Tag Archive for: child arrangements

You are here: / / child arrangements

This topic addresses child arrangements within private law children proceedings, including where a child lives, how time is spent with each parent, and how disputes are resolved when agreement cannot be reached.

Content under this tag explores applications, variations, enforcement, and disputes relating to child arrangements, with a focus on the court’s welfare-based decision-making and the practical challenges faced by self-represented parents.

Posts

A Release Date Is Not a Safety Plan: What the October 2026 Prison Reforms Mean for Victims

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Government has narrowed its October 2026 prison-release reforms, but an important safeguarding gap remains. Domestic-abuse perpetrators are not excluded as a category, and risk cannot be measured by an offence label alone. For affected victims, the immediate priority is obtaining accurate information, meaningful licence conditions and a safety plan that accounts for children and any existing family-court orders.

Updated 4 August 2026. The Government has changed its planned prisoner-release reforms following sustained concern from victims and their representatives. People sentenced for rape, serious child sexual offences and grooming offences are now to be excluded from the new release arrangements, and implementation of the wider scheme has been delayed until 1 October 2026.

That is an important change. It is not, however, the same thing as a complete victim-safety plan. Domestic abuse perpetrators have not been excluded as a category. Nor have all violent, stalking or harassment cases. For the victims who remain affected, the urgent questions are practical: When is the offender likely to be released? Who has assessed the risk to me and my children? What conditions will apply? Who will tell the family court? What happens if those conditions are breached?

A release date is not a safety plan. A tag is not a physical barrier. A licence condition only protects a victim if it is informed by the real pattern of risk, communicated clearly and enforced quickly.

What has the Government announced?

Under the Sentencing Act 2026, a new “Progression Model” changes the earliest release point for some people serving standard determinate sentences in England and Wales. The Government’s announcement of 4 August 2026 says that:

  • the model will now come into force on 1 October 2026, rather than in September;
  • people sentenced for rape, serious child sexual offences and grooming offences will be excluded from the changes;
  • people serving life sentences or extended determinate sentences remain excluded and continue to be subject to the existing release framework, including Parole Board review where applicable;
  • for other standard determinate sentences currently carrying a 40% or 50% automatic release point, the earliest release point may become one third of the sentence;
  • where the existing automatic release point is two thirds, the earliest possible release point may become one half;
  • misconduct in prison may lead to added days and a later release;
  • there is to be a presumption of electronic tagging, tighter supervision and greater use of restriction or exclusion zones; and
  • the Government has announced £10 million for victim support, wider contact with affected victims and a dedicated helpline intended to be available by October.

Release on licence does not erase the sentence. The person serves the remaining part of the sentence in the community subject to licence conditions and may be recalled to prison for breach. But for a victim who had organised their safety, housing, employment, schooling or family-court case around the original release expectation, bringing forward the point of release can still be a profound and destabilising change.

The critical gap: domestic abuse perpetrators are not excluded as a group

The revised exclusions are defined principally by conviction and sentence. Real-world risk is not always so tidy.

A domestic abuse case may result in a conviction for coercive or controlling behaviour, stalking, non-fatal strangulation, assault, criminal damage, harassment or breach of a protective order. The offence on the court record may capture only one part of a much longer pattern of coercion, fixation, surveillance and post-separation abuse. Some perpetrators convicted of domestic-abuse-related offending may therefore remain eligible for an earlier release point, depending on the precise offence, sentence and other statutory exclusions.

On 3 August 2026, Domestic Abuse Commissioner Dame Nicole Jacobs said that the decision not to exclude domestic abuse perpetrators was wrong and placed victims’ lives at risk. Her office noted that protections used in the earlier SDS40 scheme for specified domestic abuse offences—including stalking, controlling or coercive behaviour and non-fatal strangulation—were not carried into the Sentencing Act model. The Commissioner called for thorough pre-release risk assessment and properly resourced probation supervision. Read the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s statement.

Victims’ Commissioner Claire Waxman OBE has welcomed the October delay but warned that “exclusions alone cannot guarantee victim or public safety”. She has called for effective risk management, meaningful licence conditions, proper supervision and timely, trauma-informed communication. Read the Victims’ Commissioner’s statement.

Why good behaviour in prison is not the same as safety for a victim

Prison conduct is relevant, but it answers a different question from the one a victim needs answered. A person may comply with rules in a controlled environment while continuing to present a targeted risk to a former partner, child or family member on release. Domestic abuse risk can be victim-specific, relationship-specific and heightened by separation, loss of control, family-court proceedings or a perceived grievance.

A sound release plan therefore needs more than a record of prison behaviour. It should draw on information held by police, probation, prisons, domestic abuse services, children’s services and—where lawful and relevant—the family court. It should identify the perpetrator’s pattern, the people and locations at risk, previous breaches, access to children, digital routes of contact and foreseeable trigger points.

What licence conditions can a victim request?

Victims who use the Probation Service’s Victim Contact Scheme can ask for licence conditions relating to themselves or their family. A Victim Liaison Officer can pass those representations to the relevant decision-maker and explain which conditions have been approved. Possible conditions may include:

  • no direct or indirect contact with the victim or specified family members;
  • an exclusion zone around a home, workplace, school, nursery or other necessary location;
  • restrictions on entering a named area;
  • electronic monitoring, where authorised and appropriate;
  • residence at Approved Premises; and
  • other proportionate conditions directed to an identified risk.

A victim may request a condition but does not personally decide the licence. Be precise. “Keep him away from me” is understandable, but a usable representation identifies the people, addresses, routes, schools, workplaces and forms of indirect contact that require protection. If disclosing an address would itself create danger, say so expressly and ask how it can be protected while still informing the exclusion-zone decision.

Suggested wording to send to a Victim Liaison Officer

“Please confirm whether the Sentencing Act 2026 changes affect the offender in my case and the current expected month of release. I wish to make representations about victim-related licence conditions before the licence is finalised. I request no direct or indirect contact with me or the named members of my family, together with exclusion zones covering the locations set out in the attached confidential schedule. Please confirm who is assessing the risk, whether my information has been included in that assessment, which conditions are approved, when they begin and end, and how I should report a suspected breach.”

Seven steps to take if you receive an early-release letter

  1. Do not assume the first letter is the final position. Keep every letter and email. Ask in writing whether the 4 August exclusions change the position in your case and request the current expected release month.
  2. Contact your Victim Liaison Officer promptly. Check that the Probation Service holds safe, current contact details. Say how and when it is safe to contact you. If you previously opted out of the Victim Contact Scheme, you can ask to opt back in while the offender is serving the sentence.
  3. Make written representations about licence conditions. Identify no-contact requirements, exclusion zones and risks to children or other family members. Explain previous breaches, stalking, threats, weapon use, strangulation, surveillance, third-party contact or attempts to use court proceedings as a route back into your life.
  4. Ask for a multi-agency safety plan. If you have an IDVA, ISVA, stalking advocate, social worker or police contact, tell them about the proposed release. Ask what information has been shared with probation and what you should do if the offender appears, contacts you or uses another person to make contact.
  5. Review every protective order and its expiry date. A criminal restraining order, licence condition, non-molestation order and child arrangements order are separate legal instruments. They may protect different people, prohibit different conduct and end on different dates. Do not assume that one fills a gap left by another.
  6. Tell the family court and Cafcass if children may be affected. In ongoing proceedings, notify the court promptly and consider an application for urgent directions. If proceedings have ended, legal advice may be needed about an urgent application to vary or suspend child arrangements. More detail appears below.
  7. Report breaches; do not investigate them yourself. If there is immediate danger, call 999. Preserve messages, screenshots, call logs, doorbell footage and witness details. Report suspected licence breaches to the appropriate probation contact and report criminal conduct or immediate risk to the police.

What if there is a child arrangements order?

Release from prison does not automatically grant, restore, suspend or vary child contact. It also does not automatically vary an existing child arrangements order. The family court must make its own welfare-based assessment, applying the Children Act 1989 and, where domestic abuse is alleged or established, Practice Direction 12J.

Where release creates a new or increased risk, practical options may include:

  • in ongoing children proceedings, using Form C2 to request an urgent order or directions, where appropriate;
  • where proceedings have concluded, using Form C100 to apply to vary or discharge a child arrangements order;
  • filing Form C1A to set out harm or risk of harm to a child or adult;
  • asking the court to consider urgent interim arrangements, such as suspension, indirect contact or professionally supervised contact, if supported by the evidence and necessary for safety;
  • asking for relevant information from police or probation to be obtained through proper court directions rather than relying on assertion or incomplete correspondence; and
  • using Form C8 where contact details need to be withheld from another party.

Urgent and without-notice children applications are exceptional and the correct route depends on the procedural position. HMCTS publishes specific guidance on urgent child-arrangements hearings. If an existing order cannot safely operate because of a genuinely immediate risk, obtain urgent legal advice and place the issue before the court as quickly as possible. Do not treat an internet article as a substitute for advice on whether a particular order must be followed in the circumstances.

Can a victim seek a protective injunction?

A person who is eligible under the Family Law Act 1996 may apply for a non-molestation order to protect themselves or a relevant child from abuse or harassment. An occupation order can regulate occupation of the family home. Applications use Form FL401. In a qualifying urgent case, the court can consider an application without notice to the respondent.

There is no court fee for an FL401 application. Legal aid may be available for protection from domestic abuse and for some related private family-law cases, subject to the rules on evidence, scope and financial eligibility. See the Government’s domestic abuse legal-aid guidance.

What evidence should be assembled?

A short, organised evidence pack is more useful than a mass of unstructured material. Consider keeping:

  • the sentencing result, sentencing remarks or judgment, if available;
  • all release-date and Victim Contact Scheme correspondence;
  • the name and contact details of the Victim Liaison Officer and other professionals;
  • copies of restraining orders, non-molestation orders, occupation orders and child arrangements orders;
  • a concise chronology of incidents, threats, breaches and safeguarding concerns;
  • police incident or crime-reference numbers;
  • relevant messages, call logs, screenshots and third-party contact;
  • school, medical, social-care or specialist-support evidence, where relevant and lawfully obtained; and
  • a clear schedule of the licence conditions and exclusion zones requested, with reasons.

Keep fact, concern and request separate. For example: “On 12 June he contacted me through X despite the restraining order” is a fact capable of evidence. “I believe the risk is escalating because…” is an assessment. “I ask for an exclusion zone covering…” is the protective request. That structure makes it easier for probation, police and the court to act.

The wider lesson: justice systems must be designed around the person at risk

The prison-capacity crisis is real. So is the risk of system failure if courts cannot remand or imprison dangerous offenders. But presenting prison capacity and victim safety as competing abstractions misses the operational issue. The question is whether reform has been designed end-to-end—from sentence and release calculation through probation, victim notification, safeguarding, family-court coordination and enforcement.

The October delay creates a narrow implementation window. Success should not be measured only by the number of prison places released. It should also be measured by whether every affected victim was reached safely, whether their information changed the risk assessment, whether appropriate conditions were in place before release, whether agencies knew who would act on a breach, and whether children’s arrangements were reviewed where necessary.

Victim communication is not a courtesy added after the policy decision. It is part of public protection.

Frequently asked questions

Are all prisoners being released after one third of their sentence?

No. The changes apply to particular standard determinate sentences and are subject to statutory exclusions and the prisoner’s conduct. Different sentence types have different release rules. Ask the Victim Liaison Officer to explain the position in the individual case.

Are rape and child sexual offenders included?

The Government announced on 4 August 2026 that rape, serious child sexual and grooming offences will be excluded from the new Progression Model changes. The exact legal implementation and offence schedule should be checked once the necessary legislation or regulations are published.

Are domestic abuse offenders excluded?

Not as a category. Some may be excluded for another legal reason, such as sentence type or an excluded offence, but other domestic-abuse-related offenders may fall within the new model. Eligibility must be checked case by case.

Can I ask to be told the exact release date and address?

The Victim Contact Scheme provides specified information at key stages, but victims are not necessarily entitled to every operational detail. The published scheme says a victim can choose to be told the month of release and can be informed about agreed victim-related licence conditions. Ask your Victim Liaison Officer what can safely and lawfully be disclosed in your case.

Can I insist on a no-contact condition or exclusion zone?

You can make representations and request conditions relating to you or your family. The responsible authority decides whether each condition is necessary and proportionate. Give specific evidence and reasons, and ask to be told what has been agreed.

What happens if the offender breaches licence conditions?

