1. The family court says children come first — but the experience often says otherwise

In law, the child’s welfare is the court’s paramount consideration in private law children cases. That principle sits at the heart of the Children Act 1989, section 1.

On paper, that sounds clear. In practice, families often experience something far more fragmented.

Parents wait months for hearings. Children wait months for decisions. Allegations are made, denied, reframed, minimised or misunderstood. Evidence arrives late. Reports are sometimes produced under pressure. Hearings are adjourned. Interim arrangements become the lived reality. A child’s relationship with one parent may deteriorate while the case drifts. A protective parent may feel unheard. A safe parent may feel shut out. A child may feel that the adults are arguing about them rather than listening to them.

The family court is supposed to be child-centred. But a system cannot be truly child-centred if the child’s life is placed on hold while the adults wait for process.

Delay in family proceedings is not neutral. For a child, delay can become the status quo. Delay can alter relationships. Delay can harden positions. Delay can make the eventual order less meaningful because the child’s world has already changed.

2. How we got here: the slow construction of a crisis

The current crisis did not happen overnight. It is the result of many overlapping pressures: legal aid contraction, rising numbers of litigants in person, more complex safeguarding allegations, public law pressures, court backlogs, underfunded advice services, inconsistent early intervention, and a system still trying to modernise after COVID-19.

Family law has changed enormously over the last 50 years. The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, the Children Act 1989, the Human Rights Act 1998, the Children and Families Act 2014, the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 have all shaped the legal landscape.

But procedural reform and statutory reform have not solved the lived problem: ordinary people are entering a sophisticated legal system without the support needed to navigate it.

The family court is now being asked to function as a legal forum, safeguarding forum, trauma forum, domestic abuse forum, parenting forum, mental health pressure valve, social work interface and access-to-justice safety net. That is too much for a court system already under strain.

3. Legal aid cuts and the rise of the unsupported litigant in person

One of the biggest structural changes was the contraction of family legal aid following the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, commonly known as LASPO.

Before LASPO, many parents could access early legal advice and representation. That did not make the system perfect, but it did mean that solicitors often filtered issues, explained procedure, prepared evidence, drafted statements, negotiated orders and helped clients understand the consequences of their choices.

When legal aid was removed from large areas of private family law, the need for legal help did not disappear. It simply moved elsewhere.

Parents went online. They went into Facebook groups. They relied on screenshots, templates, hearsay, emotional encouragement and sometimes dangerously confident advice from people who did not understand the law, the evidence, the court’s powers or the facts of the case.

The Law Society has reported that in 2025, in almost half of private family law cases — 47% — both parties appeared without a lawyer. That is not a small access-to-justice issue. That is a structural feature of the modern family court.

A litigant in person is not simply a person “doing paperwork”. They may be expected to understand applications, evidence, threshold concepts, domestic abuse allegations, safeguarding letters, section 7 reports, position statements, bundles, witness statements, Scott schedules, fact-finding hearings, enforcement, variation, appeals and court etiquette.

That is unrealistic for most people without help.

4. Delay: the silent harm nobody can afford to ignore

Delay is one of the most damaging features of the family justice system. Adults may experience delay as frustration. Children experience delay as life.

A six-month delay in an adult’s life may feel painful but temporary. A six-month delay in a child’s life can be enormous. It can cover a school transition, a birthday, Christmas, a developmental stage, the formation or breakdown of attachment, or the normalisation of not seeing a parent.

Where a child is not seeing one parent, delay can cement distance. Where a child is exposed to conflict, delay can prolong harm. Where allegations are unresolved, delay can leave everyone trapped in uncertainty. Where contact is unsafe, delay can expose a child or parent to risk. Where contact is wrongly stopped, delay can damage a safe and loving relationship.

The court often says that children need stability. That is true. But stability created by delay is not always welfare. Sometimes it is just the result of institutional failure.

A system that takes too long to decide what is safe, what is true and what is in a child’s best interests risks allowing time itself to become the decision-maker.

5. Domestic abuse, safeguarding and the limits of the old model

The family court has struggled for years with domestic abuse allegations in private law children cases. This is not a fringe issue. Domestic abuse allegations are common in child arrangements proceedings, and they fundamentally change the nature of the case.

In 2020, the Ministry of Justice published the final report of the expert panel on Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Children Cases, often referred to as the Harms Report. The report examined how effectively the family courts identify and respond to allegations of domestic abuse and other serious offences in private law children proceedings.

The Harms Report matters because it exposed a deep tension in the system. The court has historically placed a strong emphasis on a child having a relationship with both parents. That principle is important in many cases. But it becomes dangerous if it is applied mechanistically in cases involving domestic abuse, coercive control, sexual abuse, intimidation, stalking, post-separation abuse, child abuse or serious safeguarding concerns.

The question should never be: “How do we get contact happening as quickly as possible?”

The proper question is: “What is safe, what is evidenced, what does this child need, and what order best protects this child’s welfare?”

Practice Direction 12J exists because domestic abuse is relevant to child arrangements. But PD12J is only effective if the issues are identified early, pleaded properly, evidenced properly, and case-managed properly.

That requires time, skill and judicial continuity. Those are precisely the resources the system often lacks.

6. Cafcass demand and the impossible burden of early safeguarding

Cafcass sits at a critical junction in private law children cases. It is often the first professional body to conduct safeguarding checks, speak to parties, identify risk issues and assist the court with early recommendations.

Cafcass data shows the scale of the issue. Between 1 April 2025 and 31 March 2026, Cafcass received 42,172 new private law children’s cases involving 63,879 children.

Behind every number is a child. Behind every child is a family system under strain.

