Tag Archive for: AI in family law

You are here: / / AI in family law

Posts

Legal Tech Is Already Changing Family Law — Are Lawyers Ready?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Family law is already under pressure: overwhelmed courts, delayed hearings, litigants in person, inaccessible legal aid, complex safeguarding issues and clients who cannot always afford full representation.

Legal technology promises faster, cheaper and clearer legal support — but family justice is not a simple administrative process. When children, domestic abuse, coercive control and vulnerable people are involved, AI must be handled with care. Here’s my latest update, enjoy.

Legal Tech Update for Family Lawyers

Legal Tech Is No Longer Coming for Family Law. It Is Already Here.

Family lawyers do not have the luxury of treating AI and legal technology as something happening “over there” in commercial litigation or City firms. The changes now underway affect court documents, client care, digital evidence, safeguarding, costs, access to justice and the way litigants in person are arriving at court.
Updated: June 2026
Focus: England and Wales family practice, AI, digital evidence, court documents, client confidentiality, access to justice and practical risk management.

The pace of legal technology change in 2026 is now impossible to ignore. Regulators are publishing AI plans. The Ministry of Justice is piloting AI tools in the justice system. The Civil Justice Council has consulted on whether lawyers should have to declare certain uses of AI in court documents. The judiciary has updated its AI guidance. Legal research platforms are moving from simple search tools to agentic AI systems. Litigants in person are using public AI tools to draft statements, allegations, position statements and applications.

For family lawyers, this matters because family law is not a neat, low-risk, document-only jurisdiction. It involves children, domestic abuse, coercive control, vulnerable parties, confidential medical and school records, financial disclosure, safeguarding information, private lives, contested evidence and human distress.

That means the profession needs a balanced approach. Not panic. Not blind enthusiasm. Not “AI will replace lawyers”. Not “AI must never be used”. The practical question is much sharper:

How can family lawyers use technology to reduce cost and improve access to justice, without weakening professional judgment, confidentiality, evidential integrity or child-focused decision-making?

1. The regulatory message is changing: AI is permitted, but unmanaged AI is the problem

The Solicitors Regulation Authority has made the position clear in practical terms: solicitors and firms may use technology, including AI, where appropriate, but the use of that technology remains subject to professional obligations, standards and regulatory duties.

That is the key point. AI is not outside the regulatory framework. It sits inside it.

For family lawyers, this means: if AI is used to assist with a client matter, the solicitor remains responsible for the advice, drafting, evidence analysis, correspondence, confidentiality, supervision and final work product. A tool cannot hold a practising certificate. A tool cannot owe duties to the client. A tool cannot explain itself to the court. You can delegate a task. You cannot delegate professional responsibility.

The SRA has emphasised governance, senior oversight, risk assessment, training, policies and monitoring when technology is introduced. It also expects client best interests to remain central to decisions about legal technology.

The Law Society’s generative AI guidance is similarly practical. It recognises the opportunities for improved service delivery, reduced cost and meeting changing client expectations, but it also warns of data, confidentiality, reliability, accuracy and technology risks.

Read more: SRA compliance tips for solicitors using AI and technology and The Law Society: Generative AI – the essentials.

2. The Legal Services Board now has an AI plan for legal services

In June 2026, the Legal Services Board published its plan for enabling safe AI-driven innovation in legal services for 2026–27. The themes are telling: coordination, clarity and confidence.

That is exactly where the legal sector currently is. The tools are developing quickly, but confidence is uneven. Larger firms are moving faster. Smaller practices, sole practitioners and self-employed barristers are more cautious, often because they lack the procurement support, training budget, IT infrastructure and risk governance enjoyed by bigger organisations.

This matters acutely in family law because much of the work is carried out by high-street firms, small specialist practices, barristers, consultants, legal aid providers, McKenzie friends and litigants in person. If legal technology only benefits large commercial firms, the access to justice gap will widen rather than shrink.

The opportunity: properly governed AI could help family lawyers reduce repetitive administrative burden, produce clearer chronologies, organise disclosure, identify missing evidence, prepare issue lists, summarise long documents and make fixed-fee or limited-scope services more viable.
The risk: poorly governed AI could create false confidence, inaccurate advice, fake authorities, contaminated witness evidence, confidentiality breaches, biased analysis and unsafe decision-making in cases involving children and domestic abuse.