A licence breach can lead to recall to prison. Conduct may also amount to a separate criminal offence or breach of a court order. Do not confront the offender. Preserve evidence, follow the reporting plan given by probation and contact police immediately if there is danger or suspected criminal conduct.

Does release mean a parent can immediately resume contact with a child?

No. Release does not itself create or restore child contact and does not alter an existing family-court order. Any contact must be lawful under the relevant family and criminal orders and consistent with licence conditions. If circumstances have materially changed, an urgent family-court application may be necessary.

Who can I contact now?

If you have received contact from someone in prison or are worried about release, the current HMPPS Victim Helpline is 0300 060 6699 and victim.helpline@justice.gov.uk. The Government has said that a further dedicated helpline for people affected by the 2026 reforms will be available by October.

Support and urgent help

How JSH Law can help

JSH Law supports litigants in person to turn complex histories into clear, court-ready material. Where a proposed release affects family proceedings or protective arrangements, we can help you organise the relevant orders and correspondence, prepare a focused chronology, identify the evidence needed, and structure the issues and urgent requests for the court. The correct legal route depends on the facts, the orders already in force and whether proceedings remain open.

This article provides general information about the law and procedure in England and Wales as at 4 August 2026. It is not legal advice. Sentencing and release rules are technical and may change as the Government implements its announcement. If you or a child is at immediate risk, call 999.

Key sources

Children, Character and Adult Responsibility: A JSH Law Response to Katharine Birbalsingh

/0 Comments/in /by

Katharine Birbalsingh’s speech is uncomfortable because it forces us to ask a question many adults would rather avoid: what are we actually teaching children about responsibility, duty, truth, resilience and moral character? This is not just an education debate. From a family justice and safeguarding perspective, it goes much deeper. Children are growing up in a world where adult conflict is often normalised, social media shapes identity before maturity has formed, boundaries are confused with harm, and “listening to the child” is sometimes misused as an excuse for adults to step back from their own responsibility. Children need rights, protection and compassion. But they also need adults who are brave enough to lead, set boundaries, tell the truth, model self-control and keep adult problems away from childhood.

Children • Safeguarding • Family Justice • Education

“This Is a Civilisational Failure”: What Katharine Birbalsingh’s Speech Gets Right About Children, Character and Adult Responsibility

Children do not become resilient, responsible and emotionally safe by accident. They need adults, families, schools, courts and communities who are willing to provide boundaries, truth, stability, moral clarity and protection.

Summary

Katharine Birbalsingh’s ARC26 speech, titled “This is a civilisational failure!”, argues that the West’s moral crisis is connected to the values adults have taught children. Her focus is education, culture, duty, responsibility and moral character. This article looks at that argument from a JSH Law perspective: family justice, safeguarding, children’s welfare, social media, parental responsibility, coercive control, litigation abuse and the reality of what happens when adults fail to provide children with safe, stable and morally coherent leadership.

Katharine Birbalsingh is not a neutral figure in public debate. She is known for strong views on discipline, education, culture and responsibility. Her school, Michaela Community School in London, has attracted both admiration and criticism for its strict ethos and high expectations. Ofsted’s 2023 report recorded that the school continued to be outstanding, noting exceptionally high expectations for behaviour, academic work and personal development.

That does not mean every person will agree with every word she says. They will not. That is not the point.

The point is that she is asking a question many adults would rather avoid:

What are we actually teaching children about life, duty, truth, responsibility, resilience and moral agency?

That question matters deeply in family justice.

Because by the time families arrive in the family court, the issue is rarely just one isolated argument, one missed contact, one unpleasant message, one school dispute, one failed handover or one parenting disagreement. What the court often sees is the end result of patterns: adult conflict, poor boundaries, coercive behaviour, emotional dysregulation, unsafe communication, entrenched grievance, parental alienating behaviours, domestic abuse, social media escalation, financial pressure and adults using children as witnesses, messengers, weapons or emotional support.

That is where the phrase “civilisational failure” lands differently.

It is not just about schools.

It is about what happens when adults abandon their responsibility to form, protect and guide children.

Children Need More Than Rights Language

Children have rights. That matters. Children must be listened to. Their wishes and feelings matter. Their safety matters. Their identity matters. Their emotional wellbeing matters. Their autonomy develops as they mature.

But children also need adults to understand something that modern systems sometimes avoid saying clearly:

Children are still children.

They are not miniature adults. They should not be expected to carry adult conflict, adult ideology, adult loneliness, adult emotional need or adult decision-making. They should not be placed in the middle of parental warfare and then told it is “their choice”. They should not be handed a smartphone, exposed to adult content, pressured by algorithms and then blamed for becoming anxious, reactive, sexualised, aggressive, withdrawn or confused.

A child’s voice matters. But a child’s voice is not the same thing as adult abdication.

The safeguarding point

Listening to children does not mean abandoning adult responsibility. A child can be heard, respected and taken seriously without being made responsible for adult decisions, parental conflict or unsafe family dynamics.

In family court language, this distinction is crucial. The court may consider a child’s wishes and feelings, having regard to age and understanding, but the child’s welfare remains the court’s paramount consideration when deciding questions about upbringing under section 1 of the Children Act 1989.

That is not accidental. It reflects a hard truth: children may have strong wishes, but adults and courts still have a duty to assess safety, context, pressure, manipulation, welfare and long-term impact.

The Problem With Outsourcing Character Formation

One of the strongest themes in Birbalsingh’s speech is the idea that children are being taught to see the world through narrow and destructive frames: oppressor and oppressed, grievance and blame, identity and victimhood.

That point needs careful handling.

There are real victims. Domestic abuse is real. Coercive control is real. Racism is real. misogyny is real. poverty is real. disability discrimination is real. institutional failure is real. Children who are harmed should not be told to “toughen up” while adults protect the systems or people who failed them.

But there is also a serious danger when children are taught that identity alone explains everything, that personal responsibility is oppressive, that boundaries are harm, that discipline is abuse, that all discomfort is trauma, and that the correct response to difficulty is always blame.

That is not empowerment.

It leaves children fragile, reactive and dependent on external validation.

Real safeguarding is not about wrapping children in cotton wool. It is about helping them become safe, capable, truthful, resilient and morally responsible people.

A better balance

Children need both compassion and accountability.

They need both protection and resilience.

They need both rights and responsibilities.

They need adults who can say: “What happened to you matters, and what you do next also matters.”

Boundaries Are Not Abuse

This is where the conversation becomes difficult, particularly for those of us working around domestic abuse, coercive control and safeguarding.

We need to be precise.

Boundaries are not the same as control.

Discipline is not the same as domination.

Authority is not the same as coercion.

But abusive adults often misuse the language of discipline, respect, culture, religion, family values and parental authority to justify harmful behaviour. That is why we must distinguish healthy structure from coercive control.

Healthy boundary Coercive control
Clear, age-appropriate rules explained calmly. Rules used to frighten, isolate, humiliate or dominate.
Consistent consequences linked to behaviour. Punishment that is unpredictable, disproportionate or designed to break the person down.
Encouraging responsibility and repair. Demanding submission, silence or compliance.
Protecting a child from harm. Using “protection” as an excuse to monitor, isolate or control.
Adult authority exercised for the child’s welfare. Adult power exercised for the adult’s ego, image or control.

Family courts, schools, social workers, Cafcass and professionals must be able to hold both truths at once.

Children need boundaries.

Children also need protection from adults who weaponise boundaries.

Family Justice Shows Us What Happens When Adults Fail

In family proceedings, the court often has to pick through the wreckage of adult failure.

A parent refuses to communicate safely.

A child is told too much.

A parent presents adult grievances as the child’s wishes.

Contact becomes a battleground.

Allegations are minimised, exaggerated, ignored or weaponised.

Domestic abuse is reframed as “conflict”.

Coercive control is missed because professionals look for single incidents rather than patterns.

A child learns that love means loyalty tests, emotional pressure, secrecy or fear.

This is why character formation cannot be treated as a soft issue. It has legal, emotional and safeguarding consequences.

The family court reality

When adults do not regulate themselves, children are often forced to adapt around adult dysfunction. That adaptation may look like “choice”, “maturity” or “strong wishes”, but sometimes it is survival, pressure, loyalty conflict or emotional exhaustion.

That is why evidence-led family justice matters.

Courts need more than accusation and counter-accusation. They need clear chronology, patterns of behaviour, examples, impact on the child, safeguarding analysis and practical proposals. Professionals need to ask not only, “What does the child say?” but also:

  • What has the child been exposed to?
  • Who has had influence over the child’s narrative?
  • Is the child being placed in a loyalty conflict?
  • Has one parent used litigation, money, communication or contact arrangements as pressure?
  • Are there patterns of intimidation, monitoring, isolation or emotional manipulation?
  • What would make this child safer, calmer and more secure?

Social Media Has Changed Childhood

Birbalsingh’s speech also points toward a wider cultural problem: children are being shaped by social media, algorithms and online culture at a scale adults have not properly controlled.

We should be honest about this.

Many children now receive moral instruction from platforms designed to capture attention, provoke reaction, reward outrage and keep users scrolling. That is not a neutral environment. It changes language. It changes expectations. It changes how children understand identity, relationships, sex, conflict, popularity, shame, humiliation, violence and status.

The Online Safety Act 2023 reflects Parliament’s recognition that online platforms have duties in relation to illegal content and children’s exposure to harmful material. Government materials on the Act describe duties on platforms to protect child users and enforce age limits more consistently.

But legislation alone will not raise children.

Parents, schools and communities cannot simply say, “The platform should sort it.” Of course platforms should be held to account. But adults also need to know what children are watching, who they are speaking to, what messages are shaping them and whether online life is becoming a substitute parent.

Practical safeguarding questions

  • Does the child have unrestricted access to adult content?
  • Are they being drawn into misogynistic, violent, extremist or self-harm content?
  • Are they being groomed, pressured, bullied or humiliated online?
  • Are parents using phones to monitor, control or interrogate the child?
  • Is one parent using messages, screenshots or social media to influence the child against the other?
  • Is online activity affecting sleep, school, anxiety, aggression or family relationships?

The Legal Framework: Welfare, Safeguarding and Adult Responsibility

From a family law perspective, this debate must come back to welfare.

Under section 1 of the Children Act 1989, when a court determines any question about a child’s upbringing, the child’s welfare is the court’s paramount consideration. That principle is not sentimental. It is practical. It requires the court to look beyond adult entitlement and focus on what is best for the child.

Safeguarding guidance also places responsibility on adults and agencies. Keeping Children Safe in Education 2025 sets out the legal duties schools and colleges must follow to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. Working Together to Safeguard Children 2026 emphasises multi-agency responsibility, clarity of roles and effective support for children who need help and protection.

So when we talk about moral character, discipline, responsibility and culture, we should not treat those as abstract political ideas. They sit alongside very real legal and safeguarding duties.

The legal and safeguarding reality

Children need adults to protect them from harm.

Children need adults to promote their welfare.

Children need adults to model safe behaviour.

Children need adults to tell the truth.

Children need adults to stop making adult conflict their burden.

That applies whether the adult is a parent, teacher, social worker, Cafcass officer, solicitor, McKenzie Friend, religious leader, politician, platform owner or judge.

A Trauma-Informed Response Does Not Mean No Standards

One of the mistakes in public debate is the false choice between compassion and standards.

Some people talk about discipline as if children simply need to be controlled.

Others talk about trauma as if expectations are inherently harmful.

Both positions are too crude.

A trauma-informed approach does not mean children should have no boundaries, no consequences, no responsibility and no expectations. It means adults understand that behaviour may be communication, that fear changes the nervous system, that shame can escalate harm, and that children who have experienced instability may need calm, predictable, relationally safe structure.

In other words: trauma-informed practice should make adults better at boundaries, not afraid of them.

Children who have been harmed do not need chaos dressed up as kindness. They need safety, predictability, attunement, truth and adults who can stay regulated.

This is particularly important in domestic abuse cases.

A child who has lived with coercive control may be hypervigilant. A child who has witnessed violence may become aggressive, withdrawn, compliant or controlling. A child caught in post-separation abuse may say what they think the powerful adult wants to hear. A child who has been emotionally parentified may appear mature while carrying entirely inappropriate burdens.

The answer is not permissiveness.

The answer is safe, skilled, evidence-led adult leadership.

What This Means for Parents

Parents do not need to be perfect. No parent is.

But children do need parents who are willing to take responsibility.