Cafcass officers are being asked to produce safeguarding work in cases that may involve domestic abuse, police information, local authority involvement, parental alienation allegations, mental health issues, substance misuse, school concerns and child wishes and feelings — often at speed and under pressure.

When the system works well, Cafcass can provide vital child-focused input. When the system is overloaded, mistakes, omissions, assumptions and rushed analysis can have serious consequences.

Parents often experience Cafcass as either too powerful or not powerful enough. One parent may feel Cafcass has accepted the other parent’s narrative. Another may feel Cafcass has failed to understand risk. Another may feel Cafcass has not spoken to the child properly. Another may feel that Cafcass has become the de facto decision-maker long before a judge has tested the evidence.

That is not a healthy place for the system to be.

7. Procedure has become a maze for ordinary parents

Family court procedure is not designed for the average parent in crisis.

A parent may be told to file a C100, a C1A, a position statement, a witness statement, a chronology, a schedule of allegations, a safeguarding response, a bundle index, a draft order or a response to a Cafcass report. They may be told to comply with directions, attend a MIAM, respond to allegations, prepare for FHDRA, DRA, fact-finding or final hearing, and understand what the court can and cannot decide at each stage.

That is a lot even for legally trained people. For a frightened parent, a traumatised parent, a neurodivergent parent, a parent with English as a second language, a parent dealing with domestic abuse, or a parent who has never been inside a court building, it can be overwhelming.

The result is predictable:

• important evidence is not filed;
• irrelevant material floods the bundle;
• allegations are not properly particularised;
• parents focus on adult grievance rather than child welfare;
• hearings are wasted because the issues are unclear;
• judges have to spend court time working out what the case is actually about;
• children wait while adults try to understand the rules.

Procedure is supposed to support justice. But for litigants in person, procedure can become another barrier.

8. Secrecy, transparency and public trust

Family proceedings involving children have historically operated with strict privacy protections. That privacy exists for good reason: children should not have the intimate details of their family life exposed to the world.

But privacy and secrecy are not the same thing.

A system that is almost entirely hidden from public scrutiny risks losing public confidence. Parents who feel unheard often believe there is nowhere to take their concerns. Journalists struggle to report responsibly. Researchers struggle to track patterns. Poor practice is harder to identify. Good practice is harder to understand and replicate.

The family court transparency reforms are therefore important. Official guidance confirms that the President of the Family Division led a transparency review in 2021, followed by the Transparency Implementation Group pilot between 2023 and 2025. From January 2025, open reporting provisions were extended to all family courts in England and Wales, subject to transparency orders and safeguards protecting the anonymity of children and families.

That is progress. But it is only one part of the answer.

Transparency must not become spectacle. The aim should be accountable justice, not public shaming of families. The family court needs careful reporting, anonymised learning, better data, clearer explanations and more honest public discussion about what is going wrong.

9. Why legal tech matters — but only if it is safe, practical and child-focused

Legal technology will not magically fix the family court. But safe, well-designed legal tech could make a real difference for litigants in person.

The current system expects people to organise complex legal material under emotional pressure. That is exactly where practical technology could help.

The right tools could help parents:

• understand the stage of proceedings;
• prepare a focused chronology;
• separate evidence from opinion;
• identify missing documents;
• prepare questions for Cafcass reports;
• organise safeguarding concerns;
• draft clear position statements;
• track directions and deadlines;
• understand court orders in plain English;
• prepare for hearings without relying on random social media advice.

But legal tech in family law must be built carefully. It cannot simply be a chatbot that tells frightened people what they want to hear. It must understand risk, domestic abuse, safeguarding, confidentiality, data protection, evidence, trauma and the limits of non-lawyer assistance.

Technology should not replace lawyers, judges or Cafcass. But it could help people arrive better prepared, which would help everyone — including the child.

10. What litigants in person actually need

Litigants in person do not need vague reassurance that “the court will see through everything”. They need practical, structured support.

They need to understand what the court can decide, what evidence matters, what orders are realistic, what risk issues must be raised, and what material is distracting or harmful to their own case.

They need help moving from emotional narrative to court-ready presentation.

That does not mean stripping the humanity out of the case. Family court is intensely human. But emotion must be organised into evidence, chronology, welfare analysis and focused submissions.

In practical terms, litigants in person need:

• a clear chronology showing what happened and when;
• a focused issues list identifying what the court actually needs to decide;
• a child-focused narrative rather than adult grievance;
• properly organised evidence linked to the issues;
• realistic draft orders that the court has power to make;
• preparation for Cafcass involvement and safeguarding questions;
• support understanding court directions and deadlines;
• hearing preparation so they know what to say and what not to say;
• help after hearings understanding what the order means and what must happen next.

The family court will not slow down simply because a litigant in person does not understand the process. That is why preparation matters.

11. Conclusion: children cannot wait for a perfect system

The family court is trying to deal with some of the most painful disputes in society: children, separation, domestic abuse, allegations of harm, parental breakdown, poverty, trauma and fear.

No court system could make those issues easy. But the current system too often makes them harder.

We have reached this point through a combination of underfunding, legal aid contraction, rising self-representation, procedural complexity, safeguarding pressure, delay, patchy early intervention and insufficient practical support for families before they reach crisis.

The answer is not one single reform. It is a combination of proper funding, earlier advice, safer processes, better child participation, more consistent domestic abuse handling, improved transparency, responsible legal tech and structured support for litigants in person.

Children should not have to wait years for adults to build a better system. They need the adults around them — parents, professionals, courts, advisers, technologists and policymakers — to do better now.

The family court crisis is not just a legal problem. It is a childhood problem. And childhood does not pause while the system catches up.