a McKenzie Friend is well established in the courts of England and Wales. It exists to support litigants in person, particularly in complex or emotionally demanding proceedings such as family cases.

At its core, the role is supportive.

A McKenzie Friend may:

  • Assist with preparing documents
  • Help organise evidence
  • Provide guidance on procedure and strategy
  • Take notes during hearings
  • Offer quiet assistance in court

In some circumstances, and only with the court’s permission, they may also be allowed to address the court.

But even then, the underlying position does not change:

The litigant remains in control of their case.

—

What “Running the Case” Actually Means

This is where the distinction becomes critical.

Running a case—legally described as “conducting litigation”—goes beyond support. It involves:

  • Making decisions about how the case progresses
  • Sending correspondence on behalf of the party
  • Managing filings and procedural steps
  • Taking responsibility for how the case is conducted

These are not simply administrative tasks. They are the core functions of legal representation.

Under the Legal Services Act 2007, they are reserved to authorised or exempt individuals.

This is the line that Mazur has brought back into sharp focus.

—

Why This Line Matters Now More Than Ever

For years, there has been a degree of practical flexibility in how cases are supported, particularly where litigants in person are concerned.

That flexibility has, in some areas, led to roles becoming blurred.

The decision in Mazur does not introduce a new rule. What it does is reinforce the existing one—and signal that it will be taken seriously.

The courts are now more alert to:

  • Who is actually making decisions
  • Who is sending communications
  • Who appears to be in control of the case

If the answer is not the litigant, questions may arise.

—

The Practical Difference — Control

The easiest way to understand the distinction is this:

A McKenzie Friend supports your case. They do not control it.

In a properly structured case:

  • You decide what to do
  • You approve every document
  • You send communications in your own name
  • You take responsibility for the case

Support sits behind that process, not in place of it.

Where that structure is clear, there is no difficulty.

Where it is not, that is where risk begins.

—

How the Line Gets Crossed (Often Without Realising)

In practice, the line is rarely crossed deliberately.

It tends to happen gradually.

A litigant feels overwhelmed. Someone steps in to “help more”. That help becomes more hands-on. Decisions start being made. Emails start being sent. The case begins to feel as though it is being handled by someone else.

At that point, the structure has shifted.

What began as support may now look, from the outside, like conduct.

And it is how it appears externally that matters.

—

Why This Can Affect Your Case

If the distinction is not maintained, the issue is not simply theoretical.

It can become a point of challenge.

The other side may argue:

  • That your case has not been properly conducted
  • That procedural steps are open to question
  • That your position should be treated with caution

Even if those arguments do not ultimately succeed, they can create distraction, delay, and pressure.

In litigation, that matters.

—

The Strongest Position You Can Be In

The strongest position is one where the structure of your case is clear, transparent, and beyond challenge.

That means:

  • You are visibly in control
  • Your decisions are your own
  • Your documents reflect your position
  • Your case is supported, but not run by someone else

This does not weaken your case.

It strengthens it.

—

A Better Way to Think About Support

The most effective support model is not one where someone takes over.

It is one where you are equipped.

Where:

  • Your case is structured properly
  • Your evidence is organised clearly
  • Your arguments are prepared carefully
  • You understand what you are doing and why

That is what good support looks like.

It is not about removing your role.

It is about strengthening it.

—

Final Thoughts

The distinction between a McKenzie Friend and someone running a case has always existed.

What Mazur has done is make it impossible to ignore.

Support is allowed. Conduct is restricted. Control must remain with the litigant.

Once that is understood and properly structured, the position becomes clear—and your case becomes stronger for it.

—

Need Structured Support Without Risk?

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

—

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

Could Your Case Be Invalid? The Hidden Risk After Mazur

/0 Comments/in , /by

Most litigants in person focus on the evidence in their case—what happened, what can be proven, and what outcome they are asking the court to make. But following the High Court decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP, there is another issue that is now just as important: who is actually running your case. If that line is blurred, it can create risks that go beyond the facts themselves—affecting how your case is viewed, how it is challenged, and ultimately how strong your position really is.