That means:

  • Do not involve children in adult disputes.
  • Do not show children court documents, hostile messages or adult allegations unless there is a clear safeguarding reason and professional advice.
  • Do not use “the child’s wishes” as a shield for adult manipulation.
  • Do not undermine the other safe parent to secure loyalty.
  • Do not outsource parenting to devices.
  • Do not confuse permissiveness with love.
  • Do not confuse control with protection.
  • Do not make children responsible for your loneliness, anger or emotional regulation.

Positive parenting is not weak parenting. It involves warmth, structure, honesty, repair and consistency.

Children need to know that adults can apologise. They need to see adults resolve conflict without threats. They need to hear adults say, “That was not acceptable,” without humiliation or cruelty. They need to learn that love is not the absence of boundaries.

What This Means for Schools

Schools cannot replace families. But they are often the first place where the impact of family breakdown, domestic abuse, neglect, poor sleep, online harm and emotional insecurity becomes visible.

A school culture that values behaviour, kindness, duty, learning and personal responsibility can be protective. It can give children stability. It can give them a model of adult authority that is calm and predictable. It can create a place where children are not ruled by the loudest, most aggressive or most disruptive pupil in the room.

But schools also have to be alert to safeguarding realities.

A child who is repeatedly late, exhausted, anxious, aggressive, hungry, withdrawn, unusually compliant or suddenly refusing contact with a parent may not simply be “difficult”. There may be something happening at home. There may be coercive control. There may be neglect. There may be a parent using the child as a messenger. There may be online harm. There may be fear.

The best school cultures hold standards and curiosity together.

A safeguarding-aware school asks

  • What has changed?
  • What pattern are we seeing?
  • What is the child communicating through behaviour?
  • Are there safe adults around this child?
  • Is the child being placed under pressure by an adult?
  • What information needs to be shared, and with whom, to safeguard this child?

What This Means for Family Court Cases

For litigants in person, this discussion is not theoretical. It affects how cases should be prepared.

If you are involved in children proceedings, do not simply say:

“The other parent is damaging the child.”

That may be true. But the court needs evidence, examples, dates, patterns, impact and practical proposals.

Better questions are:

  • What exactly has happened?
  • When did it happen?
  • How do I know?
  • What was the child’s presentation before and after?
  • Is there a pattern?
  • What evidence supports it?
  • What order am I asking the court to make?
  • How does that order promote the child’s welfare?
  • How does it reduce conflict or safeguarding risk?

A welfare-focused case is not built on outrage. It is built on clarity.

If your concern is emotional harm, coercive control, alienating behaviour, unsafe communication, online exposure, neglect, educational instability or the child being burdened with adult issues, organise the evidence properly.

Courts are more likely to understand patterns when those patterns are set out calmly and chronologically.

Practical evidence examples

  • A short chronology of key incidents.
  • A schedule showing dates, behaviour, evidence and impact on the child.
  • School attendance, lateness, behaviour or wellbeing records where relevant.
  • Messages showing unsafe communication or adult conflict being pushed through the child.
  • Examples of the child being asked to choose sides.
  • Evidence of online harm, monitoring, pressure or inappropriate exposure.
  • Clear proposals for safer handovers, communication, boundaries and contact arrangements.

The Bigger Point: Children Need Adults to Be Adults

The reason Birbalsingh’s speech has resonated is because many people can feel that something has gone wrong.

Children are anxious.

Parents are overwhelmed.

Teachers are exhausted.

Family courts are overloaded.

Social media is shaping children faster than adults can respond.

Professionals are often afraid to speak plainly.

And too many children are left to navigate adult confusion without enough guidance, protection or moral structure.

We do not fix that by shouting slogans at one another.

We fix it by taking adult responsibility seriously again.

That means:

  • Parents setting loving, consistent boundaries.
  • Schools creating safe, purposeful cultures.
  • Courts focusing on welfare, evidence and long-term impact.
  • Professionals naming coercive control and emotional harm where it exists.
  • Adults refusing to use children as weapons in adult disputes.
  • Platforms being held to account for the environments they create.
  • Communities rebuilding expectations around duty, service, truth and care.

This is not nostalgia. It is safeguarding.

Children need freedom, but freedom without formation is abandonment.

Children need compassion, but compassion without truth is sentimentality.

Children need rights, but rights without responsible adults are not enough.

For Litigants in Person: Make the Court’s Job Easier

If you are a litigant in person dealing with child arrangements, safeguarding concerns, coercive control, alienating behaviours or post-separation abuse, the court needs help to see the pattern clearly.

Do not bury the issue in long emotional statements. Do not send pages of screenshots with no explanation. Do not assume the court will automatically understand the significance of behaviour that has taken months or years to unfold.

Your job is to make the court’s job easier.

That means presenting:

  • the issue;
  • the evidence;
  • the pattern;
  • the impact on the child;
  • the safeguarding risk;
  • the practical order sought;
  • why that order is in the child’s welfare interests.

The strongest family court documents are calm, specific and child-focused. They do not need to be dramatic. They need to be clear.

How JSH Law Can Help

JSH Law supports people navigating the family court, particularly where there are concerns about domestic abuse, coercive control, safeguarding, child arrangements, emotional harm, post-separation abuse, litigation abuse or overwhelming evidence.

Support can include:

  • organising evidence into clear schedules;
  • preparing chronologies;
  • drafting or improving witness statements;
  • helping prepare position statements;
  • reviewing Cafcass or section 7 report concerns;
  • preparing for hearings;
  • identifying safeguarding patterns and welfare impact;
  • helping litigants in person present their case clearly and calmly.

The aim is simple: to help you present the reality of what is happening in a way the court can understand and act on.

Book a consultation Contact JSH Law

Conclusion

Katharine Birbalsingh’s speech will divide opinion. Strong speeches usually do.

But the underlying question should not be dismissed:

What kind of adults are we forming?

For those of us concerned with family justice, safeguarding and children’s welfare, that question is urgent.

Children need adults who are compassionate enough to protect them and courageous enough to guide them.

They need adults who can tell the truth without cruelty.

They need adults who understand that boundaries are not the enemy of love.

They need adults who stop turning adult conflict into childhood trauma.

They need homes, schools, courts and communities that take welfare seriously in practice, not just in language.

If we fail at that, then yes, we are looking at something much deeper than an education debate.

We are looking at a failure of adult responsibility.

Sources and further reading

Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Family court outcomes depend on the facts, evidence, procedural history, safeguarding issues, the orders sought and the court’s assessment of the child’s welfare. If you are involved in proceedings, consider taking legal advice or obtaining appropriate support with your documents and evidence.

Raneem’s Law Expanded: Why Domestic Abuse Specialists in 999 Control Rooms Matter

/0 Comments/in /by

Raneem’s Law was born from devastating failure. Raneem Oudeh and her mother, Khaola Saleem, should have been heard, understood and protected. The expansion of domestic abuse specialists into more 999 control rooms is therefore deeply significant — but it must be judged by outcomes, not announcements.

Domestic Abuse, Safeguarding and Police Response

Raneem’s Law Expanded: Domestic Abuse Specialists in 999 Control Rooms Are Being Trebled

The expansion of Raneem’s Law is an important safeguarding development. Domestic abuse specialists are being embedded in 12 more 999 control rooms across England and Wales, bringing the total to 17 forces. This is a welcome step — but the real test will be whether victims are heard, risk is recognised early, and police action changes before another family is failed.
Updated: June 2026
Focus: Raneem’s Law, domestic abuse, 999 control rooms, police safeguarding, family law, non-molestation orders, child arrangements and evidence in family court.

The Home Office has announced that domestic abuse specialists will be embedded in 12 more 999 control rooms under Phase Two of Raneem’s Law.

This means the number of police forces operating the model will rise from five to 17, with the government committed to rolling it out across every police force in England and Wales by 2029.

This is significant.

Domestic abuse cases are often won or lost, protected or missed, escalated or minimised, at the first point of contact. That first 999 call can be the moment when risk is properly identified — or the moment when danger is misunderstood as “just a domestic”.

Raneem’s Law is not just about putting specialists in control rooms. It is about changing what happens when a victim reaches out for help and the system has one chance to respond properly.

What is Raneem’s Law?

Raneem’s Law was established in memory of Raneem Oudeh and her mother, Khaola Saleem, who were murdered in 2018 after repeated contact with police, including multiple 999 calls.

Their case has become a symbol of what can happen when domestic abuse risk is not properly recognised, when repeated calls are not understood as escalation, and when victims are not protected at the point when protection is most urgently needed.

The purpose of Raneem’s Law is to place domestic abuse expertise directly inside police 999 control rooms, so that call handlers and responding officers are not left to interpret high-risk domestic abuse calls without specialist support.

The specialists are intended to help with:

  • real-time advice to call handlers and responding officers;
  • reviewing domestic abuse cases and risk assessments;
  • identifying high-risk cases earlier;
  • supporting staff training on domestic abuse;
  • improving victim engagement during emergency calls;
  • ensuring victims are referred quickly to specialist services;
  • spotting missed safeguarding opportunities;
  • strengthening the police response from the first point of contact.
Read the official announcements:

What has been announced?

The latest announcement confirms that Phase Two of Raneem’s Law will embed domestic abuse specialists in 12 additional 999 control rooms across England and Wales.

The 12 additional Phase Two forces are:

  • Thames Valley Police;
  • West Yorkshire Police;
  • Hampshire Constabulary;
  • Essex Police;
  • Merseyside Police;
  • Nottinghamshire Police;
  • Derbyshire Constabulary;
  • Cambridgeshire Constabulary;
  • North Wales Police;
  • Gloucestershire Constabulary;
  • Cleveland Police;
  • Dyfed-Powys Police.

The five forces already operating the model are:

  • West Midlands Police;
  • Northumbria Police;
  • Northamptonshire Police;
  • Bedfordshire Police;
  • Humberside Police.

That brings the total to 17 forces.

Why this matters:

If the first response to a domestic abuse call is better informed, the whole safeguarding chain may change: risk assessment, officer deployment, referral to specialist services, evidence gathering, bail or protective measures, and later court proceedings.

What early reports suggest

According to the Home Office announcement, early reports from police forces suggest the initiative has led to:

  • increased confidence among call handlers and officers;
  • earlier identification of high-risk domestic abuse cases;
  • swifter action to deploy safeguarding measures and protect victims.

Those are exactly the areas where domestic abuse response has historically failed too many victims.

Domestic abuse is not always obvious to someone who has not been trained to recognise coercive control, escalation, stalking, strangulation risk, separation risk, post-separation abuse, threats of suicide, threats to children, economic abuse or patterns of intimidation.

A single incident may be serious. But a pattern can be lethal.

That is why specialist knowledge at the point of emergency contact matters.

Domestic abuse is not just about the incident being reported that day.

The immediate call may be only one visible point in a much longer pattern of control, fear, escalation and risk. A specialist is more likely to ask what has happened before, what has changed, whether separation has increased risk, whether there are threats, whether children are present, and whether the caller is minimising danger because they are frightened.

Why 999 control rooms are so important in domestic abuse cases

A 999 control room is not just an administrative gateway. It is often the first professional decision point in a domestic abuse crisis.

The call handler may need to make rapid decisions about:

  • how immediate the danger is;
  • whether the caller can speak freely;
  • whether the perpetrator is present;
  • whether there are children in the home;
  • whether weapons are involved;
  • whether there has been strangulation or suffocation;
  • whether there are threats to kill;
  • whether the victim is trying to leave or has recently separated;
  • whether stalking or harassment is escalating;
  • whether previous incidents have been reported;
  • whether an urgent police response is required;
  • whether additional safeguarding action is needed immediately.

Those decisions can have life-changing consequences.

If the wrong questions are asked, the danger may be missed.

If the call is treated as a one-off dispute, the pattern may be missed.

If the caller is calm, articulate or minimising, the risk may be underestimated.

If the perpetrator has no obvious criminal history, control and coercion may be dismissed.

If the victim has called before, repeat contact may be wrongly framed as “relationship drama” rather than a warning sign.

The danger is minimisation.

Domestic abuse victims are often at greatest risk when systems underestimate what they are being told. A specialist in the control room cannot guarantee safety, but they can reduce the chance that key warning signs are missed at the very first point of contact.

The family law relevance

This announcement is not only relevant to criminal justice. It matters deeply in family law.

Domestic abuse allegations are central to many private children cases, non-molestation applications, occupation order applications, relocation disputes, prohibited steps applications and enforcement proceedings.

Police response can become important evidence in family court.

That may include:

  • 999 call recordings;
  • CAD logs;
  • incident reports;
  • body-worn video;
  • DASH or other risk assessments;
  • arrest records;
  • bail conditions;
  • Domestic Abuse Protection Notices or Orders;
  • non-molestation order breach reports;
  • referrals to MARAC or specialist services;
  • evidence of repeat call-outs;
  • records showing escalation or patterns of coercive control.

