Important judgments explained for people who need to understand what they actually mean in a real Family Court case.
This hub brings together JSH Law’s analysis of significant Family Court, Court of Appeal and related judgments. The aim is not simply to report who won or lost. Each analysis asks what the court decided, why it matters, what it does not mean, and how the reasoning may affect evidence, safeguarding, procedure and case preparation for litigants in person.
The short answer: how should you use case law?
A judgment is not a template that automatically produces the same result in your case. Similar facts can lead to different outcomes because the evidence, procedural history, findings, child’s welfare circumstances and order sought are different.
Use case law to identify the legal principle, the court’s reasoning and the questions the judge may need to answer — not as proof that your own disputed facts are true.
Latest and flagship case analyses
Re C [2026] EWCA Civ 1216
Domestic abuse, Child Focused Courts, fact-finding, Cafcass recommendations, informed agreement, procedural fairness and section 91(14).
Re SB [2026] EWFC 264
When can historic Family Court findings be reopened, and why does new guidance not automatically erase an earlier factual finding?
The Father v The Mother & Anor [2026] EWFC 277 (B)
What happens when a 15-year-old persistently refuses contact and the court concludes that the order itself has become part of the problem?
D (Change of Circumstances: Domestic Abuse Allegations) [2026] EWCA Civ 969
Why Cafcass may assess risk but cannot convert disputed allegations into judicial findings, and when the court may need fact-finding before relying on a recommendation.
Read: Cafcass, Domestic Abuse and Fact-Finding — Lessons from Re D →
Re E [2026] — “Welfare Is Not Enough”
A case-led analysis of welfare, threshold, proportionality and the legal discipline required before making a special guardianship order.
Unregulated Experts in the Family Court
The new 2026 rules on regulated experts, the importance of Re Y, and why expert opinion must not replace judicial fact-finding.
Find the judgment closest to your problem
You do not need to know the name of the case. Start with the problem you are dealing with.
| If this is your problem | Start with | Why it may help |
|---|---|---|
| My older child is refusing contact | 15-year-old contact refusal case | Explores wishes and feelings, enforceability, emotional pressure and when an order may cease to promote welfare. |
| Cafcass has relied on allegations that were never found proved | Re D | Shows the distinction between safeguarding assessment and judicial fact-finding. |
| Old alienating-behaviour findings are still affecting my case | Re SB | Explains the threshold for reopening historic findings and why changed guidance alone is not enough. |
| An expert report appears to have taken over the factual decision-making | Re Y / expert-evidence analysis | Explains regulation, expertise, fact-finding boundaries and how to audit the report against the evidence. |
| My case is in the Child Focused Court model and domestic abuse is disputed | Re C | Covers PD12J, fact-finding, Child Impact Reports, Cafcass recommendations and procedural fairness. |
| I use a McKenzie Friend or unregulated legal support | Mazur, Baxter and Wright v Troy Lucas | Explains lawful support, reserved conduct of litigation, responsibility and possible remedies when support goes wrong. |
Children, contact and welfare
Older children and contact: When a 15-Year-Old Refuses Contact examines a case in which the court discharged the Child Arrangements Order after concluding that the compulsory framework had become part of the problem.
Special guardianship and proportionality: “Welfare Is Not Enough”: Re E [2026] considers why a welfare conclusion still has to sit within the correct legal framework and proportionality analysis.
Child arrangements and modern court reform: Re C [2026] EWCA Civ 1216 is the principal JSH Law analysis of the Court of Appeal’s first direct consideration of the Child Focused Court model.
Domestic abuse, Cafcass and fact-finding
Important distinction: Cafcass can identify concerns, assess risk and advise the court. A disputed allegation does not become a judicial finding because it appears in a professional report. Re D is particularly useful where a recommendation materially depends on allegations that remain unresolved.