Read more: Legal Services Board: AI-driven innovation plan 2026–27.

3. The Ministry of Justice is piloting AI in the justice system

The Ministry of Justice announced in June 2026 that AI legal assistants and AI-supported listing tools are being developed and tested as part of efforts to speed up justice, cut delay and reduce administrative burdens. The current announcement is focused on criminal justice and Crown Court pressures, but family lawyers should still pay attention.

Why? Because court modernisation rarely stays in one jurisdiction forever. Once the state begins testing AI-assisted case analysis, listing, routine casework support and administrative automation, the wider justice system will inevitably ask whether similar tools could be used elsewhere.

Family justice has chronic delay. Public law proceedings, private children disputes and financial remedy cases all suffer when courts are under-resourced, listing is stretched and paperwork is chaotic. It is not difficult to imagine future tools being proposed for triage, safeguarding screening, bundle navigation, chronology generation, order drafting or case progression.

The family law warning: speed is not the same as justice. In children cases, the court is not just processing paperwork. It is making welfare decisions. Any future AI use in family justice must be carefully governed, explainable, challengeable and designed around children and vulnerable parties — not merely around administrative convenience.

Read more: Ministry of Justice: AI tech ambition to deliver smarter justice for victims.

4. Judges are not banned from AI — but responsibility remains human

The judiciary’s updated AI guidance makes an important point: judicial office holders are not prohibited from using AI, but they remain personally responsible for material produced in their name. The guidance also warns about hallucinations, bias, confidentiality and the risk of entering private information into public AI tools.

The Master of the Rolls has also spoken openly about AI changing the work of lawyers and judges. The direction of travel is clear: AI will increasingly sit alongside legal and judicial work. The system is not asking whether AI exists. It is asking how it can be used responsibly.

What this means in practice: family lawyers should assume that judges, clerks, legal advisers, lawyers and litigants may all become more familiar with AI-assisted drafting and AI-assisted analysis. But no one should assume that polished drafting equals accurate evidence, reliable law or safe welfare analysis.

Read more: Artificial Intelligence Judicial Guidance, October 2025 and Master of the Rolls speech: Artificial Intelligence and the Judiciary.

5. The Civil Justice Council consultation should make every family lawyer think carefully about AI-drafted documents

In February 2026, the Civil Justice Council published an interim report and consultation on the use of AI for preparing court documents. Although this work is within the civil justice context, the underlying issues are directly relevant to family lawyers.

The consultation considered whether rules are needed to govern AI use by legal representatives in preparing documents such as statements of case, witness statements and expert reports. It drew an important distinction between administrative uses, such as formatting, spelling or transcription, and substantive uses that may generate evidence or legal content.

This distinction is crucial in family cases.

AI use Risk level Family law example Practical response
Formatting, grammar, layout and typographical correction Lower risk Making a chronology easier to read or checking a draft letter for grammar. Still review before sending. Do not upload confidential material to public tools.
Summarising documents Medium risk Summarising a Section 7 report, police disclosure, medical record or school records. Check against the source. AI summaries may omit nuance, caveats or safeguarding details.
Drafting legal submissions Medium/high risk Drafting a position statement, skeleton argument or case summary. Verify every legal proposition, authority, procedural rule and factual assertion.
Generating witness evidence High risk Rewriting a client’s witness statement so it sounds stronger, more persuasive or more “lawyerly”. Avoid. Witness evidence must be the witness’s own evidence, not AI-generated narrative.
Expert report drafting or expert analysis High risk AI-assisted psychological, parenting, risk or welfare analysis. Require transparency, methodology, source checking and professional accountability.

Family lawyers should watch this space carefully. Even if formal family-specific rules are not yet in place, the professional direction is obvious: AI-generated evidence is different from AI-assisted administration.

Read more: Civil Justice Council: Use of AI for Preparing Court Documents.

6. Legal AI has moved from “chatbot” to “workflow”

One of the biggest changes in legal technology is that AI tools are moving away from simple prompt-and-answer chatbots. The market is shifting towards workflow-based and agentic systems.

In plain English, that means tools are being designed not merely to answer a question, but to plan and complete a sequence of tasks: research, summarise, compare, draft, check, refine and produce a work product with citations or source links.