Could Your Case Be Invalid? The Hidden Risk After Mazur | JSH Law
Key Takeaways for Litigants in Person
  • If someone else is effectively running your case, it may create legal risk.
  • Only authorised or exempt individuals can conduct litigation.
  • The court is increasingly alert to who is actually in control of a case.
  • Opponents may use this issue tactically against you.
  • You must remain visibly and practically in control at all times.

Could Your Case Be Invalid? The Hidden Risk After Mazur

Most litigants in person are focused on the facts of their case.

What happened. What the evidence shows. What outcome they are asking the court to make.

But following the High Court decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), there is another issue that cannot be ignored:

Who is actually running your case?

Because if the answer is “not you”, there may now be risks that many people simply haven’t considered.

—

Why This Issue Matters More Than Ever

The court in Mazur made it clear that “conduct of litigation” is a reserved legal activity. Only authorised or exempt individuals can carry it out.

This is not new law.

What has changed is how clearly—and how strictly—the courts are now prepared to apply it.

That means the question of who is in control of a case is no longer just technical. It can become a live issue.

—

What Could Go Wrong?

If someone else is effectively running your case—making decisions, sending correspondence on your behalf, or managing the process—you may face:

  • Challenges from the other side about how your case has been conducted
  • Increased scrutiny from the court
  • Arguments that your case has not been properly managed

This does not automatically mean your case is “invalid”.

But it does mean that your position may be more open to challenge than you expect.

—

The Tactical Reality

Family proceedings are often hard-fought.

Where an opportunity exists to challenge the other party’s position, it is often taken.

Following Mazur, one such line of challenge may be:

“This case has not been conducted properly.”

Even raising that argument can:

  • Shift focus away from your core case
  • Create additional pressure
  • Undermine how your case is perceived

That is a risk worth managing carefully.

—

The Most Common Misunderstanding

Many litigants assume that as long as they have help, they are protected.

That is not the test.

The test is control.

Are you the one making the decisions and taking the steps in your case?

If the answer is unclear, that is where problems can begin.

—

What a Safe Structure Looks Like

A properly structured case will always show that:

  • You make the decisions
  • You approve all documents
  • You send communications in your own name
  • You sign and file everything

Support can sit behind that.

It can be strong, detailed, and strategic.

But it must remain support.

—

Red Flags to Watch For

If any of the following are happening, it is worth stepping back and reassessing:

  • Someone else is emailing the court or the other side on your behalf
  • Documents are being sent without your clear approval
  • Decisions are being made “for you”
  • You feel like you are not fully in control of your case

These are not just practical concerns—they may now carry legal significance.

—

Staying in Control Strengthens Your Case

This is not just about avoiding risk.

When you are clearly in control of your case:

  • Your credibility improves
  • Your position is harder to challenge
  • Your case presentation becomes more coherent

Structure is not a limitation.

It is an advantage.

—

Final Thoughts

The decision in Mazur does not mean you should face proceedings alone.

It means that how your support is structured now matters more than ever.

The strongest position is one where you are clearly in control, supported by the right structure behind you.

Get that right, and your case remains focused where it should be—on the outcome for you and your family.

—

Need Structured Support With Your Case?

If you are a litigant in person and want support that strengthens your case without exposing you to unnecessary risk, you can book an initial consultation below.

—

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

Mazur Explained: The Case That Changes Who Can Run Your Court Case | JSH Law

/0 Comments/in , /by

The High Court has just drawn a firm line around who is actually allowed to run a court case—and it’s a line many people have been crossing without realising. In Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), the court made it clear that only authorised or exempt individuals can conduct litigation, and that supervision is not enough. For litigants in person, this is not just a technical legal point—it goes directly to how your case is handled, how it is perceived by the court, and whether your position is open to challenge.