In a family case, this material can be critical.

It may help the court understand whether the alleged abuse is isolated, minimised, denied, escalating, post-separation, child-impacting or part of a longer course of coercive and controlling behaviour.

Practical family court point:

If there has been emergency police contact, parties and advisers should think carefully about whether police disclosure is needed. A short summary from memory may not be enough. The timing, wording, response, risk assessment and subsequent action may all matter.

Why this matters for victims applying for protective orders

Victims often apply for urgent protective orders after an incident, escalation or police contact.

In family law, this may include:

  • non-molestation orders;
  • occupation orders;
  • prohibited steps orders;
  • child arrangements applications involving safeguarding concerns;
  • variation or suspension of contact;
  • specific issue applications;
  • applications for special measures;
  • requests for fact-finding hearings.

A stronger emergency response can support better evidence, better safeguarding decisions and clearer applications.

But the victim should not have to become an investigator of their own abuse.

Too often, victims are expected to gather screenshots, organise timelines, chase police records, explain coercive control, produce evidence, protect children, manage fear and navigate court procedure all at the same time.

If Raneem’s Law improves the quality of the initial police response, it may also improve the quality of the evidential record later.

Potential benefit:

Better 999 handling may mean better early documentation of risk. That can help victims, lawyers, police, support services and courts understand what actually happened — and what needs to happen next.

Why this matters for child arrangements cases

Domestic abuse is not separate from children’s welfare.

Children may be directly harmed, exposed to abuse, used as a means of control, frightened by police attendance, drawn into adult conflict, or affected by post-separation abuse long after the relationship has ended.

Family courts must take domestic abuse seriously when considering child arrangements.

A properly recorded police response can help identify:

  • whether children were present during an incident;
  • whether the perpetrator made threats involving the children;
  • whether handovers are unsafe;
  • whether contact is being used for control;
  • whether communication arrangements need restrictions;
  • whether a fact-finding hearing is required;
  • whether special measures are needed;
  • whether contact should be supervised, supported, suspended or risk-assessed;
  • whether safeguarding information should be shared urgently.

This is why the first response matters.

A missed emergency call can echo through a whole family court case.

A properly understood emergency call can change the way risk is framed from the beginning.

Domestic abuse is often misunderstood at the point of contact

One of the most persistent problems in domestic abuse response is that abuse is still too often treated as a series of incidents rather than a pattern of control.

Victims may not use the language professionals expect.

They may not say “coercive control”.

They may say:

  • “He keeps turning up.”
  • “He won’t leave me alone.”
  • “He has my phone.”
  • “He says he will ruin me.”
  • “He says I will never see the children again.”
  • “He is outside.”
  • “He is threatening to report me.”
  • “He has been messaging my family.”
  • “He controls the money.”
  • “He has never hit me, but I am scared.”

A non-specialist response may miss the risk.

A trained domestic abuse specialist is more likely to understand that fear, control, monitoring, threats, stalking, post-separation harassment and economic abuse can be just as serious as visible physical injury.

Important:

Many victims minimise abuse when they speak to professionals because they are frightened, ashamed, exhausted, worried about the children, financially trapped, or afraid they will not be believed. The system needs to be trained to hear what is being said — and what is being carefully left unsaid.

What Raneem’s Law may improve

If implemented properly, domestic abuse specialists in 999 control rooms could improve several parts of the system.

1. Earlier risk recognition

Specialists may help identify high-risk indicators earlier, especially where abuse is escalating, repeated, post-separation or linked to stalking and coercive control.

2. Better officer guidance

Officers responding on the ground may receive more informed advice about what to ask, what to record, what to preserve and what safeguarding steps may be needed.

3. Stronger referrals

Victims may be referred to specialist domestic abuse support more quickly, rather than being left to navigate support services alone after a crisis.

4. Improved evidence

Better initial handling can produce clearer records, better risk assessments and more useful material for later criminal, civil or family proceedings.

5. Better training culture

Specialists can help train control room staff, improving the wider force response rather than simply intervening in individual calls.

6. More consistent safeguarding

If rolled out properly, the model could reduce postcode differences in how domestic abuse emergency calls are understood and acted upon.

But this must not become a box-ticking exercise

This expansion is welcome, but it must be judged by outcomes, not announcements.

Domestic abuse victims have heard promises before.

The question is not whether specialists are technically present in control rooms.

The real questions are:

  1. Are emergency calls being answered and assessed properly?
  2. Are high-risk cases being identified earlier?
  3. Are repeat calls being treated as escalation?
  4. Are victims being believed and protected?
  5. Are children’s risks being recognised?
  6. Are officers being properly guided at the scene?
  7. Are perpetrators being held accountable?
  8. Are referrals to specialist services happening quickly?
  9. Are missed opportunities being audited?
  10. Are victims safer as a result?
JSH Law view:

Raneem’s Law must not become a policy headline that looks good on paper but fails in practice. The measure matters only if it changes decision-making, improves safety and prevents victims from being ignored when they call for help.

The link with Domestic Abuse Protection Orders

The Home Office announcement also refers to the wider rollout of Domestic Abuse Protection Orders, known as DAPOs.

DAPOs are intended to provide stronger and more flexible protection for victims, including protection for as long as needed, and may include restrictions or positive requirements for perpetrators.

This is relevant because a stronger emergency response should not exist in isolation.

A victim may need:

  • immediate police attendance;
  • risk assessment;
  • safe accommodation;
  • specialist advocacy;
  • criminal investigation;
  • bail conditions;
  • a Domestic Abuse Protection Notice or Order;
  • a non-molestation order;
  • an occupation order;
  • safe child contact arrangements;
  • financial protection;
  • ongoing support for children.

The first 999 call should be the start of a coordinated protective response, not the only moment when the victim is expected to ask for help.

Read more:

Home Office and Ministry of Justice: Domestic Abuse Protection Orders update

What victims should know

If you are in immediate danger, call 999.

If you are frightened but unsure whether what is happening “counts” as domestic abuse, it may still be important to seek advice. Domestic abuse is not limited to physical violence.

It can include:

  • coercive and controlling behaviour;
  • threats and intimidation;
  • stalking and harassment;
  • economic abuse;
  • sexual abuse;
  • emotional abuse;
  • isolation from friends or family;
  • monitoring phones, messages or location;
  • threats involving children;
  • post-separation abuse;
  • using court proceedings to continue control.

If police have attended or you have called 999, keep a careful record where it is safe to do so.

Useful information may include:

  • the date and time of the call;
  • what happened before the call;
  • whether children were present;
  • whether there were threats;
  • whether there was physical violence, strangulation or injury;
  • what the police did;
  • any incident reference number;
  • any bail conditions or protective measures;
  • any referral to support services;
  • any further contact or escalation afterwards.
Safety first:

Do not keep records in a place where the perpetrator can find them. If your phone, email, cloud storage or messages are monitored, seek specialist domestic abuse support before saving or sending information.

What family lawyers and advisers should watch for

Family lawyers, McKenzie friends, support workers and advisers should be alert to the importance of emergency contact records.

In a family case involving domestic abuse, ask:

  1. Were there 999 calls?
  2. Were there non-emergency police reports?
  3. Were there previous incidents before the final escalation?
  4. Are there CAD logs or incident numbers?
  5. Was a risk assessment completed?
  6. Were children present or affected?
  7. Were there threats to kill, threats of suicide, stalking or strangulation?
  8. Were bail conditions imposed?
  9. Was the victim referred to specialist services?
  10. Was the response adequate, delayed or minimising?
  11. Is police disclosure needed for the family court?
  12. Does the material support an application for protective orders or special measures?

The family court often needs a clear chronology. Police records may help build that chronology, but they should be analysed carefully and not treated as the whole story.

A police record may show only what was reported at the time. It may not capture years of coercive control, financial abuse, sexual abuse, isolation, monitoring or threats.

Practical point:

Police records can be powerful evidence, but absence of police reports does not mean absence of abuse. Many victims never report, or only report after years of escalation.

Why this announcement matters — and why it is not enough on its own

This expansion is a meaningful step.

But no single measure will fix the domestic abuse response by itself.

Raneem’s Law must sit within a wider system that includes:

  • proper police training on coercive control and post-separation abuse;
  • consistent use and enforcement of protective orders;
  • safe accommodation;
  • specialist domestic abuse support;
  • better perpetrator management;
  • family court reform;
  • proper legal advice for victims;
  • safe child contact decision-making;
  • recognition of economic abuse;
  • understanding of stalking and escalation;
  • accountability when police or agencies fail.

A specialist in a 999 control room can help improve the first response. But victims also need safe follow-through.

They need the system to act after the call.

They need protective measures to be enforced.

They need family courts to understand the risk.

They need children’s safety to be taken seriously.

They need not to be retraumatised by having to prove the obvious over and over again.

The measure is welcome. The question now is whether it will produce the cultural change victims have been asking for: being believed, being protected, and being treated as people at risk — not as inconvenient callers in a “domestic dispute”.

The JSH Law view

JSH Law welcomes the expansion of Raneem’s Law.

Embedding domestic abuse specialists in 999 control rooms is a practical and necessary step. It recognises that domestic abuse calls require expertise from the beginning, not only after a tragedy, a serious assault or repeated escalation.

But this must be more than symbolic.

The effectiveness of Raneem’s Law should be measured by real-world outcomes:

  • Are victims safer?
  • Are high-risk cases identified earlier?
  • Are children better protected?
  • Are police records more accurate?
  • Are perpetrators disrupted sooner?
  • Are protective measures being used and enforced?
  • Are repeat calls treated as warning signs?
  • Are victims referred quickly to specialist support?
  • Are failures audited and learned from?

Raneem Oudeh and Khaola Saleem should have been heard, understood and protected.

Their legacy must be a system that listens the first time, acts before it is too late, and understands that domestic abuse is not a private argument. It is a safeguarding issue, a policing issue, a family justice issue and a public safety issue.

The bottom line:

Raneem’s Law is a vital development, but it will only matter if it changes practice on the ground. Domestic abuse victims do not need warm words. They need specialist understanding, swift action, proper evidence, safe referrals and protection that actually works.

Sources and further reading

Need help preparing family court documents involving domestic abuse?

JSH Law helps litigants in person and family law clients organise evidence, prepare chronologies, analyse safeguarding material, draft court documents and turn overwhelming paperwork into clear, structured, court-ready information.

If your family court case involves domestic abuse, police contact, non-molestation proceedings, child arrangements, safeguarding concerns or evidence organisation, practical support is available.

Contact JSH Law or book a consultation through the website.

This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. If you are in immediate danger in the UK, call 999. If you are preparing family court documents or considering an application, seek legal advice or specialist domestic abuse support wherever possible.

“`

Can You Actually Get Legal Aid? The Family Court Access Crisis Behind the LAA’s New Provider Push

/0 Comments/in /by

The Legal Aid Agency is seeking more family legal aid providers, but for many litigants in person the real issue is whether legal aid can actually be accessed in time. JSH Law looks at family legal aid deserts, court preparation and the access-to-justice crisis.

Family Legal Aid | Litigants in Person | Access to Justice

Can You Actually Get Legal Aid? The Family Court Access Crisis Behind the LAA’s New Provider Push

The Legal Aid Agency is seeking more family legal aid providers in several parts of England. That is welcome. But it also exposes a much harder truth: legal aid may exist in theory, while many parents, survivors and litigants in person still cannot access practical help in time for court.

By Jessica Susan Hill, JSH Law | Family court support, litigants in person, access to justice and legal technology commentary

The real question is not “does legal aid exist?”

For many people facing family court, the real question is far more practical:

Can I actually find a family legal aid solicitor with capacity before my hearing?

That is where the system often breaks down. Eligibility on paper does not help if every provider is full, too far away, not taking new cases, unable to act urgently, or cannot assist before the next hearing date.

What has the Legal Aid Agency announced?

On 2 June 2026, the Legal Aid Agency announced that it is seeking additional capacity in family legal aid services. The stated aim is to strengthen access and availability, and to support timely access to legal advice and representation.

The LAA is inviting organisations to submit bids to deliver family legal aid work in the following areas:

  • Dorset
  • Dudley
  • East Sussex
  • Hartlepool
  • Knowsley
  • Sandwell
  • Solihull
  • St Helens

Successful applicants will deliver work under the 2024 Standard Civil Contract. The LAA has said that providers can apply at any time, and that contracts are intended to commence as soon as possible after the verification process is complete.

