“Putting the children first” may be the most repeated phrase in family law. It appears in letters, position statements, Cafcass reports, negotiations and judgments. Both parents may use it while proposing entirely different outcomes. Professionals use it to describe their approach. The court is legally required to treat the child’s welfare as paramount when determining questions about their upbringing.

Yet a child can still pass through months or years of proceedings without understanding what is happening, without knowing whether anybody believed them and without seeing their lived experience accurately reflected in the decisions made about them. Their name appears on every page. Their life is the subject of the dispute. But the process remains overwhelmingly adult-facing.

This is why the Pump Court Chambers episode Putting Children First matters. Host Rebekah Batt is joined by Edward Cooke, Charlotte Millard and Victoria Ellis to discuss the Family Solutions Group’s March 2026 report, Putting Children First: The Evolving Role of the Family Law Professional. Their discussion asks what professionals can do to reduce conflict, hear children more effectively and change the experience of family separation.

The podcast is constructive and hopeful. But it also raises a difficult challenge for the profession:

“If putting children first does not change the advice given, the language used, the evidence gathered or the way the case is conducted, it is branding—not practice.”

The report exposes a gap between principle and practice

The Family Solutions Group report was informed by a 2025 survey of 546 parents and professionals, together with interviews with nearly 50 people working across the family separation space. Its findings reveal broad support for a less adversarial and more child-focused approach.

That third figure should stop us. If the overwhelming majority agree that children matter, but only a minority believe their voices are routinely considered, the problem is not a shortage of child-centred language. It is the machinery that converts principle into practice.

The report calls for a Commissioner for Separated Families; clearer and more consistent thinking about child welfare; a less adversarial, problem-solving professional culture; appropriate training for everybody working with separated families; reflective supervision; and a recognised “kitemark” showing that practitioners have been trained to reduce conflict and support families well.

It also encourages professionals to share the Children’s Commissioner’s letter to separating parents. The letter emphasises that children cope better when the adults around them communicate calmly and shield them from conflict, while expressly acknowledging that court action is necessary in some families—particularly where safety concerns require it.

What the law already says about putting children first

Under section 1 of the Children Act 1989, when a court determines a question about a child’s upbringing, the child’s welfare is its paramount consideration. The welfare checklist directs attention to the child’s ascertainable wishes and feelings, physical and emotional needs, the likely effect of change, relevant characteristics, harm and each parent’s ability to meet the child’s needs.

But legal accuracy matters. The statutory paramountcy principle governs the court’s decision. It does not automatically turn a parent’s solicitor into the child’s representative, nor does it mean that the child chooses the outcome. A solicitor’s professional duties are owed to their client and to the court. Unless separately appointed for the child, the solicitor is not instructed by the child.

That does not prevent family lawyers from practising in a way that is alert to the consequences for children. A lawyer can give robust advice without inflaming the dispute. They can challenge a client’s proposed message, identify when a tactical demand is likely to damage trust, explain the difference between what feels fair to the adult and what serves the child, and refuse to dress retaliatory behaviour in the language of welfare.

A child’s voice is not the same as a child’s choice

The podcast asks how well the present system hears the voice of the child. This is one of the most important—and most easily misunderstood—questions in private family law.

Listening to a child does not mean asking them to decide where they live, how often they see a parent or which adult is telling the truth. Those are adult and judicial responsibilities. Nor does it mean repeatedly questioning a child until they provide an answer that can be quoted in proceedings.

Meaningful participation means giving the child an age-appropriate explanation, a safe opportunity to express what matters to them, and honest information about how their views will be used. It means taking account of communication needs, neurodivergence, disability, trauma, fear, loyalty conflict and the possibility that a child may say different things in different contexts.

A child may want:

• to know what is happening without being told adult allegations;
• to stop carrying messages between parents;
• to keep important routines, friendships, pets and activities;
• to love both parents without being treated as disloyal;
• to have fear or reluctance taken seriously without being interrogated;
• to correct inaccurate assumptions made about them;
• to know who will hear their views and what will happen next; or
• simply to be left out of the adult battle.