Mazur Explained: The Case That Changes Who Can Run Your Court Case | JSH Law High Court legal proceedings and litigation documents
Key Takeaways for Litigants in Person
  • Only authorised or exempt individuals can legally conduct litigation.
  • Even well-meaning support can cross the line if someone starts running your case.
  • You must remain in control of your case at all times.
  • Getting this wrong can expose your case to challenge or criticism.
  • Structured, compliant support can strengthen your position significantly.

Mazur Explained: The Case That Changes Who Can Run Your Court Case

There has been a significant shift in how the courts are approaching who is actually allowed to run a case.

The High Court decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) has clarified something that, until now, many people in the legal world had quietly blurred:

Only certain people are legally allowed to conduct litigation — and supervision is not enough.

For litigants in person, this matters more than you might realise.

—

What Happened in Mazur?

The case arose from a situation where work on a legal matter had been carried out by someone who was not an authorised solicitor or exempt person, but who was working within a legal environment.

The argument was that because this individual was supervised, their actions were acceptable.

The High Court disagreed.

The judgment made it clear that:

  • “Conduct of litigation” is a reserved legal activity under the Legal Services Act 2007
  • Only authorised or exempt individuals can carry it out
  • Supervision by a solicitor does not make an unauthorised person compliant

This was not a new rule — but it is now being applied much more strictly.

—

What Does “Conduct of Litigation” Actually Mean?

This is the critical question.

It does not just mean standing up in court. It includes:

  • Making decisions about how the case is run
  • Sending correspondence on behalf of a party
  • Filing documents
  • Taking responsibility for procedural steps

In simple terms:

If someone else is effectively running your case — they may be conducting litigation.

—

Why This Matters for Litigants in Person

Many litigants in person rely on support. That support can be incredibly valuable — and in many cases, essential.

But there is now a much sharper line between:

  • Support (which is allowed), and
  • Conduct (which is restricted)

If that line is crossed, it can lead to:

  • Challenges from the other side
  • Increased scrutiny from the court
  • Questions about how the case has been handled

This is not about creating fear — it is about understanding how to stay on solid ground.

—

The Difference Between Support and Running the Case

A properly structured support model looks like this:

  • You make the decisions
  • You send the emails
  • You sign and file the documents
  • You speak for yourself in court

Support can include:

  • Drafting documents for you
  • Helping you prepare your case
  • Advising you on strategy
  • Assisting you in court as a McKenzie Friend

The key distinction is control.

You must remain in control of your case at all times.

—

What This Means in Practice

If you are receiving support, you should always be able to say:

  • “I reviewed and approved this document”
  • “I chose to send this”
  • “These are my instructions”

That clarity protects you.

It also strengthens your credibility in court.

—

A Shift in the Legal Landscape

This decision reflects a wider shift.

The courts are becoming more alert to:

  • Who is actually running a case
  • Whether the proper boundaries are being respected
  • How unregulated support is being used

At the same time, the reality remains:

Access to justice increasingly depends on litigants in person having the right support.

The answer is not less support.

It is better-structured support.

—

Final Thoughts

Mazur does not remove your ability to get help.

What it does is make one thing very clear:

There is a right way to do this — and a wrong way.

If your case is structured properly, support can be a powerful advantage.

If it is not, it can become a vulnerability.

Understanding that distinction is now essential.

—

Need Support With Your Case?

If you are navigating proceedings as a litigant in person and want structured, strategic support that keeps your case clear, compliant and strong, you can book an initial consultation below.

—

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

When Support Becomes Risk: Domestic Abuse Advocacy, McKenzie Friends and Access to Justice in Family Court

/0 Comments/in , /by

The legal sector’s wellbeing crisis for women is well documented—but for those supporting litigants in person in family court, the issue runs deeper. This article examines the hidden risks faced by domestic abuse advocates and McKenzie Friends, and why their vulnerability is not just personal, but a systemic access-to-justice concern.