Today’s Family Lawyer has reported on the announcement, noting that the areas of work include issues such as domestic abuse, care proceedings and disputes involving children.

Why this is more than a procurement notice

This is not just an administrative update for law firms. It is a public signal that family legal aid capacity is not strong enough in parts of England. For families in crisis, that matters immediately.

Why this matters for family court litigants

Family legal aid is not an abstract policy issue. It is the difference between someone having urgent legal advice before a hearing and someone walking into court alone, frightened and unprepared.

In family court, the issues are rarely minor. People may be dealing with:

  • domestic abuse and coercive control;
  • urgent child arrangements disputes;
  • allegations of harm;
  • care proceedings;
  • non-molestation orders and occupation orders;
  • fact-finding hearings;
  • Cafcass reports;
  • local authority involvement;
  • supervised contact;
  • parental alienation allegations;
  • drug, alcohol or mental health concerns;
  • children being withheld;
  • enforcement applications;
  • cross-allegations between parents; and
  • urgent safeguarding decisions that affect a child’s daily life.

These are not cases where people can simply “wait and see”. A parent may have seven days to respond to an application. A hearing may be listed urgently. A safeguarding letter may land days before court. A Section 7 report may recommend arrangements that a parent believes are unsafe. A survivor of abuse may need protective measures before the next hearing.

In that context, legal aid capacity is not just about legal advice. It is about whether the family justice system can function fairly at all.

How lack of legal aid creates more litigants in person

The family court already has a significant litigant in person problem. Many parents are unrepresented not because they want to be, but because they cannot afford representation and cannot secure legal aid.

When someone becomes a litigant in person, they are suddenly expected to understand:

  • court orders;
  • directions;
  • deadlines;
  • position statements;
  • witness statements;
  • exhibits;
  • bundle rules;
  • safeguarding letters;
  • Cafcass recommendations;
  • Scott schedules or allegations schedules;
  • hearing formats;
  • cross-examination rules;
  • fact-finding hearing preparation;
  • appeal routes; and
  • the difference between evidence, submissions and emotion.

That is a huge ask for anyone. It is an even bigger ask for someone who is traumatised, frightened, exhausted, neurodivergent, disabled, in crisis, financially strained, or trying to protect their child.

The consequence is predictable. Hearings take longer. Judges have to explain more. Court staff are placed under pressure. Cafcass recommendations may go unchallenged because a party does not understand how to test the evidence. Allegations may be poorly organised. Important documents may not be filed correctly. Survivors may struggle to articulate risk. Respondents may struggle to answer allegations properly. Children may experience delay.

Lack of legal aid capacity therefore does not just affect the individual litigant. It affects the efficiency, fairness and safety of the whole family justice system.

Why this is a safeguarding issue, not just a funding issue

The LAA’s announcement specifically refers to family legal aid work, and Today’s Family Lawyer reports that the relevant issues include domestic abuse, care proceedings and disputes involving children. Those are safeguarding-heavy areas of law.

In domestic abuse cases, early legal advice can be vital. A survivor may need help with:

  • protective injunctions;
  • child arrangements;
  • safe handovers;
  • allegations of coercive control;
  • evidence of abuse;
  • special measures;
  • protection from cross-examination by an alleged perpetrator;
  • responding to counter-allegations;
  • understanding Cafcass safeguarding checks;
  • preparing for a fact-finding hearing; and
  • avoiding unsafe informal agreements.

In care proceedings, parents may be facing the most serious state intervention into family life. In private children proceedings, a court may be asked to decide where a child lives, how often they see each parent, whether contact should be supervised, whether allegations of harm need findings, and whether a child is safe.

These are not situations where access to legal advice is a luxury. It is a safeguard.

Legal aid capacity is child protection infrastructure

When a parent cannot access advice, the court may receive poorer evidence, weaker case preparation and less focused submissions. That can affect the quality of decision-making. In children proceedings, that is not merely inconvenient. It can be unsafe.

What should you do if you cannot find a family legal aid solicitor?

If you may be eligible for legal aid but cannot find a provider, do not simply give up after one or two calls. Keep a clear record and take practical steps quickly.

Practical checklist if you cannot find legal aid representation

  1. Use the official legal aid adviser search.
    Start with the government’s Find a legal aid adviser or family mediator tool.
  2. Contact more than one provider.
    Do not assume the first “no” means there is no help available anywhere.
  3. Ask the right question.
    Ask: “Do you currently have capacity to take a new family legal aid matter before my hearing date?”
  4. Keep a call and email log.
    Record the firm, date, time, person spoken to, outcome, and whether they said they had no capacity.
  5. Check what evidence is needed.
    If the case involves domestic abuse, ask what evidence is required for legal aid assessment.
  6. Tell providers your hearing date immediately.
    Urgency matters. Put the next hearing date in the first line of your email.
  7. Send key documents in an organised way.
    Include the application, most recent order, Cafcass documents, safeguarding letter, statements and hearing notice where available.
  8. If necessary, write to the court.
    If you are genuinely trying to obtain representation, you may need to inform the court promptly and ask for directions where appropriate.
  9. Do not miss deadlines.
    Waiting for a solicitor does not automatically pause court directions.
  10. Consider interim procedural support.
    If you remain unrepresented, practical help with organising documents, preparing a chronology or understanding the next steps may still be valuable.

Suggested wording when contacting legal aid firms

Subject: Urgent family legal aid enquiry – hearing listed on [date]

Dear [Firm Name],

I am looking for urgent family legal aid assistance. I am involved in family court proceedings concerning [child arrangements / domestic abuse / care proceedings / other]. My next hearing is listed on [date] at [court].

Please could you confirm whether you currently have capacity to assess me for family legal aid and, if eligible, whether you would be able to act before the hearing date?

I can provide the application, most recent court order, hearing notice and relevant documents immediately.

I would be grateful if you could let me know as soon as possible whether you are able to assist, or whether you are unable to take on new legal aid matters at this time.

Kind regards,
[Name]

The key is to create an evidence trail. If you later need to explain to the court that you tried to obtain representation but could not, a clear log is far stronger than simply saying, “I couldn’t find anyone.”

What this means for legal aid providers

The LAA’s invitation is also significant for law firms and organisations considering entering or expanding in the legal aid market.

The LAA has said it welcomes applications from:

  • current legal aid providers who would like to expand;
  • new organisations entering the legal aid market; and
  • organisations able to meet the contract’s quality and supervisory standards.

That is important. But the wider legal aid problem cannot be solved by procurement notices alone. Providers need sustainable funding, workable administration, realistic remuneration, trained supervisors, succession planning and a viable business model.

Family legal aid work is specialist. It can be emotionally intense, document-heavy, urgent and high-risk. Firms taking on this work carry real responsibility. If the economics do not work, firms leave the market. If experienced supervisors retire and are not replaced, capacity shrinks. If young lawyers cannot see a sustainable career in legal aid family law, the pipeline weakens.

The provider problem is also a workforce problem

Family legal aid capacity depends on people: solicitors, supervisors, caseworkers, administrators and advocates who can do difficult work under pressure. The system cannot expand if the workforce is exhausted, underpaid or leaving.

What meaningful reform should look like

The LAA’s provider push is welcome. More family legal aid capacity is needed. But meaningful reform must go deeper.

1. Capacity must be measured in real-world terms

It is not enough to count whether an area technically has providers. The real question is whether those providers have capacity to take new cases quickly enough.

2. Legal aid deserts must be mapped honestly

The system needs transparent data showing where people cannot access family legal aid in practice. That should include provider availability, waiting times and areas where firms are not taking new clients.

3. Domestic abuse cases need urgent triage

Survivors of domestic abuse should not be left making dozens of calls while a hearing approaches. There should be better urgent triage pathways where safety is in issue.

4. Family legal aid work must be financially sustainable

If the work is not sustainable, providers will not enter or remain in the market. Access to justice cannot be built on goodwill alone.

5. Litigants in person need proper procedural information

Where representation cannot be obtained, litigants should still be given clear, plain-English guidance about what to do next, what documents matter, what deadlines apply, and how to prepare for hearings.

6. The court system must recognise the impact of non-representation

The absence of legal aid capacity directly affects court efficiency. More litigants in person means more explanation, more adjournments, more procedural confusion and greater pressure on judges, Cafcass and court staff.

7. Access to justice policy must connect the dots

Legal aid, court delay, domestic abuse, child arrangements, judicial workload, litigants in person and legal technology are not separate conversations. They are connected parts of the same access-to-justice problem.

Practical summary for litigants in person

  1. Check legal aid early. Do not wait until the week before court.
  2. Use the official adviser finder. Search by area and category of law.
  3. Contact several providers. One refusal does not mean no one can help.
  4. Ask about current capacity. The key question is whether they can act before your hearing.
  5. Keep a contact log. This may help if you need to explain your position to the court.
  6. Get your documents organised. Providers cannot assess urgency properly without the key papers.
  7. Do not miss court deadlines while waiting. Unless the court changes a direction, it still applies.
  8. Seek practical support if you remain unrepresented. Document organisation and hearing preparation can still make a real difference.

Facing family court without representation?

If you cannot obtain legal aid, are waiting for a legal aid appointment, or need help getting organised before a hearing, JSH Law may be able to support you with practical family court preparation.

Support may include document organisation, chronologies, hearing notes, position statement preparation, Cafcass report review, safeguarding issue mapping and McKenzie Friend support where appropriate.

JSH Law does not replace regulated legal advice or legal aid representation. But where you are facing court as a litigant in person, structured preparation can help you feel clearer, calmer and more organised.

Final thought: legal aid must be accessible in reality, not just in principle

The LAA’s new provider push is welcome. More family legal aid capacity is needed. But the announcement should also make us uncomfortable.

Because behind every procurement area is a person who may be trying to protect a child, respond to allegations, escape abuse, challenge an unsafe recommendation, or understand what the court is asking them to do.

Legal aid is not meaningful if people cannot access it in time.

Access to justice is not achieved by eligibility alone.

It is achieved when people can obtain the right help, at the right time, in the right place, before decisions are made that may affect their family for years.

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, litigants in person and the role of legal technology in improving practical support for court users.

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 formal legal advice, advocacy, conduct of litigation, rights of audience, appeal advice or regulated representation are required, readers should seek assistance from an appropriately authorised legal professional.

Legal aid eligibility and availability depend on the facts, category of law, merits, means, evidence requirements and provider capacity. Readers should use official legal aid resources and contact authorised providers directly where legal aid representation may be required.

References to third-party articles, government announcements and public commentary are included for public-interest discussion and access-to-justice analysis.

“`

Family Courts “Not Good Enough” for Women and Children? Why This Matters for Every Parent in England and Wales

/0 Comments/in /by

The family courts in England and Wales have come under unprecedented criticism after a government minister publicly stated that they are “not good enough” for women and children. For many parents who have spent months—or even years—navigating private law children proceedings, the remarks will feel less like a revelation and more like an acknowledgment of lived reality. Delays, inconsistent decision-making, concerns around domestic abuse, and the growing number of litigants in person have fuelled calls for reform across the family justice system. But what do these comments actually mean for families currently involved in proceedings, and will the latest reforms be enough to restore confidence in a system that determines the futures of thousands of children every year?

Family Courts “Not Good Enough” for Women and Children? What the Minister’s Warning Really Means for Parents in England and Wales

When a justice minister says publicly that the family courts in England and Wales are “not good enough” for women and children, that is not just another political soundbite. It is an admission from inside government that something is fundamentally wrong with the way too many families experience private law children proceedings.

For years, parents have been told to trust the process. Many have. Many have entered the family court believing that if they explain the abuse clearly enough, provide the evidence carefully enough, and remain child-focused throughout, the system will identify risk early and make protective, proportionate decisions. Too often, that has not been their experience.

Instead, many litigants describe a system that is slow, reactive, inconsistent, intimidating, and still too willing to treat allegations of domestic abuse, coercive control, and post-separation harm as secondary to the drive to restore or preserve parental contact. That does not mean every case is mishandled. It does mean that the concerns are too widespread, too familiar, and too serious to dismiss as isolated complaints.

This matters because private law children proceedings are not abstract legal disputes. They determine where a child lives, who a child sees, what safeguards are put in place, how risk is assessed, and whether a survivor of abuse is effectively required to continue navigating a system shaped by the person they say harmed them. For mothers, children, and indeed any protective parent, the stakes are obvious: safety, stability, and the long-term emotional welfare of the child.