Cafcass, Domestic Abuse Allegations and Fact-Finding: Lessons from Re D
Child Focused Courts Must Still Be Fair: Re C [2026] EWCA Civ 1216
“The Obligations Are Unchanged”: What Re C Really Means for Domestic Abuse and Child Focused Courts
When Domestic Abuse Becomes Normal: Why a Child May Still Want Contact
Experts, alienating behaviour and historic findings
Unregulated Experts in the Family Court: The New 2026 Rules and What Parents Need to Check uses Re Y and the 2026 expert reforms to explain regulatory status, expertise, evidential foundations and the line between expert opinion and judicial fact-finding.
Can Old “Parental Alienation” Findings Be Reopened? Re SB [2026] EWFC 264 looks at what is actually required before historic findings can be reconsidered.
What Did the Child See? Domestic Abuse, Fear and the Risk of Misreading a Child’s Behaviour is broader case-led commentary on why a child’s reluctance, alignment or expressed wishes need context rather than labels.
McKenzie Friends, legal support and the Mazur line of cases
Read the current analysis first. JSH Law published several earlier articles while the Mazur litigation was developing. The later Court of Appeal position is addressed in the October 2026 article below. Earlier pieces remain useful as commentary on the developing issue but should be read alongside the later appellate authority.
Let Down by a McKenzie Friend? What Mazur, Baxter and Wright v Troy Lucas Mean for Your Case — the best starting point for the current legal boundaries and possible remedies.
Earlier Mazur commentary and implications
- Mazur Explained: The Case That Changes Who Can Run Your Court Case
- McKenzie Friend vs Running Your Case: Where the Legal Line Now Sits After Mazur
- Could Your Case Be Invalid? The Hidden Risk of Litigation Control
- The Unregulated Legal Support Market Is Changing: The Mazur Impact
- How to Stay Safe as a Litigant in Person After Mazur
- Mazur, AI, and the Future of Legal Support
AI, evidence and wider court decisions relevant to JSH Law
Not every important judgment for a Family Court litigant is itself a Family Court judgment. JSH Law also analyses decisions that affect evidence, witness preparation, legal support and responsible use of technology.
AI Has Helped Win a UK Court Case — But It Did Not Replace the Human
Case-law guides and precedent resources
If you are trying to understand how precedent works rather than one particular judgment, start here:
Key precedent cases in child proceedings
A broader guide to important authorities and how litigants in person can use precedent without getting lost in legalese.
Does the court need a fact-finding hearing?
A practical guide to the purpose of fact-finding, PD12J and why the court should identify which disputed facts actually matter to welfare.
How to appeal a Family Court decision
Understand permission, appeal grounds, procedural routes and why an appeal is not simply a rehearing because you disagree with the outcome.
Varying or discharging a Child Arrangements Order
The evergreen practical route where the existing order is no longer workable, including links to relevant recent case analysis.
How to use a judgment safely in your own case
Finding a case that feels similar can be reassuring. It can also lead a litigant in person into difficulty if the judgment is treated as a factual shortcut.
- Identify the legal proposition. What rule, principle or procedural obligation does the judgment actually establish or apply?
- Check the level of court and whether the decision has been appealed. An older article may have been written before later appellate authority.
- Separate facts from principle. A similar allegation, report or contact problem does not mean your court must reach the same welfare outcome.
- Read the relevant part of the judgment, not only a headline or social-media summary. Context matters.
- Connect the authority to the decision your judge actually has to make. Explain why the principle is relevant to the issue, evidence or order before the court.
- Check that the case remains current. Later judgments, statutory changes, Practice Directions or procedural pilots may alter the position.
AI caution: do not rely on an AI-generated case name, quotation or citation without checking the original judgment or another authoritative legal source. A plausible-looking authority can still be wrong, incomplete or taken out of context.
Need help working out whether a judgment matters to your case?
JSH Law provides defined-scope Family Court navigation and case-analysis support for litigants in person. That can include reviewing the procedural history, identifying the live issues, separating allegations from findings, checking how professional evidence is being used, identifying relevant authorities and helping you prepare the next document or hearing.
The aim is not to collect as many cases as possible. It is to identify the authority that genuinely helps the court answer the issue in front of it.