Key takeaways for litigants in person:
  • Support from McKenzie Friends and domestic abuse advocates is often critical—but not formally protected within the legal system.
  • High-conflict family proceedings can lead to allegations being used tactically, sometimes extending to those providing support.
  • The removal or disruption of support—whether through complaints, threats, or police involvement—can significantly impact case outcomes.
  • This is not just a wellbeing issue; it is an access-to-justice issue affecting fairness in family proceedings.
  • Litigants should document all interactions, maintain clear boundaries, and ensure their support network is strategically structured.

When Support Becomes Risk: The Hidden Cost of Domestic Abuse Advocacy in Family Court

Clarity. Strategy. Confidence.

The legal sector is increasingly confronting a difficult truth: women working within it—particularly in high-conflict practice areas—are experiencing sustained levels of burnout, stress, and systemic pressure that are not being adequately addressed.

Recent findings from organisations such as :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0} highlight a stark reality. Women in law report lower wellbeing scores and higher levels of burnout than their male counterparts. The causes are often framed in familiar terms: long hours, billable targets, and the ongoing challenge of balancing professional and personal responsibilities.

But this framing, while valid, is incomplete.

There is a more complex—and more uncomfortable—issue operating beneath the surface. One that is rarely acknowledged in formal surveys, policy discussions, or institutional responses.

What happens when the act of supporting vulnerable clients becomes a risk to your own safety, reputation, and liberty?

This is the reality for many women working alongside litigants in person in the family courts—particularly those operating as McKenzie Friends, legal consultants, and domestic abuse advocates.

The Expanding Role of Support in Family Proceedings

The modern family court is increasingly populated by litigants in person (LiPs). This is not a marginal trend—it is structural.

Legal aid restrictions, rising costs, and the complexity of proceedings have resulted in a system where individuals are expected to navigate deeply personal, high-stakes litigation without formal representation.

Into this gap step support providers:

  • McKenzie Friends
  • Independent legal consultants
  • Domestic abuse advocates
  • Peer supporters and campaigners

These roles are not merely administrative. In practice, they involve:

  • Preparing bundles and chronologies
  • Drafting position statements and responses
  • Advising on litigation strategy
  • Supporting clients emotionally through proceedings
  • Ensuring safeguarding concerns are properly articulated

In many cases, this support is the difference between a litigant being able to meaningfully participate in proceedings—or being overwhelmed by them.

Yet despite the critical nature of this work, these roles remain largely unregulated, unsupported, and unprotected.

The Gendered Reality of Advocacy Work

It is not coincidental that many of those providing this form of support are women.

Family law, domestic abuse advocacy, and child welfare work are all areas where female participation is high. These roles often attract individuals with lived experience, strong safeguarding instincts, and a commitment to protecting vulnerable parties.

But with that commitment comes exposure.

Exposure to:

  • High-conflict disputes
  • Allegations and counter-allegations
  • Emotional volatility
  • Procedural pressure
  • Institutional opacity

And increasingly, exposure to something more concerning: personal risk arising from the cases themselves.

When Allegations Expand Beyond the Parties

Family proceedings—particularly those involving allegations of domestic abuse—are inherently adversarial. Where credibility is central, narratives matter. Evidence matters. Framing matters.

Within this environment, it is not uncommon for allegations to escalate.

What is less openly discussed is how those allegations can extend beyond the parties themselves.

Support providers may find themselves:

  • Named in correspondence or complaints
  • Accused of influencing or coaching litigants
  • Drawn into disputes between the parties
  • Subject to reputational attacks

In some cases, these dynamics go further.

There are increasing concerns that legal and procedural mechanisms—including complaints and, in certain circumstances, police involvement—can be used in a way that has the effect of removing or discrediting those providing support.

This is a critical point.

The issue is not whether allegations are always unfounded. Clearly, that is not the case. But the system must recognise that in a high-conflict environment, allegations can also be strategic.

And when they are, the consequences extend beyond the immediate parties.

The Immediate Impact: Disruption of Support

The removal of a support provider—whether through fear, pressure, or formal intervention—has immediate consequences.