Key takeaways for litigants in person

  • The minister’s remarks matter because they signal that government now accepts there are systemic problems in family justice, especially where domestic abuse and child safety are concerned.
  • The new Child Focused Courts model is intended to move private law children cases away from combative adult-versus-adult litigation and toward earlier risk identification, better information gathering, and more child-centred decision-making.
  • That does not mean the current system is already fixed. Parents should still prepare carefully, organise evidence properly, and make the child welfare case in a disciplined, legally grounded way.
  • Any future repeal of the presumption of parental involvement would be a major legal and cultural shift, but it will not remove the need for clear evidence, focused submissions, and proper welfare analysis in individual cases.
  • If you are in proceedings now, the practical question is not whether reform is coming. It is how to protect your child and present your case effectively under the law as it stands today.

What exactly has been said?

The recent reporting follows a significant shift in tone and policy from government. The Ministry of Justice has already announced the national rollout of the newly named Child Focused Courts model, formerly known as the Private Law Pathfinder, across England and Wales. The stated aim is clear: to resolve cases more quickly, identify risk earlier, hear children better, and reduce further trauma for families in private law children cases.

That is not happening in a vacuum. It sits alongside the government’s previously announced plan to repeal the presumption of parental involvement from the Children Act 1989 framework, on the basis that an entrenched assumption in favour of ongoing parental involvement can, in some cases, work against child safety and can perpetuate abuse. That is an important point. The criticism is not that loving, safe parental relationships do not matter. Of course they do. The criticism is that a legal and cultural “pro-contact” starting point can distort analysis where abuse, coercion, fear, and unsafe dynamics are present.

In other words, the issue is not contact as such. The issue is what happens when contact becomes the objective rather than a welfare-driven outcome.

Why this matters so much in private law children cases

Private law children proceedings under section 8 of the Children Act 1989 are often described as disputes between parents. That description can be dangerously incomplete. In many cases, especially those involving allegations of domestic abuse, coercive control, stalking, intimidation, sexual violence, or child emotional harm, the proceedings are not merely about a “disagreement” over arrangements. They are about the court’s ability to identify patterns of harm and to make orders that protect children while avoiding the re-enactment of abuse through the litigation process itself.

That is precisely why survivors, campaigners, and many practitioners have been warning for years about a culture in which abuse is minimised, coercive control is under-weighted, and the pressure to move toward contact can override proper scrutiny. It is also why Practice Direction 12J exists: because allegations of domestic abuse in child arrangements proceedings are not peripheral. They go directly to welfare, risk, and the court’s decision-making responsibilities.

Yet having a Practice Direction is not the same as having a system that applies it well, consistently, and early enough. A recurrent problem in family proceedings has been delay in getting to the real issues. By the time allegations are narrowed, the evidence is organised, safeguarding is updated, and any fact-finding is listed, months may have passed. During that time, children may be in limbo, survivors may be under immense stress, and interim arrangements may harden into a de facto status quo that becomes difficult to dislodge later.

The phrase “not good enough” should not be watered down

Those words matter. They should not be softened into something more comfortable. “Not good enough” is a serious criticism when it comes from a minister responsible for justice. It implies not simply isolated failures but systemic inadequacy.

There is a tendency in family justice discussion to retreat into process language: complexity, balance, competing rights, difficult facts, overloaded courts, constrained resources. Some of that is true. Family cases are difficult. Judges do face hard decisions. Evidence is often incomplete. Not every allegation is proved. Not every concern is well founded. But none of that excuses a system in which women and children can emerge feeling that the structure itself did not understand the nature of the harm they were trying to explain.

Where a mother describes coercive control, or a child’s distress is treated as resistance to contact rather than a possible indicator of fear, or repeated litigation becomes a vehicle for continuing control, the court process can become part of the problem. That is the uncomfortable truth behind much of the criticism.

And to be blunt, litigants in person often bear the worst of it. A parent without representation may have to explain abuse in a procedurally disciplined way, comply with directions, manage disclosure, prepare statements and schedules, respond to allegations, and keep their child’s welfare central throughout, all while emotionally exhausted and often financially overstretched. If the system is not designed to recognise and reduce those pressures, it can easily reward the more organised, more resourced, or more legally experienced party rather than the safer parent.

The child-focused model: genuine reform or rebranding?

This is the right question. Whenever government announces reform, people are entitled to ask whether it is substance or packaging.

The Child Focused Courts model appears to aim at real structural change. Its emphasis is on earlier information gathering, joined-up working between agencies, better identification of domestic abuse and other harms, hearing the child’s experience more effectively, and reducing delay. That is promising. If a model genuinely changes what information the court has at the start, how quickly safeguarding concerns are identified, and how children’s experiences are integrated into the case, it can change outcomes.

But reform should be judged by what it does on the ground, not by the elegance of its policy language.

The real test is practical:

  • Are allegations of abuse being identified earlier and treated more seriously?
  • Are coercive and controlling behaviours being properly understood, rather than dismissed because they do not fit an outdated image of abuse?
  • Are children’s voices being heard in a way that is meaningful rather than tokenistic?
  • Are unsafe interim arrangements being avoided?
  • Are cases being resolved more quickly without sacrificing proper scrutiny?
  • Are survivors being supported through the process rather than simply processed by it?

If the answer to those questions becomes yes in day-to-day practice, then this reform will matter. If not, “child-focused” risks becoming another label attached to a system that still defaults to adult-driven litigation.

The deeper issue: family justice has long had a credibility problem

For many years, there has been a credibility gap between what the system says it does and what many parents say they experience. Officially, the child’s welfare is paramount. Officially, domestic abuse is taken seriously. Officially, the court’s task is a careful welfare-based evaluation of what is best for the particular child. All of that is true as a matter of legal principle.

But lived experience has often exposed a different reality: one where procedure overwhelms substance, where contact is treated as inherently restorative, where emotional harm is underestimated, where findings are postponed but pressure toward contact continues, and where a protective parent may be viewed through the lens of “obstruction” simply for raising risk consistently.

This is one reason why the debate around the presumption of parental involvement has become so important. The legal presumption has always been more nuanced than some public discussion suggests. It is not a presumption of equal time, nor an absolute rule that both parents must have direct contact in every case. Even so, in practice, presumptive thinking can shape professional culture. It can encourage a mindset that begins from “how do we make this contact happen?” instead of “what does this child’s safety and welfare require in this case?”

That distinction is everything.

What about the planned repeal of the presumption of parental involvement?

This is one of the most significant proposed shifts in family justice policy for years.

At present, section 1(2A) of the Children Act 1989 contains the statutory presumption that, unless the contrary is shown, involvement of a parent in the life of the child will further the child’s welfare. In legal terms, that has always been subject to welfare and safety. In practical terms, critics argue that it has contributed to a culture in which contact can be treated as the destination even where risk is unresolved.

The government’s stated intention to repeal that presumption is therefore not merely symbolic. It sends a message that welfare analysis should not be built on an assumption that parental involvement is beneficial unless disproved. Instead, the court should start where it always ought to start: with the child, the facts, the risks, and the evidence.

That said, parents should be realistic. Repeal of the presumption, if and when it is legislated for, will not magically solve evidential problems, inconsistent judicial approaches, poor case management, or the emotional and financial strain of proceedings. Nor will it remove the need for the court to distinguish between genuine risk and exaggerated or unfounded allegations. What it may do is shift the legal and cultural baseline toward a more safety-first analysis.

Why women and children are so often mentioned together in this debate

Some people react defensively to criticism framed around women and children, as though naming those groups somehow excludes fairness to fathers. That is the wrong way to read the issue.

The point is not that mothers are always right or fathers are always wrong. The point is that family court failures often track patterns of domestic abuse, coercion, and post-separation control in ways that disproportionately affect women and children. Where a mother has experienced abuse, the child may have experienced it too directly or indirectly. The child’s welfare cannot be separated neatly from the abusive dynamics between the adults. Nor can the mother’s ability to parent safely be detached from the pressure, fear, and destabilisation caused by ongoing litigation or unsafe contact arrangements.

That is why a simplistic “both parents matter equally in all cases” approach can be so misleading. Safe, beneficial parental involvement matters. But when one parent presents a risk, the law must be capable of saying so clearly and acting on it decisively.

There is nothing anti-father about demanding that family courts understand abuse properly. In fact, a genuinely child-focused system should benefit all safe parents, including fathers who are themselves protective, non-abusive, and child-centred.

What litigants in person need to understand right now

If you are currently in proceedings, the immediate position is this: the rhetoric is changing, the policy direction is changing, and the government is plainly signalling dissatisfaction with the current system. But your case will still be decided under the law and procedure as they stand now.

That means you still need to do the practical work.

You need a clear chronology. You need your evidence organised. You need to distinguish allegation from proof, pattern from isolated incident, concern from submission, and child-focused welfare analysis from understandable parental anger. You need to understand the legal framework the court is applying: the welfare principle, the welfare checklist where relevant, the role of CAFCASS, the significance of PD12J in domestic abuse cases, and the importance of proportionality in any fact-finding process.

You also need to be very careful with language. Family courts respond badly to scattergun accusations and undisciplined narratives. The stronger approach is structured, evidence-led, and focused relentlessly on what the child has experienced, what the risks are, how those risks affect welfare, and what order would best protect and promote the child’s interests.

That is especially important where the other party is likely to frame you as hostile to contact. Courts are often alert to the possibility of one parent undermining another. If you are raising genuine welfare concerns, you need to present them as such: not as punishment, not as score-settling, not as grievance, but as child protection and child welfare points grounded in evidence and logic.

The danger of reform without accountability

There is another point that should not be missed. Reform is not only about changing process. It is about accountability for whether the new process works.

If Child Focused Courts are to become the national model, there needs to be rigorous scrutiny of outcomes. That means looking not only at speed, though speed matters, but also at safety, repeat applications, children’s experiences, judicial consistency, interim arrangements, and the quality of decision-making where abuse is alleged. A faster court is not necessarily a better court if it is simply reaching unsafe outcomes more efficiently.

Equally, a system cannot call itself child-focused merely because it uses the language of children’s voices. The real question is whether the child’s lived experience alters the legal response. If a child’s fear, distress, or exposure to coercive control is recorded but then effectively set aside, the system has not become child-focused. It has just become better at documenting its own failure.

What should happen next?

If government is serious, the next phase cannot stop at headline reform. Several things need to happen.

First, there must be sustained investment in the courts, support services, and specialist safeguarding responses. A better model cannot run on empty.

Second, domestic abuse understanding must be deepened across the system, especially in relation to coercive and controlling behaviour, post-separation abuse, litigation abuse, and the way children experience harm in households marked by fear and instability.

Third, there must be discipline around interim decision-making. Too much harm can occur before the final welfare hearing. Unsafe interim contact, unmanaged handovers, or poorly considered arrangements can destabilise children long before a case is fully tried.

Fourth, the court process must remain accessible to litigants in person. A system that is theoretically protective but practically impossible to navigate is not a just system.

Fifth, there must be honesty. Family justice cannot rebuild trust through reassurance alone. It will rebuild trust only by acknowledging where it has gone wrong and showing, in real cases, that different decisions are being made for better reasons.

My view: this is an important admission, but not yet a victory

The minister’s comments matter. They matter because they validate what many women, survivors, and child-focused campaigners have been saying for years: that the family courts have too often failed to protect properly, failed to hear children well enough, and failed to understand abuse in the forms it most commonly appears after separation.

But an admission is not a cure.

The family courts in England and Wales are at a critical point. There is now a real opportunity to move away from a culture that has too often treated contact as the benchmark of success and toward one that treats child safety, emotional welfare, and reality-based risk assessment as the benchmark instead.

That would be progress. Serious progress.

But until parents in ordinary cases can feel that the process is fair, that abuse is understood, that children are heard, and that unsafe dynamics are not dressed up as co-parenting problems, the criticism will remain justified.

“Not good enough” is therefore not the end of the conversation. It is the starting point for what has to come next.

And frankly, it is long overdue.

Need help preparing for family court? If you are a litigant in person dealing with child arrangements proceedings, domestic abuse allegations, CAFCASS issues, fact-finding directions, or concerns about how to present your evidence clearly and safely, early case strategy can make a real difference.

Regulatory & Editorial Notice
This article is provided for general information, commentary, and public legal education only. It does not constitute legal advice, and reading it does not create a client relationship. JSH Law Ltd is not a firm of solicitors and does not provide reserved legal activities. Any commentary on public reporting, government announcements, policy developments, or third-party material is editorial in nature and reflects the position as understood at the date of publication. Family law outcomes are highly fact-sensitive and depend on the evidence, procedure, and judicial evaluation in the individual case. Specific advice should always be taken on the facts of your own matter.