Children’s wishes and feelings must be considered in light of age and understanding. They may carry very substantial weight, but they are not determinative. The point is not to transfer the burden of decision-making to the child. It is to stop making decisions about a child using an adult-created version of what the child supposedly thinks.

The family law professional does more than transmit instructions

A traditional view of legal representation can sound simple: the client gives instructions; the professional advances the client’s case. But family cases are not ordinary disputes about money or contracts. Parents may need a workable relationship for years after the file closes. A cutting letter may produce a short-term tactical reaction and a long-term parenting problem.

This does not mean lawyers should become therapists or decline to advance a client’s lawful case. It means the exercise of professional judgment matters. There is a difference between accurately recording an allegation and amplifying it; between protecting a client and encouraging positional warfare; between advising firmly and promising vindication.

Child-focused professional practice may involve:

• asking what practical outcome the child needs, rather than beginning with what the parent wants to “win”;
• separating evidential issues from hurt, suspicion and interpretation;
• using correspondence to solve a defined problem rather than score a point;
• explaining that hostile language may eventually be read by Cafcass, a children’s guardian or the judge;
• identifying where specialist domestic abuse, therapeutic, financial or parenting support is needed;
• ensuring proposed arrangements are detailed enough to work in the child’s real life; and
• helping the client understand that “reasonable” does not mean passive, weak or unprotected.

The danger of treating domestic abuse as “parental conflict”

Any campaign to reduce conflict must confront a serious risk: not all conflict is mutual, symmetrical or capable of being resolved through better communication.

Coercive control can continue after separation through child arrangements, repeated applications, financial pressure, surveillance, threats, hostile communications and the manipulation of handovers. A victim-survivor who sets boundaries, refuses unsafe arrangements or asks the court to determine allegations may be described as “conflictual” because the language of conflict records the visible dispute without examining who is creating it or why.

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 recognises a child as a victim of domestic abuse where the child sees, hears or experiences its effects and is related to either the victim or the perpetrator. Practice Direction 12J requires the court to identify at the earliest opportunity whether domestic abuse is raised as an issue and to consider its impact when deciding arrangements.

That legal and safeguarding analysis must come before generic demands for co-operation. Calm communication is not a cure for coercive control. Joint sessions are not automatically safe. A parent should not be pressured to disclose information, relax necessary boundaries or negotiate directly merely to demonstrate that they are child-focused.

Court is not always the failure

The report rightly challenges the reflexive use of adversarial litigation where families could resolve arrangements through supported, non-court routes. Mediation, child-inclusive mediation, collaborative practice, parenting programmes and structured negotiation can all be valuable.

The Child Arrangements Programme in Practice Direction 12B says non-court dispute resolution should be actively considered and attempted where safe and appropriate. It also expressly recognises that victims of domestic abuse are not expected to mediate and that other risk factors may prevent safe use of those services.

That qualification is essential. Some parents go to court because every attempt at agreement has been exploited. Some need enforceable orders, disclosure, findings of fact or protective measures. Some are dealing with unilateral decisions about schooling, relocation, medical treatment or the removal of contact. For them, the court is not an aggressive first choice. It may be the only institution with power to intervene.

We should therefore resist two equally damaging assumptions:

A humane system should identify the difference early. It should provide a co-operative pathway where that is realistic and a properly resourced safety pathway where it is not.

What better professional practice would look like

The report’s emphasis on professional training and reflective supervision is important. Family professionals repeatedly absorb accounts of fear, betrayal, anger and loss. Without reflection, there is a risk of becoming overidentified with a client, excessively detached or drawn into the same polarised thinking that dominates the family.