For the litigant in person, it can mean:

  • Loss of continuity in case preparation
  • Inability to respond effectively to allegations
  • Increased emotional distress
  • Procedural disadvantage at hearings

For the support provider, it can mean:

  • Reputational damage
  • Emotional and psychological strain
  • Withdrawal from advocacy work entirely
  • Reluctance to support future clients

This creates what can only be described as a chilling effect.

Capable, committed individuals begin to step back—not because the work is unnecessary, but because the risk becomes unsustainable.

Secondary Trauma and Systemic Blind Spots

Even without direct legal or reputational risk, the nature of domestic abuse advocacy carries a significant emotional burden.

Support providers are routinely exposed to:

  • Detailed accounts of abuse
  • Safeguarding concerns involving children
  • Evidence of coercive and controlling behaviour
  • Prolonged litigation cycles with uncertain outcomes

This is, in effect, secondary trauma.

Yet unlike regulated professionals, many support providers operate without:

  • Formal supervision
  • Access to structured mental health support
  • Clear professional boundaries recognised by the system
  • Institutional backing

When this emotional burden is combined with the risk of being drawn into the dispute itself, the impact on wellbeing becomes significant.

The Access to Justice Problem

This is where the issue moves beyond individual wellbeing and into systemic concern.

The family justice system relies—whether explicitly or implicitly—on the presence of informal support structures for litigants in person.

If those structures become unstable or unsafe, the consequences are predictable:

  • Reduced quality of evidence presented to the court
  • Increased procedural errors
  • Greater strain on judicial time and resources
  • Outcomes that may not fully reflect the child’s welfare

In domestic abuse cases, where safeguarding is paramount, the stakes are even higher.

The removal of informed, consistent support can directly affect how concerns are articulated, understood, and ultimately determined.

This is not a peripheral issue.

It goes to the heart of fairness in proceedings.

The Regulatory Gap

At present, there is no comprehensive framework governing the role, protection, or accountability of individuals providing litigation support outside of regulated legal practice.

McKenzie Friends, in particular, occupy a legally recognised but operationally ambiguous position.

They are permitted to:

  • Provide assistance with case preparation
  • Offer support in court
  • Take notes and quietly advise

But they are not afforded:

  • Clear professional protections
  • Defined safeguards against misuse of allegations
  • Consistent recognition of their role within proceedings

This creates a structural imbalance.

Support is permitted—but not protected.

What Needs to Change

If the legal sector is serious about addressing the wellbeing of women working within it, this issue cannot be ignored.

Meaningful reform requires a shift in perspective.

1. Recognition of the Role

There must be formal recognition of the contribution made by litigation support providers in family proceedings.

This includes acknowledging:

  • The complexity of the work undertaken
  • The safeguarding context in which it operates
  • The reliance placed on it by litigants in person

2. Clear Guidance and Boundaries

The system requires clearer guidance on:

  • The scope of permissible support
  • The distinction between assistance and interference
  • The appropriate treatment of support providers within proceedings

3. Safeguards Against Misuse

Mechanisms must be considered to prevent the misuse of complaints, allegations, or processes in a way that disrupts lawful support.

This is not about shielding individuals from accountability.

It is about ensuring that the system cannot be used tactically to remove support where it is legitimately provided.

4. Wellbeing Support and Awareness

Workforce wellbeing strategies must extend beyond traditional legal roles.

This includes:

  • Recognition of secondary trauma
  • Access to support resources
  • Inclusion of advocacy roles in wellbeing discussions

A Strategic Reality

For those currently operating in this space, the reality is clear.

This work is essential—but it is not without risk.

That risk must be managed strategically.

This includes:

  • Maintaining clear professional boundaries
  • Documenting all interactions and advice
  • Avoiding direct involvement in disputes between parties
  • Ensuring communications are measured and evidence-based

Above all, it requires an understanding that the environment is not neutral.

Family proceedings—particularly those involving allegations—are dynamic, contested, and, at times, unpredictable.

Conclusion: Beyond Wellbeing

The conversation about women’s wellbeing in the legal sector is necessary—and overdue.

But it must go further.

It must recognise that in certain areas of practice, the issue is not simply one of workload or workplace culture.