Thomson Reuters has described the next generation of CoCounsel Legal as agentic AI that can support complex legal workflows, grounded in Westlaw and Practical Law content. LexisNexis has developed its own legal AI ecosystem, including Protégé, and has announced a strategic alliance with Harvey. Clio has completed its acquisition of vLex, bringing practice management and legal research closer together.

The point for family lawyers: legal AI is becoming integrated into the tools lawyers already use. The next phase is not “shall we open ChatGPT?” The next phase is AI embedded in research platforms, practice management software, document review tools, disclosure systems, bundle tools and client intake systems.

Read more: Thomson Reuters: next generation CoCounsel Legal, LexisNexis and Harvey strategic alliance and Clio acquisition of vLex.

7. The Garfield AI case is an access to justice moment — but not a reason to abandon lawyers

In June 2026, it was reported that Garfield AI, an SRA-authorised AI law firm, had been used in a successful English court case concerning an unpaid debt. The AI system handled much of the pre-trial legal work, while a human barrister carried out the advocacy at trial.

This is important because it shows where routine, lower-value disputes may be heading. Many people and small businesses cannot afford traditional legal representation for modest claims. If properly regulated AI can make some legal processes cheaper and more accessible, that is not something the profession should dismiss.

But family law is not a small debt claim. It is rarely linear. The facts are emotionally charged. Evidence is often disputed. Safeguarding may be live. The client may be traumatised. There may be coercive control, children’s wishes and feelings, litigation abuse, mental health issues, immigration concerns, neurodiversity, poverty, housing insecurity or language barriers.

The lesson is not “AI can replace family lawyers”. The lesson is that clients will increasingly expect legal services to be faster, clearer, more affordable and more digitally accessible. Family lawyers who ignore that expectation will lose ground. Family lawyers who adopt technology without safeguards will create risk. The firms that win will be the ones that combine technology with judgment.

Read more: Guardian report: Garfield AI court case.

8. The Nuffield briefing puts the family justice question properly

The Nuffield Family Justice Observatory’s 2026 briefing on AI in the family justice system is one of the most important reads for family practitioners because it keeps the focus where it belongs: children, families, professionals, governance, risk and fairness.

The briefing asks whether AI could improve the experiences of families and professionals in the family justice system, but it also recognises the risks around bias, accuracy, privacy, accountability and safe implementation.

That is the right frame. Family justice technology should not be designed merely to make professionals more efficient. It should make the system easier to understand, less traumatising, more transparent, more accessible and safer for children and vulnerable adults.

Good family justice technology should:
  • help parties understand the process;
  • reduce unnecessary delay;
  • support better preparation and clearer evidence;
  • make court orders easier to understand;
  • identify missing information early;
  • help professionals spot safeguarding patterns;
  • reduce administrative burden without reducing human judgment;
  • protect children’s data and privacy;
  • avoid embedding bias into decision-making.

Read more: Nuffield Family Justice Observatory: AI in the family justice system 2026.

9. Digital evidence is becoming more important — and more dangerous

Family lawyers already deal with screenshots, WhatsApp messages, voice notes, call logs, bank records, social media posts, photographs, doorbell camera footage, location data, school apps, smart devices and covert recordings.

The problem is that digital evidence is now easier to manipulate. Deepfakes, altered screenshots, AI-generated images, synthetic voice recordings and edited message chains are no longer theoretical concerns.

In family law, this matters in several common contexts:

  • domestic abuse allegations;
  • coercive and controlling behaviour;
  • stalking and harassment;
  • child arrangements disputes;
  • allegations of parental alienating behaviours;
  • allegations of substance misuse or unsafe parenting;
  • financial remedy disclosure;
  • non-molestation and occupation order applications;
  • fact-finding hearings;
  • applications involving intimate image abuse or threats to publish private material.

Lawyers should now be more disciplined about digital evidence. A screenshot may still be useful, but context matters. Metadata matters. The original device may matter. The full conversation may matter. The chain of custody may matter. The absence of surrounding messages may matter.

Practical warning: if a client arrives with a single explosive screenshot, do not treat it as the whole evidential story. Ask where it came from, whether the full thread is available, whether the original device is available, whether there are backups, whether the other party has challenged authenticity, and whether forensic input may be needed.