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.

“`

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 Is Under Review: What Litigants in Person Need to Know

/0 Comments/in /by

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 was meant to mark a turning point: a clear statutory recognition that domestic abuse is not limited to physical violence. It includes coercive control, economic abuse, psychological abuse, emotional abuse and other forms of behaviour that can trap a person long after a relationship has ended. But as the House of Lords Domestic Abuse Act 2021 Committee now asks whether the statutory definition is working in practice, litigants in person in the family court need to pay close attention — because the gap between what the law says and what happens in real cases can be devastating for parents and children.

Is the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 Working? Why Litigants in Person Need to Watch This Inquiry Closely

Category: Family Court, Domestic Abuse, Litigants in Person, Legal Process, Access to Justice

The House of Lords is now examining whether the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 is working in practice. That matters enormously for litigants in person, especially parents in private children proceedings, because the statutory definition of domestic abuse affects how allegations are recognised, how risk is assessed, how children are understood as victims, and how the family court approaches safeguarding.

This is not a remote Westminster issue. This is about what happens when a parent walks into the family court without a solicitor, tries to explain coercive control, economic abuse, post-separation abuse, faith-based abuse, honour-based abuse, tech-facilitated abuse, or the impact on children — and finds that the system is still better at recognising obvious physical violence than patterns of control.

On Thursday 21 May 2026, the House of Lords Domestic Abuse Act 2021 Committee took oral evidence as part of its inquiry into the Act. The session considered whether the statutory definition properly captures different forms of abuse, including economic abuse, faith and spiritual abuse, tech-facilitated abuse, honour-based abuse and coercive control.

The Committee’s wider inquiry is considering the impact and effectiveness of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, including whether there are gaps in the legislation. The Committee has said it will report by 30 November 2026. You can read more about the inquiry and call for evidence on the UK Parliament website.

Why this matters for litigants in person

If the legal definition is too narrow in practice, victims are forced to translate lived reality into legal language the court will recognise.

That is especially difficult for litigants in person, who are often already exhausted, frightened, traumatised, financially stretched and trying to navigate a system designed around legal professionals.

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021: what it currently says

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 created a statutory definition of domestic abuse in England and Wales. The Act makes clear that domestic abuse is not limited to physical violence.

Under section 1 of the Act, behaviour may be abusive if it consists of:

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

The definition applies where both people are aged 16 or over and are “personally connected”. The Act also recognises children as victims of domestic abuse in their own right where they see, hear or experience the effects of abuse and are related to either the victim or the perpetrator.

You can read the legislation directly here: Domestic Abuse Act 2021.

The Act was a major step forward. But the question now is whether it is working on the ground — in police responses, safeguarding decisions, Cafcass assessments, local authority practice, criminal proceedings and family court cases.

The problem: recognition on paper is not the same as recognition in court

Many litigants in person understand this problem immediately. The law may contain the words “coercive control”, “economic abuse” and “psychological abuse”, but that does not mean those forms of abuse are consistently identified, evidenced, pleaded, investigated or acted upon.

In family proceedings, this can create a serious evidential gap. A parent may know they have been controlled, monitored, isolated, financially restricted, intimidated or manipulated. But unless that pattern is set out clearly, chronologically and with evidence, the court may treat it as “conflict”, “poor communication” or “parental disagreement”.

That distinction matters. Domestic abuse is not the same thing as ordinary relationship conflict. Coercive control is not simply two parents who do not get along. Economic abuse is not just money stress. Tech abuse is not just someone being “too interested” in your phone or location. Faith or spiritual abuse is not simply a difference in beliefs. Honour-based abuse is not a “family dispute”.

For litigants in person, the key issue is this:

You cannot assume the court, Cafcass, the police or the other party’s solicitor will automatically understand the pattern. You need to make the pattern visible.

What the Committee considered on 21 May 2026

The Committee’s evidence session looked at whether the statutory definition properly captures different forms of abuse. The witnesses listed for the session were:

  • Dr Nicola Sharp-Jeffs OBE, Independent Economic Abuse Expert;
  • Professor Lisa Oakley, Professor of Safeguarding and Knowledge Exchange at University of Chester;
  • Jen Reed, Head of Policy at UCL Gender and Tech Research Group;
  • Natasha Rattu, expert on forced marriage at Karma Nirvana;
  • Dr Cassandra Wiener, Reader in Law at City St George’s, University of London.

The themes included:

  • how the statutory definition applies to different forms of domestic abuse;
  • awareness of different forms of abuse;
  • whether the definition of being “personally connected” is wide enough;
  • whether the age limit in the statutory definition is appropriate.

You can view the Committee meeting page here: 21 May 2026 Domestic Abuse Act 2021 Committee evidence session.

Economic abuse: when money becomes a method of control

Economic abuse is expressly recognised in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. That was a significant legal development. It means the law recognises that abuse can involve control over money, property, employment, housing, transport, food, debt and financial independence.

For litigants in person, economic abuse may appear in evidence such as:

  • being prevented from working or studying;
  • having wages, benefits or child maintenance controlled;
  • being forced into debt;
  • being denied access to bank accounts or financial information;
  • being left without money for food, fuel, transport or children’s essentials;
  • post-separation financial control, including withholding payments, weaponising child maintenance, delaying property matters or using litigation costs as pressure.

The specialist charity Surviving Economic Abuse explains how the Act recognises economic abuse and how economic abuse can continue after separation.

Practical point for litigants in person

If you are alleging economic abuse, do not simply say “he controlled the money” or “she ruined me financially”. Set out specific examples, dates, documents and impact. Show the court how the financial behaviour created dependency, fear, restriction, pressure or control.

Tech-facilitated abuse: the law is still catching up

Technology has changed the landscape of domestic abuse. Abuse can now be carried out through phones, apps, location tracking, smart devices, online accounts, shared cloud storage, children’s devices, banking apps, social media, email accounts, spyware and digital surveillance.

Examples may include:

  • tracking a person’s location through their phone, car, child’s device or shared account;
  • accessing emails, cloud storage, photographs or messages without consent;
  • using children’s phones or tablets to monitor the other parent;
  • installing spyware or monitoring apps;
  • using smart doorbells, cameras, speakers or household devices to intimidate or monitor;
  • repeated online harassment, fake accounts, impersonation or image-based abuse;
  • weaponising parenting apps or communication platforms as a means of surveillance or harassment.

Recent reporting on the Committee session highlighted concerns that tech-facilitated abuse is still not sufficiently recognised as a central form of domestic abuse, even though it may fall under coercive control, psychological abuse or other forms of abusive behaviour. See, for example, this report: Domestic abuse law fails to recognise danger of tech abuse, Lords committee told.

Practical point for litigants in person

Do not delete digital evidence without taking advice. Preserve screenshots, account alerts, login notifications, device settings, messages, emails, app histories, location-sharing settings and incident logs. Keep a note of when you discovered the issue and what impact it had on your safety, privacy, parenting and mental health.

Faith and spiritual abuse: when belief is weaponised

Faith and spiritual abuse can be difficult for courts and professionals to identify because it may be hidden behind language of culture, belief, family expectation, religious duty or community pressure.

It may include:

  • using religious teaching to justify control, submission or punishment;
  • threatening spiritual consequences if someone leaves a relationship;
  • forcing religious practices or preventing religious practice;
  • using faith leaders, family or community members to pressure a victim;
  • shaming, isolating or blaming the victim through religious language;
  • telling children that one parent is immoral, unsafe or spiritually defective.

This matters in family court because faith and community pressure can affect a parent’s freedom, safety, support network and ability to make independent decisions. It can also affect children, especially where they are drawn into adult pressure, loyalty conflicts or spiritual fear.

Practical point for litigants in person

If faith, religion or community pressure forms part of the abuse, explain the mechanism of control. The court needs to understand what was said, who said it, what pressure was applied, what you were told would happen if you did not comply, and how this affected you or the children.

Honour-based abuse and forced marriage: not a private family matter

Honour-based abuse is often misunderstood. It may be presented as a family issue, a cultural issue, a relationship issue or a community issue. But where pressure, threats, violence, isolation, surveillance or coercion are used, the safeguarding risk can be serious.

Forced marriage and honour-based abuse may involve multiple perpetrators or enablers. The pressure may come from a partner, former partner, parent, sibling, extended family, community members or others. That can make it harder for victims to identify one single perpetrator or one single incident.

Specialist organisations such as Karma Nirvana provide support and information in this area.

Practical point for litigants in person

If there is honour-based abuse, forced marriage risk or community-based coercion, avoid presenting it as a general “family disagreement”. Set out the risk clearly, identify who is involved, explain any threats or pressure, and consider whether specialist safeguarding advice is needed urgently.

Coercive control: the pattern matters more than the isolated incident

Coercive control is one of the most important concepts for family court litigants in person to understand. It is often not one dramatic incident. It is a pattern.

The pattern may include:

  • isolation from family, friends, work or support;
  • monitoring movements, communications or spending;
  • degrading, humiliating or threatening behaviour;
  • rules about clothing, parenting, money, sex, religion or social contact;
  • threats relating to children, immigration, housing, finances or reputation;
  • post-separation control through contact arrangements, litigation, money, police reports or repeated accusations.

The Crown Prosecution Service guidance explains that domestic abuse is not a specific offence in itself, but a general term describing a range of behaviour that may fall under different offences. The CPS guidance also recognises that domestic abuse may cause lasting trauma and that victims may not always recognise what is happening as abusive behaviour. You can read the CPS guidance here: CPS Domestic Abuse Guidance.

Litigants in person: do not plead coercive control as a list of random complaints

The court needs to see the architecture of control. What was the behaviour? How often did it happen? What was the purpose or effect? How did it restrict your freedom, safety, parenting, finances, mental health or relationship with the children?

The “personally connected” issue

The statutory definition requires the parties to be personally connected. This includes spouses, civil partners, people who have agreed to marry, people who are or have been in an intimate personal relationship, people who have or had a parental relationship in relation to the same child, and relatives.

For many family court cases, this will cover former partners and co-parents. But the Committee’s inquiry is looking at whether the definition is working properly across different abuse contexts. This matters because some forms of abuse involve wider family networks, community actors, digital actors or people who may not fit neatly into the ordinary public understanding of a “domestic” relationship.

The age limit issue: what about children under 16?

The statutory definition applies where both people are aged 16 or over. The Act does, however, recognise children as victims where they see, hear or experience the effects of domestic abuse and are related to the victim or perpetrator.

This still leaves difficult questions. Abuse between young people, digital abuse among teenagers, coercive control in adolescent relationships, and the impact of domestic abuse on younger children are all areas where safeguarding practice must keep pace with reality.

Practical point for parents

If your child has seen, heard or experienced the effects of domestic abuse, say so clearly. Do not limit your evidence to what happened to you. Explain what the child saw, heard, noticed, changed, feared, repeated, avoided or disclosed.

Why this is especially important in private children proceedings

Domestic abuse frequently arises in private law children cases. These are cases about child arrangements, live-with orders, spend-time-with orders, parental responsibility, prohibited steps orders and specific issue orders.

For litigants in person, the issue is often not just whether domestic abuse happened. It is whether the abuse is properly connected to child welfare, risk, safe contact and future arrangements.

In practical terms, allegations of domestic abuse may affect:

  • whether a C1A form should be filed;
  • whether safeguarding checks are sufficient;
  • whether Cafcass has properly understood the allegations;
  • whether a fact-finding hearing is required;
  • whether special measures are needed;
  • whether direct cross-examination should be prevented;
  • whether contact should be supervised, supported, indirect or paused;
  • whether a pattern of post-separation abuse is continuing through litigation or child arrangements;
  • whether the child is being exposed to emotional harm, pressure or adult conflict.

The Law Society’s overview of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 notes that the Act prohibits offenders from cross-examining victims in person in the family courts and includes measures relating to special measures, protective orders and support for victims. You can read the Law Society overview here: Domestic Abuse Act 2021 — The Law Society.

What litigants in person should do now

If you are involved in family proceedings and domestic abuse is relevant, this inquiry should prompt you to review how your case is being presented. The court can only work with the evidence and structure placed before it.