It is one of risk.

Risk to reputation.

Risk to mental health.

And, in some cases, risk arising directly from the act of providing support itself.

Until this is acknowledged—and addressed—the system will continue to rely on individuals who are operating without the protections that their role demands.

And litigants in person, particularly those navigating domestic abuse cases, will continue to face proceedings without the consistent support they need.

Clarity. Strategy. Confidence.

Those principles do not apply only to litigation.

They must apply to the system itself.

Need structured support in your case?
Litigation Support | Family Law Strategy | AI-Enabled Legal Systems

Book a 15-minute initial consultation

Regulatory & Editorial Notice:
JSH Law Ltd is not a firm of solicitors and does not provide reserved legal activities. The content of this article is for information and commentary purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Any references to systemic issues or procedural concerns are based on general observations within the family justice system and should not be taken as findings in any individual case.

Start Here: Inside the UK Supreme Court — What Litigants in Person Need to Understand About How Judges Think

/0 Comments/in /by

This “Start Here” resource takes you inside the UK Supreme Court through a powerful documentary that humanises the justices and explains how decisions are made at the highest level. While most litigants in person will never appear before the Supreme Court, the judicial mindset you see in this film filters down through every level of the court system — including the Family Court. The documentary explores how judges approach cases with detachment, discipline and structured reasoning, and why impartiality is essential to protecting the rule of law. For litigants in person, this insight is invaluable. Courts do not decide cases based on emotion or sympathy; they apply statutory frameworks, weigh evidence carefully and explain their reasoning. Understanding how senior judges think helps you reframe your own case: from personal grievance to legally structured argument. This guide explains the key themes of the documentary and shows how to use it strategically to strengthen your approach in family proceedings.

Start Here: Inside the UK Supreme Court — What Litigants in Person Need to Understand About How Judges Think

Resources > Start Here Pillar  |  Understanding the Supreme Court  |  Why this matters to Family Court litigants

Key takeaways for litigants in person

  • Judges are not campaigners or investigators — they decide cases based on the evidence and legal framework presented to them.
  • Detachment and impartiality are deliberate disciplines, not signs of indifference.
  • The rule of law depends on structured reasoning, not emotion or public pressure.
  • Senior judges carry enormous responsibility — every word in a judgment matters.
  • Your credibility in court is strengthened by clarity, restraint and evidence-led argument.
  • Understanding how judges think helps you stop arguing emotionally and start arguing strategically.

If you are navigating Family Court as a litigant in person, it can feel intensely personal. Your child. Your home. Your safety. Your future.

But courts do not decide cases emotionally.

This documentary offers a rare, behind-the-scenes look at the UK Supreme Court — the highest court in the country — and the justices who sit on it. While most litigants will never appear before the Supreme Court, the mindset you see here filters all the way down through the judicial system.

If you want to understand how judges think, this is worth watching.

Watch: Inside the UK Supreme Court

Watch this not as entertainment — but as insight into the culture of judicial decision-making.

1. The Nature of Judicial Work: Intellectual Discipline Over Emotion

One of the strongest themes in the documentary is the intellectual discipline required at the highest level of judging. Supreme Court Justices describe their work as demanding, solitary and deeply analytical.

They carry bags of case papers. They read alone. They reflect. They test arguments against principle.

What you see clearly is this:

  • Judges are not reacting.
  • They are reasoning.
  • They are constantly checking themselves for bias.

For a litigant in person, that matters.

If you enter court thinking: “Once the judge hears how terrible this has been, they will understand” — you are only half right.

Judges do understand distress. But distress alone is not a legal argument.

The Supreme Court documentary shows how decisions are structured: principle → evidence → application → conclusion.

That structure applies in Family Court too.

2. Impartiality Is a Discipline, Not a Personality Trait

The justices speak openly about detachment. This can be uncomfortable for litigants to hear.

When you are in crisis, detachment can feel cold.

But the documentary makes something very clear: impartiality is a conscious discipline. It protects the fairness of the system.