Read more: Penningtons: Deepfakes, falsified evidence and family law and Guardian report on technology-facilitated abuse.

10. Litigants in person are already using AI

This is perhaps the most immediate change for family lawyers. Litigants in person are increasingly using AI tools to draft emails, position statements, witness statements, C100 applications, non-molestation application narratives, Scott schedules, chronologies and complaints.

Some of that will be helpful. AI can help a distressed person organise their thoughts, reduce repetition and produce a clearer chronology. In a system where many people cannot obtain legal aid or afford representation, that matters.

But there are risks.

  • AI may make weak evidence look persuasive.
  • AI may generate legal language the litigant does not understand.
  • AI may invent case law or procedural rules.
  • AI may encourage overstatement.
  • AI may flatten trauma into polished but emotionally detached prose.
  • AI may remove details that are actually legally important.
  • AI may produce documents that look credible but are not evidentially reliable.
For practitioners: when a litigant in person files a document that appears unusually polished, do not assume dishonesty. They may simply have used AI because they could not access legal help. The right response is not snobbery. The right response is careful scrutiny: what is the evidence, what is the source, what is admitted, what is disputed, and what needs testing?

11. Practical AI traffic light for family law work

Green Usually sensible with safeguards

  • Creating task lists from non-confidential notes.
  • Improving structure and readability.
  • Producing first-draft meeting agendas.
  • Generating neutral client information guides.
  • Summarising public legal information.
  • Creating internal checklists.

Amber Useful but needs close review

  • Summarising disclosure.
  • Drafting chronologies.
  • Producing issue lists.
  • Drafting first versions of position statements.
  • Comparing competing allegations.
  • Preparing client conference notes.

Red High risk

  • Generating witness evidence.
  • Creating factual allegations the client has not given.
  • Uploading confidential documents to public AI tools.
  • Relying on AI for legal authorities without checking.
  • Using AI to assess child welfare risk without professional oversight.
  • Using AI to decide whether domestic abuse has occurred.

Never Do not do this

  • Do not ask AI to “make the evidence stronger”.
  • Do not let AI invent missing facts.
  • Do not cite cases you have not checked.
  • Do not upload children’s records to an unsecured tool.
  • Do not use AI output as a substitute for safeguarding judgment.
  • Do not assume a confident answer is a correct answer.

12. What family firms should do now

Family law firms do not need a 70-page AI strategy before they can act sensibly. But they do need basic governance. The firms that will get into difficulty are not necessarily the firms using AI. They are the firms using AI informally, inconsistently and without records, training or supervision.

Create an AI use register

Record what tools are being used, by whom, for what purpose, with what data, and under what terms. This should include free public tools, paid legal research tools, transcription tools, bundle tools, Microsoft Copilot-style tools and any case management software with AI features.

Classify tools by risk

A grammar checker is not the same as a tool summarising confidential medical records. A legal research assistant is not the same as a tool generating witness evidence. Classify the tool by function, not by marketing label.

Ban confidential uploads to public tools unless approved

Client names, children’s details, addresses, school records, medical records, police disclosure, Cafcass material, social care records and financial disclosure should not be placed into public AI tools without a proper data protection, confidentiality and privilege assessment.

Require source checking

Every legal proposition must be checked against an authoritative source. Every case citation must be verified. Every procedural rule must be checked against the current rules or practice directions.

Protect witness evidence

AI should not be used to generate the substance of a witness’s evidence. It is one thing to help organise a client’s own account. It is another thing to produce a polished narrative that is no longer truly the witness’s evidence.

Train staff properly

Training should not be limited to “how to prompt”. Family lawyers need training on hallucination, confidentiality, bias, safeguarding, digital evidence, privilege, client consent, procurement, data retention and court-document risk.

13. A simple internal AI protocol for family law teams

Suggested starting point:

  1. AI may be used only where it supports, and does not replace, professional judgment.
  2. No confidential client information, children’s information or case documents may be uploaded to a public AI tool unless expressly authorised.
  3. AI must not be used to invent, embellish or strengthen factual evidence.
  4. Witness statements must remain the witness’s own evidence.
  5. All legal research, authorities and procedural references generated or assisted by AI must be independently verified.
  6. AI summaries must be checked against the source material before being relied upon.
  7. Any AI-assisted output used in client work must be reviewed by a suitably competent person.
  8. High-risk use, including analysis of safeguarding material, expert evidence, domestic abuse allegations or children’s records, requires senior approval.
  9. The firm will keep a record of approved AI tools and their permitted uses.
  10. The firm will review its AI policy regularly as technology, guidance and procedural rules develop.