Issue What to do in your case
Coercive control Create a chronology showing the pattern over time, not just isolated incidents.
Economic abuse Gather bank statements, messages, debt letters, benefit records, maintenance records, employment evidence and examples of financial restriction.
Tech abuse Preserve screenshots, device alerts, account access records, app settings, location-sharing evidence and suspicious login notifications.
Children’s exposure Record what the child saw, heard, experienced, disclosed or changed in behaviour. Keep the focus on welfare, not adult grievance.
Faith, spiritual or honour-based abuse Explain the pressure mechanism, who was involved, what was threatened, and how it affected safety or decision-making.
Post-separation abuse Show how control continued after separation through money, communication, contact arrangements, litigation, threats or monitoring.
Cafcass concerns Identify exactly what Cafcass missed, misunderstood or failed to analyse. Tie your criticism to evidence and welfare impact.

A simple evidence structure

For each allegation, try using this format:

  1. Date or approximate period: When did it happen?
  2. Behaviour: What exactly happened?
  3. Evidence: What document, message, screenshot, witness or record supports it?
  4. Impact on you: How did it affect your safety, freedom, finances, health or decision-making?
  5. Impact on the child: What did the child see, hear, experience or suffer?
  6. Relevance to orders sought: Why does this matter for child arrangements, safety or welfare?

Why “high conflict” language can be dangerous

One of the biggest problems for litigants in person is the casual use of the phrase “high conflict”. In some cases, that phrase is accurate. In others, it flattens domestic abuse into mutual hostility.

That matters because domestic abuse is about power, control, fear, restriction and harm. If a case is wrongly framed as mutual conflict, the protective lens can be lost. The court may then focus on encouraging communication or co-parenting without properly addressing risk.

This is why evidence has to be precise. The court needs to know whether it is dealing with two difficult adults who need boundaries, or a pattern of abuse where one person has used power and control against the other and/or the children.

The family court question is not simply: “Did the parents argue?”

The real safeguarding question is: has one person used behaviour to control, frighten, isolate, monitor, punish, exploit or dominate the other — and what does that mean for the child?

Domestic Abuse Protection Orders: still important, but not the whole answer

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 introduced Domestic Abuse Protection Notices and Domestic Abuse Protection Orders. These are intended to provide more flexible protection for victims. The DAPO pilot began in November 2024 and, according to the judiciary, has been piloted in areas including Greater Manchester, Croydon, Bromley, Sutton, Cleveland, North Wales and with the British Transport Police.

You can read the judiciary’s update here: Pilot starts for Domestic Abuse Protection Orders.

Protective orders matter. But they are not a substitute for proper understanding of abuse in the family court. A protective order may manage immediate risk. It does not, by itself, ensure that Cafcass, the court, local authorities or professionals properly understand the pattern of abuse or the impact on children.

What this inquiry should make every litigant in person ask

If you are representing yourself in a case involving domestic abuse, ask yourself:

  • Have I clearly identified the type or types of abuse alleged?
  • Have I separated domestic abuse from ordinary relationship conflict?
  • Have I shown the pattern over time?
  • Have I evidenced post-separation abuse?
  • Have I explained the impact on the children?
  • Have I asked for special measures if needed?
  • Have I challenged weak or incomplete safeguarding analysis?
  • Have I connected the evidence to the welfare checklist and the orders I am asking the court to make?

How to follow or contribute to the Committee’s work

The House of Lords Committee has invited interested individuals and organisations to submit views as part of its inquiry. The Committee cannot help with individual cases or complaints, but its work may influence how the Act is understood and whether reform is recommended.

You can find the Committee page here: Domestic Abuse Act 2021 Committee.

You can find the call for evidence here: Call for evidence launched into the impact of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.

The Committee has also provided the following contact email: hldomesticabuseact2021@parliament.uk.

Important

If you are in immediate danger, call 999. If you cannot speak, follow the silent solution procedure when prompted. If you are experiencing domestic abuse, consider contacting a specialist domestic abuse service for support before taking steps that may increase risk.

Final thought: the law must see the abuse people are actually living through

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 was an important milestone. But legislation is only useful if it works in real life.

For litigants in person, the risk is that modern forms of abuse are still being missed, minimised or mislabelled. Economic abuse may be treated as money trouble. Tech abuse may be treated as paranoia. Spiritual abuse may be treated as a private belief issue. Honour-based abuse may be treated as family tension. Coercive control may be reduced to “communication problems”.

That is not good enough.

Children need courts and professionals who can recognise the full pattern of domestic abuse. Victims need a system that does not require them to be legally trained before they are believed. Litigants in person need clear information, practical tools and a court process that understands abuse beyond bruises.

This inquiry matters because it asks the right question: is the statutory definition of domestic abuse working?

For many people in the family court system, the honest answer may be: not well enough yet.

Need help presenting domestic abuse evidence in family court?

JSH Law supports litigants in person with structured case preparation, chronologies, position statements, C1A preparation, safeguarding issue summaries, hearing preparation and practical family court support.

The aim is simple: to help you present the evidence clearly, calmly and in a format the court can understand.

View JSH Law pricing

Useful links

Jessica Susan Hill of JSH Law

About JSH Law

JSH Law provides practical litigation support for litigants in person, with a particular focus on family court preparation, safeguarding issues, domestic abuse allegations, child arrangements proceedings and court-ready documents.

JSH Law is not an SRA-regulated firm and does not conduct reserved legal activities. Support is focused on practical case preparation, procedural assistance and litigation support for people representing themselves.

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, barrister or specialist domestic abuse service. Every family court case turns on its own facts, evidence, procedural history and safeguarding context.

Where this article refers to third-party organisations, Parliamentary material, charities, public bodies or media reports, those references are included for commentary and signposting purposes only. Inclusion does not imply endorsement, partnership or responsibility for third-party content.

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.

Family Court Burnout: The Hidden Mental Health Crisis Facing Litigants in Person

/0 Comments/in , /by

Many litigants in person enter family court believing the hardest part will be understanding the law. In reality, what often breaks people first is the relentless emotional and psychological pressure of trying to manage proceedings alone. The paperwork, allegations, deadlines, CAFCASS involvement, statements, evidence gathering and constant uncertainty can quickly become overwhelming — especially when combined with work, parenting, financial strain and trauma. Behind closed doors, many litigants in person are quietly experiencing anxiety, insomnia, exhaustion and burnout while trying to navigate one of the most emotionally charged systems in the country without professional support.

The Hidden Mental Health Crisis in Family Court

There is a growing conversation in workplaces, leadership circles and healthcare settings about burnout, chronic stress and mental health exhaustion. Yet one group is rarely included in that conversation: litigants in person navigating family court proceedings.

Every day across England and Wales, parents are attempting to manage highly emotional and procedurally complex cases entirely alone. Many are responding to C100 applications, safeguarding allegations, CAFCASS involvement, non-molestation proceedings or disputes over contact with their children without legal representation.

On paper, they are simply “litigants in person.”

In reality, many are frightened, exhausted and overwhelmed people trying to survive one of the most stressful periods of their lives while simultaneously acting as their own case manager, administrator, strategist and advocate.

The Emotional Reality for Many Litigants in Person
  • Constant anxiety about saying or filing the wrong thing
  • Fear of losing time with children
  • Sleep deprivation and racing thoughts
  • Emotional exhaustion from repeated allegations and conflict
  • Difficulty concentrating at work or while parenting
  • Isolation and lack of emotional support
  • Panic caused by court deadlines and legal language
  • Hypervigilance while waiting for CAFCASS reports or hearings

Family Court Becomes a Second Full-Time Job

One of the most underestimated aspects of family court proceedings is the sheer administrative burden placed on litigants in person.

Most people enter the process believing they simply need to “tell the judge what happened.”

Very quickly, they discover they are expected to understand:

  • court procedure and directions
  • how to draft statements
  • how to organise evidence
  • what is relevant or admissible
  • how to prepare a chronology
  • how to respond to allegations
  • what CAFCASS does
  • how hearings operate
  • court deadlines and filing requirements

All while continuing to work, parent, pay bills and attempt to maintain emotional stability.

For many litigants in person, family court proceedings become a second full-time job — except one with enormous emotional stakes attached to it.

The Cost of “Doing It Alone”

Many people avoid seeking support because they believe they cannot afford legal help.

That concern is understandable. Family law representation can be extremely expensive, particularly following the widespread removal of legal aid from private family proceedings.

But there is another cost that often goes unrecognised: the cost to physical and mental health.

Trying to carry every aspect of a family court case alone can lead to:

  • burnout
  • chronic stress
  • panic attacks
  • insomnia
  • depression
  • decision fatigue
  • emotional dysregulation
  • difficulty functioning day-to-day

Many litigants in person find themselves permanently “on edge,” checking emails obsessively, unable to switch off mentally, and struggling to focus on anything outside the proceedings.

Important Reality Check

Saving money by handling proceedings entirely alone may sometimes come at a significant personal cost. Practical support at the right stage of proceedings can reduce pressure, improve organisation and help litigants regain some emotional breathing space.

Why Procedural Support Matters

A McKenzie Friend or litigation support service is not the same as instructing a solicitor to conduct litigation. However, practical procedural support can make a substantial difference to litigants in person who are struggling to cope with the process.

Many litigants do not necessarily need full legal representation throughout an entire case. Often, what they need most is structured support at critical moments.

That may include:

  • understanding court papers
  • help structuring a witness statement
  • preparing a position statement
  • organising evidence
  • creating a chronology
  • understanding CAFCASS recommendations
  • preparing for a hearing
  • understanding procedural next steps

Reducing confusion can significantly reduce panic.

Helping litigants feel organised and prepared can improve not only their presentation in court, but also their overall wellbeing during proceedings.

The System Often Underestimates the Human Impact

Family court proceedings are often discussed purely in terms of legal process and outcomes.

But behind every case number is a human being attempting to function under prolonged stress.

Some litigants are simultaneously dealing with:

  • relationship breakdown
  • domestic abuse allegations
  • financial hardship
  • housing instability
  • trauma
  • co-parenting conflict
  • social services involvement
  • fear of losing meaningful time with their children

The cumulative psychological pressure can be enormous.

Yet many litigants feel they must simply “push through” because there is no realistic alternative available to them financially.

You Do Not Have to Carry Everything Alone

Seeking support does not mean weakness.

It means recognising that family court proceedings are emotionally demanding and procedurally complex — particularly for those navigating them without representation.

Litigants in person often place enormous pressure on themselves to understand everything immediately and manage every aspect of proceedings alone.

That is not always realistic or sustainable.

Practical procedural support can help shoulder part of the burden.

Sometimes the most valuable thing for a litigant in person is simply having someone calm, experienced and organised helping them work through the process step-by-step.

JSH Law Ltd Supports Litigants in Person With:
  • Procedural guidance
  • Statement and position statement support
  • Chronologies and evidence organisation
  • CAFCASS and safeguarding process guidance
  • Hearing preparation support
  • Document drafting assistance
  • Practical litigation support for family proceedings

Final Thoughts

The family court system places extraordinary emotional pressure on litigants in person.

Burnout, anxiety and emotional exhaustion are not signs of weakness. In many cases, they are predictable responses to prolonged uncertainty, conflict and procedural overwhelm.

There should be far greater recognition of the mental health impact of navigating family proceedings alone.

If you are struggling with the pressure of family court proceedings, practical support may help you regain clarity, structure and confidence in the process.

You do not have to navigate it entirely alone.

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

/0 Comments/in , /by

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

Private Children Proceedings | Litigants in Person | Family Court Support

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why so many parents are now representing themselves

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What litigants in person often need most urgently

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

They may need to know:

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

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

The court needs evidence, not just distress

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

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

For example, a parent may say:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Litigants in person need clarity about Cafcass

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

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

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

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

That requires calm, structure and focus.

What a McKenzie Friend can do for a litigant in person

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

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

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

The real issue: access to justice

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

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

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

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

What parents should do before the next hearing

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

Before the next hearing, ask yourself:

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

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

How JSH Law can help

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

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

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

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

Need help preparing for family court?

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

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

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

Sources

Regulatory & Editorial Notice

This article is provided for general information and public legal education only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as a substitute for advice from a qualified solicitor or barrister on the facts of your case.

JSH Law provides practical litigation support and McKenzie Friend services to litigants in person. JSH Law is not a firm of solicitors and is not authorised or regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. JSH Law does not conduct litigation, does not go on the court record, and does not exercise reserved legal activities. Any documents prepared with support from JSH Law must be checked, approved and filed by the litigant in person, who remains responsible for the conduct of their own case.

References to third-party organisations, published statistics, public bodies, guidance or external resources are included for commentary and information purposes only. All external sources should be checked directly for the most up-to-date position.

Jessica Susan Hill, founder of JSH Law

About the author

Jessica Susan Hill

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

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

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