Judges deliberately step back from:

  • Public opinion
  • Media pressure
  • Personal sympathy
  • Emotional narratives

They focus on law and evidence.

In Family Court, this means:

  • They will not “side” with a parent because they appear more distressed.
  • They will not punish a parent for moral failings unless legally relevant.
  • They will not decide based on who argues more passionately.

They decide based on statutory framework and welfare analysis.

Understanding this reduces shock. It helps you prepare differently.

3. The Supreme Court’s Role in Democracy — Why It Matters to You

The documentary emphasises the Supreme Court’s constitutional role: safeguarding rights, ensuring fairness, and maintaining the rule of law.

That may feel distant from your children arrangements hearing.

It isn’t.

The same principles apply:

  • The court is independent of government.
  • The court is independent of public campaigns.
  • The court applies law consistently.
  • The court protects minority rights — even unpopular ones.

If you feel unheard in Family Court, it is rarely because the judge does not care. It is usually because the argument has not been framed in a legally relevant way.

The rule of law means decisions must be reasoned and explainable. That protects you as much as it protects the other party.

4. The Human Side of Judges — And Why That Should Reassure You

One of the most powerful elements of the documentary is its humanising tone. You see justices commuting. Reading at home. Carrying heavy files. Speaking candidly about responsibility.

They are not remote arbiters floating above society. They are individuals carrying extraordinary responsibility.

They know their decisions affect lives.

That awareness is sobering.

For litigants in person, this is important:

  • Judges do not take decisions lightly.
  • They are aware of consequences.
  • They are cautious about overreach.
  • They rely heavily on what is formally before them.

If something critical is not evidenced or clearly structured in your case, the judge cannot act on instinct alone.

5. What This Means for Your Family Court Case

After watching this documentary, ask yourself:

  • Have I structured my case around law — or emotion?
  • Have I clearly identified the statutory framework?
  • Have I proposed a workable order?
  • Have I separated allegations from evidence?
  • Have I shown impact on the child (if relevant)?

Judges respect clarity. They respect proportionality. They respect focused submissions.

They do not reward chaos.

6. Passion and Dedication: Why Judicial Consistency Matters

A recurring theme in the film is commitment. Many of the justices could have retired comfortably. They remain because they believe in the rule of law.

That commitment underpins consistency. Consistency underpins predictability. Predictability underpins fairness.

In Family Court, this means outcomes are not random. They are shaped by:

  • Children Act 1989 welfare analysis
  • Evidence of harm or risk
  • Proportionality
  • Practical feasibility

If you align your case with those pillars, you increase your credibility immediately.

How to Watch This Documentary Strategically

Do not watch this passively.

Watch and reflect on:

  1. How the justices explain reasoning.
  2. How carefully they choose language.
  3. How they avoid personalisation.
  4. How they frame issues as principles, not grievances.

Then compare that with your draft statement.

If your draft reads like a diary entry, rewrite it as a structured submission.

Book a 15-minute consultation (phone)

If you want help restructuring your case in a way that aligns with how judges actually reason, you can book a 15-minute consultation below.

The goal is simple: clarity, structure and strategy.

Useful Links

  • UK Supreme Court Website
    Understand the role, judgments and constitutional function of the Court.
    Visit Supreme Court
  • Children Act 1989 (Section 1 Welfare Principle)
    The legal foundation of private children proceedings.
    View legislation
  • Practice Direction 12J
    Domestic abuse guidance in children cases.
    Read PD12J
  • Family Procedure Rules
    The procedural backbone of Family Court cases.
    View FPR
  • Cafcass – Parents & Carers
    Practical explanation of the safeguarding role.
    Cafcass guidance
  • Advicenow Family Guides
    Plain English guides for litigants in person.
    Advicenow

Regulatory & Editorial Notice

This article provides general commentary only and does not constitute legal advice. JSH Law provides litigation support services to litigants in person and does not conduct reserved legal activities. The embedded documentary remains the intellectual property of its publisher and is included for educational discussion purposes.