14. Procurement checklist before buying legal AI

Before a family law team buys or switches on an AI tool, these are the questions that should be asked.

Question Why it matters in family law
Is client data used to train the provider’s model? Family files contain intensely private information about children, abuse, finances, health and family life.
Where is the data stored and processed? UK GDPR, confidentiality, international transfers and data retention all matter.
Can the provider offer a data processing agreement? The firm needs contractual protection, not just marketing reassurance.
Does the tool cite or link to source material? Unverifiable answers are dangerous in litigation.
Can outputs be audited? If something goes wrong, the firm needs to know what happened.
Can use be limited by role or matter type? Junior staff should not have unrestricted ability to run high-risk AI analysis on sensitive material.
Does the tool preserve privilege and confidentiality? Family lawyers routinely handle privileged advice and confidential settlement discussions.
What happens when the tool is wrong? The firm remains responsible to the client, the court and the regulator.
Is the tool suitable for England and Wales family law? A general or US-focused tool may produce confident but irrelevant answers.
Has the firm tested the tool on realistic family law scenarios? Tools that perform well on generic tasks may fail when dealing with safeguarding, coercive control or children’s welfare issues.

15. The biggest mistake: treating AI as a drafting tool only

Many lawyers still think of AI as a way to write faster. That is too narrow.

The real legaltech shift is workflow redesign. In family law, that could mean:

  • better client intake questionnaires;
  • early safeguarding triage;
  • automated document collection lists;
  • structured chronologies;
  • issue-based evidence maps;
  • financial remedy disclosure trackers;
  • bundle quality checks;
  • plain English explanations of court orders;
  • post-hearing action plans;
  • limited-scope support for litigants in person.

That is where family law can benefit. Not by outsourcing judgment, but by reducing the administrative chaos that prevents lawyers from exercising judgment properly.

16. The JSH Law view

Legal technology should not be treated as a gimmick. It should not be used to dress up poor work. It should not be allowed to produce unsafe evidence. It should not be used to create a two-tier justice system where represented parties have expensive professional tools and litigants in person are left with public chatbots and no guidance.

But nor should family lawyers bury their heads in the sand.

Family law is overwhelmed by paperwork, delay, cost pressure and unmet legal need. Many people are trying to navigate life-changing proceedings without representation. Many lawyers are drowning in administration. Many judges are dealing with inadequate bundles, late evidence and badly prepared documents. Sensible technology can help.

The future of family law should not be lawyer versus machine. It should be better systems, better preparation, clearer evidence, safer use of data, and more time for the human judgment that family justice desperately needs.

The bottom line: AI can help family lawyers work faster. It cannot decide what is safe for a child. It cannot assess the dynamics of coercive control. It cannot replace advocacy, empathy, forensic judgment or professional responsibility. Use the tool. Do not become dependent on it.

Sources and further reading

Need help turning messy family court material into organised, usable evidence?

JSH Law helps litigants in person and family law clients organise documents, prepare chronologies, analyse evidence, identify missing material and turn overwhelming paperwork into clear, court-ready structure.

If you are dealing with family court proceedings and need urgent help preparing documents, evidence or a practical case plan, you can request support through JSH Law.

Contact JSH Law or book a consultation through the website.

This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Legal technology, AI guidance and court procedure are developing quickly. Practitioners should check the latest rules, guidance and professional obligations before relying on any AI-assisted process in live proceedings.

“`

Pathfinder Is Failing Children: What Litigants in Person Are Really Seeing Inside the Family Courts

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Pathfinder is being presented as the future of private family law: quicker, more child-focused, and more responsive to harm. But many litigants in person are experiencing something very different — delay, weak analysis, overstretched Cafcass involvement, and children left suffering while adults talk about reform. If the system says it is now listening to children, the real question is whether it is truly understanding them.