Better practice would be visible in ordinary work:

1. Start with the child’s day. Where do they wake, travel, learn, regulate, maintain relationships and feel secure? A workable plan begins with life, not litigation.
2. Define the problem precisely. “Communication is difficult” is vague. Ten messages a day, unanswered medical questions or hostile handovers can be evidenced and addressed.
3. Use proportionate language. Not every disagreement is abuse; not every boundary is hostility; not every mistake is evidence of incapacity.
4. Identify safety issues early. Domestic abuse and safeguarding allegations require analysis, not mediation language pasted over them.
5. Give the child information. Children need honest, age-appropriate explanations about change and process without exposure to adult evidence.
6. Create safe routes for the child’s views. The method must suit the child and must not recruit them into a parent’s case.
7. Draft for the future relationship. The parties may still be parenting together long after the proceedings end.
8. Measure success differently. Winning every disputed point may be a poor result if the order is unworkable and the child remains trapped in hostility.

What this means for parents representing themselves

A litigant in person cannot redesign the family justice system. But you can make it easier for the court to see the child as a person rather than the subject of competing adult accounts.

Before filing a statement, sending an email or making a proposal, ask:

• What is the specific issue the court needs to decide?
• What does my child experience now?
• What evidence shows that, independently of my interpretation?
• What is the welfare impact of the present arrangement?
• What practical arrangement am I proposing?
• How will that proposal deal with school, travel, communication, health, routines and transitions?
• Have I distinguished safeguarding concerns from ordinary parenting disagreements?
• Am I asking the child to carry information or make an adult decision?
• Does my language describe facts, or does it assign motives I cannot prove?
• Would this document help a judge understand the child quickly?

Child-focused does not mean agreeing to everything. It does not mean abandoning a legitimate application, minimising abuse or accepting an unsafe proposal. It means grounding your position in the child’s welfare, explaining the evidence and asking for an order that can work outside the courtroom.

The reform agenda—and the questions it must answer

A Commissioner for Separated Families could bring much-needed national oversight to a fragmented landscape of courts, Cafcass, mediation, schools, health services, local authorities, parenting support and voluntary organisations. The Family Solutions Group’s accompanying briefing argues that separation is a widespread life event but no national body currently owns the whole picture.

The case for coordination is persuasive. But the reform must be designed carefully. A credible system will need to answer:

• How will families be screened accurately and repeatedly for domestic abuse and child protection concerns?
• Who decides that a case is “conflict” rather than coercive control—and what evidence informs that decision?
• How will children communicate safely without becoming evidence-gatherers or decision-makers?
• What independent support will children be able to access directly?
• How will low-income families obtain early advice and representation where needed?
• Will a professional kitemark measure real safeguarding competence or attendance at training?
• How will outcomes be audited, including the experiences of children and victim-survivors?
• What happens when non-court resolution fails or is used to delay an urgent decision?

There is also a resource problem that language alone cannot solve. A more humane letter does not cure delay. Training does not create legal aid. Encouraging parents to leave court cannot replace safe, affordable services in every area. Reform will fail if “putting children first” becomes a way to transfer responsibility from under-resourced institutions back onto parents without giving them the support to do anything differently.

My view

The Family Solutions Group report and Pump Court Chambers podcast are right to challenge the traditional boundaries of professional responsibility. A family lawyer may be instructed by one adult, but their work takes place inside a family system. The tone of the advice, the framing of the dispute and the decision to calm or escalate can affect the child whose name may never appear on the retainer.

But child-centred practice must be more than conflict reduction. It must be safeguarding-aware, evidence-led and capable of recognising power. It must understand that co-operation is not always possible, mediation is not always safe and court proceedings are not always the cause of the problem. Sometimes they are the response to it.

Putting children first means listening without making them choose. It means protecting them without using “protection” as a slogan. It means expecting professionals to exercise judgment rather than merely transmit hostility. It means designing systems around the reality that separation is emotional, relational, legal, financial and sometimes dangerous.

Most of all, it means asking a question more demanding than “What does my client want?” or “Which parent should win?”

“What will this child live with when all the adults have finished arguing?”