Illustration representing Pathfinder family court reform, Cafcass pressures, and children caught in private family law proceedings

Pathfinder, Cafcass and the Children Still Falling Through the Cracks

Why Many Litigants in Person Feel the Family Court Reforms Are Failing the Very Children They Claim to Protect

There is a growing narrative within the family justice system that the new “child focused courts” model — previously known as the private law Pathfinder — represents a transformational shift in private family law proceedings.

Cafcass leaders have described the reform as a major opportunity to see more children, earlier in proceedings. The judiciary has welcomed the national rollout of Child Focused Courts across England and Wales. Cafcass’s own Strategic Plan 2026–2029 describes the reform as one of the most significant changes to private family law proceedings in a generation.

On paper, this sounds encouraging.

But many parents living through the family court system are asking a very different question:

The Question Families Are Asking

If the system is improving, why are so many children still losing meaningful relationships with safe parents?

At JSH Law, we speak to litigants in person who describe delay, weak safeguarding, inconsistent Cafcass involvement, poor-quality reports, minimisation of coercive control, procedural chaos, and a system that often appears overwhelmed long before a child’s voice is properly heard.

For many families, Pathfinder does not feel child-focused.

It feels process-focused.

And children are paying the price.

A System Under Pressure — and Children Caught in the Middle

Recent reporting on Cafcass and private law reform states that Cafcass family court advisers are expected to move from seeing children in around 30% of private law cases to approximately 75%.

That sounds positive. Children should be seen. Their wishes and feelings matter. Their lived experience should be central to proceedings about where they live, who they spend time with, and whether they are safe.

But the problem is not the principle.

The problem is implementation.

The Reality on the Ground

Many litigants in person experience a system where:

  • Cafcass officers appear overstretched;
  • reports vary dramatically in quality;
  • safeguarding concerns are not always analysed with sufficient depth;
  • coercive control can be misunderstood or minimised;
  • children wait months to be properly heard;
  • interim arrangements drift into long-term realities;
  • and the parent-child relationship can be damaged before the court has fully understood the facts.

Once contact has broken down for months — sometimes longer — the damage to the child’s relationship with a parent can become profound.

Children do not experience delay in the same way institutions do. A year in adult litigation is frustrating. A year in a child’s life can be formative.

“The Child’s Voice” Means Very Little If the System Cannot Properly Analyse What It Is Hearing

One of the central ideas behind Pathfinder and Child Focused Courts is the increased use of Child Impact Reports. These reports are intended to bring the child’s experience into the case earlier.

That is a good aim.

But speaking to a child is not the same as understanding the dynamics around that child.

Children caught in private law proceedings may be navigating:

  • coercive control;
  • loyalty conflict;
  • emotional pressure;
  • fear;
  • trauma responses;
  • attachment disruption;
  • adult narratives imposed upon them;
  • and anxiety about upsetting either parent.

Seeing a Child Is Not the Same as Understanding a Child

A short wishes-and-feelings exercise cannot safely untangle complex family dynamics unless the practitioner has the time, training, evidence, and analytical framework to understand what is really happening.

That is particularly important where domestic abuse, coercive control, parental manipulation, alienating behaviours, or post-separation abuse are alleged.

A rushed assessment may give the appearance of listening to the child while still failing to understand the pressures operating around them.

The Harm Panel Warned About These Problems in 2020

The Ministry of Justice’s landmark Harm Panel Report, formally titled Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Children Cases, identified serious structural problems in the family court system.

The report found that domestic abuse was too often minimised, children’s voices were not sufficiently heard, and a pro-contact culture could create unsafe outcomes.

That report was published in 2020.

Six years later, many litigants in person still describe the same problems.

Six Years After the Harm Panel

The family justice system has had years to absorb the findings of the Harm Panel. Yet many parents still report:

  • domestic abuse being minimised;
  • coercive control being misunderstood;
  • children’s expressed wishes being taken at face value without enough analysis;
  • unsafe contact being normalised;
  • and victims being treated as “difficult” when they raise safeguarding concerns.

The Domestic Abuse Commissioner has continued to raise concerns about the experience of victims and survivors in the family court. Her work on the Family Court and domestic abuse highlights continuing concerns about trauma, unsafe outcomes, and cultural change still being needed.

The Problem With “Speed” in Family Justice

One of the major selling points of Pathfinder is speed.

Children should not spend years in proceedings. That is right.

But speed without depth is dangerous.

A flawed assessment completed quickly is not justice.

A weak safeguarding analysis produced within target timescales is not safeguarding.

A child’s relationship with a parent should not be permanently damaged because the system is trying to move quickly through an overloaded list.

Fast Is Not the Same as Safe

The family court should not confuse administrative efficiency with child protection. A quick report is only useful if it is accurate, balanced, properly evidenced, and alert to coercive and controlling dynamics.

Many litigants in person feel railroaded through proceedings where allegations are not properly tested, evidence is not properly analysed, and interim arrangements become entrenched before the court has reached a fully informed view.

In private children proceedings, “temporary” can become a childhood.

The Reality for Litigants in Person

The family court is increasingly populated by parents without legal representation.

The Law Society has previously reported that in a significant proportion of private family law cases, both parties are unrepresented. This matters because litigants in person are expected to navigate a legally and emotionally complex process while often being under extreme stress.

They may be expected to:

  • understand safeguarding law and procedure;
  • prepare evidence;
  • respond to Cafcass reports;
  • challenge weak recommendations;
  • understand Practice Direction 12J;
  • prepare position statements;
  • draft witness statements;
  • deal with disclosure;
  • understand fact-finding hearings;
  • and advocate in emotionally charged hearings.

The Litigant in Person Problem

Private family law reform cannot work properly if the system continues to assume that unrepresented parents can somehow perform the role of solicitor, evidence manager, safeguarding analyst, advocate, and traumatised parent all at once.

This is one of the reasons JSH Law exists: to help litigants in person bring structure, clarity, chronology, evidence management, and procedural understanding to cases that can otherwise feel impossible to manage alone.

The Difficult Truth About Cafcass

There are undoubtedly excellent Cafcass officers. Many care deeply about children and are trying to do difficult work in difficult conditions.

But systems matter more than individual goodwill.

The current system appears structurally overstretched. Cafcass’s own strategic materials refer to the scale of reform, the need for workforce capacity, and the importance of ensuring areas do not go live without sufficient practitioners.

Recent reporting has also highlighted demand pressures, caseload pressures, recruitment issues, and sickness absence.

Good People Cannot Fix a Broken Structure Alone

When professionals are overloaded, analytical quality is at risk. When analytical quality drops, children are at risk of becoming case numbers rather than fully understood human beings.

This is not about attacking individual Cafcass officers. It is about asking whether the structure they are working within is capable of delivering what children actually need.

Family Courts Are Still Struggling to Understand Coercive Control

One of the greatest ongoing concerns in private law children proceedings remains the handling of coercive and controlling behaviour.

Coercive control is rarely simple. It is not always obvious. It often involves patterns rather than single incidents.

It may include:

  • emotional manipulation;
  • gaslighting;
  • financial control;
  • threats;
  • isolation;
  • litigation abuse;
  • controlling communication;
  • weaponising children;
  • undermining the other parent’s relationship with the child;
  • and creating a climate of fear or instability.

The statutory definition of domestic abuse is now set out in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. The Act expressly recognises controlling or coercive behaviour, and it also recognises that children can be victims of domestic abuse where they see, hear, or experience the effects of abuse.

Children Can Be Victims of Domestic Abuse

Under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, section 3, a child who sees, hears, or experiences the effects of domestic abuse is treated as a victim of domestic abuse in their own right.

This matters enormously in private law proceedings.

A child is not merely “caught in the middle” when there is coercive control. A child may be directly harmed by the atmosphere, fear, pressure, instability, and emotional consequences of abuse.

Could Technology and AI Help?

This is where the conversation becomes uncomfortable for some professionals.

Many litigants are now asking whether properly designed legal technology and AI tools could help the family justice system analyse evidence more consistently.

AI is not a replacement for judges, social workers, lawyers, or safeguarding professionals.

But it may become a valuable support tool.

Where AI Could Help

Used ethically, transparently, and carefully, AI could assist with:

  • chronology analysis;
  • identifying patterns of coercive behaviour;
  • flagging inconsistencies in evidence;
  • mapping allegations to statutory definitions;
  • organising large bundles;
  • supporting litigants in person with procedural preparation;
  • helping professionals identify safeguarding issues earlier;
  • and reducing administrative overload.

AI does not get tired halfway through a caseload.

It does not experience compassion fatigue.

It does not forget key chronology points after a difficult week.

It does not unconsciously prefer the more articulate litigant because they present better in a short meeting.

But AI also carries risks.

It can be biased. It can be wrong. It can hallucinate. It can reinforce existing systemic assumptions if designed badly.

That is why AI in family justice must be carefully governed, auditable, transparent, and used as a support mechanism — not as a substitute for human judgment.

The Sensible Position on AI

The question is not whether AI should replace Cafcass, judges, or lawyers. It should not. The question is whether carefully designed legal technology could reduce avoidable error, improve consistency, assist litigants in person, and help professionals manage evidence more safely.

What Would Actually Help Children?

If the family justice system genuinely wants to become child-focused, it must move beyond language and confront the harder structural issues.

1. Smaller Caseloads

No safeguarding professional can consistently produce high-quality analysis while carrying an unmanageable caseload.

2. Better Training on Coercive Control

Not superficial training. Not tick-box training. Deep, practical, behavioural training on post-separation abuse, coercive control, trauma, litigation abuse, and child impact.

3. Proper Support for Litigants in Person

Litigants in person need clear procedural guidance, accessible legal information, structured templates, and affordable support to prepare their cases properly.

4. Independent Oversight of Cafcass Report Quality

There must be more meaningful accountability where reports are weak, incomplete, poorly reasoned, or fail to engage with safeguarding evidence.

5. Better Evidence Management

Courts need better systems for handling chronologies, messages, allegations, police evidence, school evidence, medical evidence, and patterns of behaviour.

6. Ethical Use of Legal Technology

AI and legal technology should be explored as tools to improve consistency, identify safeguarding concerns, support litigants in person, and reduce administrative burden.

7. A Realistic Understanding of Child Time

Children cannot wait years for adults to perfect a system around them.

The Central Issue

Family justice reform must be measured by what happens to children in real cases — not by whether a new process sounds better on paper.

What Litigants in Person Can Do Now

If you are involved in private law children proceedings and you are worried about a Cafcass report, safeguarding analysis, contact breakdown, or Pathfinder process, you need to get organised early.

Practical steps may include:

  • keeping a clear chronology;
  • saving all relevant communication;
  • identifying specific safeguarding concerns;
  • mapping allegations to evidence;
  • understanding PD12J;
  • preparing focused position statements;
  • responding carefully to Cafcass reports;
  • asking the court for specific directions where evidence is missing;
  • and avoiding emotional, unfocused submissions wherever possible.

JSH Law Can Help

JSH Law supports litigants in person with court preparation, chronologies, statements, evidence organisation, Cafcass report responses, safeguarding issue mapping, and hearing preparation.

If you are representing yourself in private children proceedings and feel overwhelmed, you do not have to manage the entire process alone.

Final Thoughts

There are good people inside Cafcass. There are dedicated judges. There are committed practitioners. But good intentions alone do not fix structural problems.

Many litigants in person feel the family justice system remains reactive, inconsistent, overloaded, and too often incapable of properly understanding the complexity of coercive control, domestic abuse, and long-term parent-child harm.

Pathfinder may be intended as reform.

But from the perspective of many families living through it, it risks becoming another procedural redesign that does not address the deeper cultural and operational problems underneath.

Children deserve more than optimistic policy language.

They deserve systems capable of consistently protecting them.

And right now, many families do not believe we are there yet.

Children Cannot Wait

A delayed childhood cannot be repaired by a better policy document years later. If reform is not felt by children and families on the ground, it is not yet reform.

Regulatory & Editorial Notice

JSH Law is not a firm of solicitors and is not regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. We provide litigation support, procedural assistance, legal information, and McKenzie Friend services to litigants in person. We do not conduct litigation or carry out reserved legal activities.

This article is general commentary on matters of public interest relating to the family justice system, Cafcass, Child Focused Courts, domestic abuse, safeguarding, access to justice, and litigants in person. Any references to lived experience, poor practice, or systemic concern are made in general and anonymised terms. No confidential details of any individual case are disclosed.

This article does not constitute legal advice. Readers should obtain advice from a qualified legal professional about their own circumstances.