Tag Archive for: family court delay

What changed on 1 October 2026?

The new Practice Direction on Listing in the Criminal Courts introduced a National Listing Framework across the Crown Court and magistrates’ courts.

The priority given to a criminal case must now reflect the likely human impact of delay and the effect of delay upon the fairness of proceedings.

Relevant considerations include vulnerability, children, safety, wellbeing, recovery, effective participation and whether delay may damage the quality of evidence.

This is a criminal-court framework. It is not a new Family Procedure Rule and cannot simply be cited as though it governs Family Court listing.

Five things family justice should notice

1. Listing is being treated as part of justice — not merely court administration.
When a case is heard can materially affect its fairness.

2. Vulnerability is not just a label.
The new criminal guidance expects the practical effect of vulnerability and delay to be explained.

3. Evidence can deteriorate with time.
Memory fades, witnesses become unavailable and circumstances move on.

4. Efficiency is not the ultimate objective.
Courtroom utilisation matters, but the framework expressly places human consequences and fairness at the centre of listing decisions.

5. Family law already recognises that delay causes harm.
The real question is how consistently that principle is translated into practical case management.

What is the new National Listing Framework?

Listing means deciding when and where court work will be heard and how available judges, courtrooms and other resources will be allocated.

That may sound administrative.

It is not.

The judiciary’s explanation of the new framework expressly recognises that listing is part of the judicial process.

From 1 October 2026, criminal listing decisions are governed by a common national framework rather than relying to the same extent on differing local practices.

In the Crown Court, cases are allocated to priority tiers and trials are identified as either fixed-date or flexible-date listings.

But the central principle is more interesting than the mechanics.

The priority of the case should reflect:

• the likely human impact of delay; and
• the effect of delay upon the fairness of the proceedings.

That is a significant way of framing court capacity.

It asks more than:

“How quickly can this case be fitted into the list?”

It also asks:

“What happens to the people and to the fairness of the case if we make them wait?”

What does “human impact of delay” actually mean?

The criminal guidance makes the concept concrete.

Judges may need to consider matters including:

• whether a victim, witness or defendant is a child;
• vulnerability;
• participation or accommodation needs;
• the effect of delay on safety;
• the effect upon wellbeing or recovery;
• whether evidence may deteriorate;
• witness availability;
• custody; and
• other circumstances increasing the consequences of delay.

There is a particularly useful practical instruction for lawyers.

Do not simply use labels.

If delay will cause a particular problem, explain why.

For example

That is a lesson with obvious value far beyond criminal law.

Does the new listing framework apply to the Family Court?

No.

This distinction matters.

The Practice Direction on Listing in the Criminal Courts governs criminal proceedings.

A parent in private children proceedings cannot simply tell a Family Court judge:

“My case should be prioritised under the National Listing Framework.”

That would confuse two procedural regimes.

Family proceedings are governed by the Family Procedure Rules, the Children Act 1989 where applicable, relevant Practice Directions and case-specific orders.

But the underlying concept is far from alien to family justice.

Family law already recognises that delay can harm children

Section 1(2) of the Children Act 1989 contains one of the clearest statements about delay anywhere in English family law.

Where a question concerning a child’s upbringing is before the court, the court must have regard to the general principle that delay in determining that question is likely to prejudice the child’s welfare.

The Family Procedure Rules reinforce that principle.

The overriding objective requires Family Court cases to be dealt with:

• justly;
• expeditiously;
• fairly;
• proportionately; and
• with appropriate regard to the court’s finite resources.

The court must actively manage cases, identify the issues early, control timetables and make use of technology where appropriate.

So family justice does not need the criminal listing framework to discover that delay matters.

The harder question is whether the human consequences of delay are always visible enough within Family Court case management.

What do the latest Family Court figures tell us?

The most recent official statistics underline why this matters.

Between April and June 2026:

• 14,833 private-law children cases were started — 11% more than the equivalent quarter in 2025;
• the mean time to disposal was 33 weeks;
• 52% were disposed of within 26 weeks;
• there were 41,637 open private-law cases at the end of June; and
• 1,672 cases had already been open for 100 weeks or more.

The average has improved.

That is welcome.

But an average conceals radically different experiences.

Thirty-three weeks is not experienced in the abstract.

For a child, it may be most of a school year.

For a parent not seeing their child, it is 33 weeks of lost relationship.

For a victim-survivor living with continuing post-separation abuse, it can mean months of uncertainty.

For a child caught between disputed arrangements, it can mean months living within an unresolved adult conflict.

And for the 1,672 private-law cases already more than 100 weeks old, the word “delay” barely captures the reality.

Why delay can be especially important where domestic abuse is alleged

Domestic-abuse cases demonstrate particularly clearly why elapsed time and human impact are not the same thing.

Delay may interact with:

• ongoing post-separation abuse;
• stalking or monitoring;
• financial pressure;
• housing instability;
• protective arrangements;
• the child’s relationship with each parent;
• fear surrounding hearings or contact;
• trauma and effective participation;
• witness memory; and
• changing factual circumstances.

That does not mean every domestic-abuse case must automatically jump ahead of every other case.

Prioritisation will always involve competing needs and limited resources.

But it does mean that:

“This case has been delayed by another three months” does not tell us enough.

The more useful question is:

What will those three months actually do?

Has your Family Court case become harder to manage because of delay?

Delay often creates another practical problem: the case file keeps growing.

New messages arrive. Circumstances change. Further incidents occur. Old evidence becomes harder to locate. Existing statements no longer reflect the current position.

JSH Law can provide defined-scope support with:

• updated chronologies;
• evidence audits and source mapping;
• updated position statements;
• witness-statement preparation support;
• Cafcass and Child Impact Report responses;
• safeguarding evidence organisation;
• court-bundle preparation support;
• urgent court documents; and
• hearing preparation.

Get help organising your Family Court case

Delay can change the evidence

There is another aspect of delay which often receives less attention.

Evidence does not stand still.

Memories fade.

Teachers change.

Professionals move jobs.

Children mature.

Relationships develop or deteriorate.

Digital evidence accumulates.

A safeguarding concern which was prospective six months ago may now have been overtaken by events.

Conversely, an allegation which once appeared urgent may look different after a substantial period of safe arrangements.

This creates a difficult Family Court problem.

The court may be asked in October to determine a dispute framed by evidence filed in March.

A litigant in person therefore needs to distinguish:

This is why a chronology is not merely a retrospective document.

It is a way of keeping a moving case intelligible.

Remote hearings: access to justice or another efficiency tool?

A companion reform also took effect in the criminal courts on 1 October.

The Lady Chief Justice’s new national guidance on live links establishes a more consistent framework for remote participation in criminal proceedings.

The stated aim combines:

• effective participation;
• access to justice;
• consistency; and
• efficient use of court time and resources.

That balance is important.

Remote participation can be enormously helpful.

It can reduce travel.

It can assist some disabled or vulnerable court users.

It can make shorter procedural hearings more proportionate.

It can reduce wasted time.

But “remote is efficient” and “remote enables effective participation” are not necessarily the same proposition.

For some people, attending remotely makes participation easier.

For others, particularly in complex or emotionally difficult proceedings, it may make communication, understanding or engagement harder.

The technology should therefore serve participation.

Participation should not be redesigned merely to serve the technology.

And where does AI fit into court listing?

The Government is already developing AI-assisted listing tools as part of its wider justice-modernisation programme.

The attraction is obvious.

Court listing involves huge numbers of variables:

• judicial availability;
• courtroom capacity;
• estimated hearing duration;
• advocate availability;
• special measures;
• interpreters;
• custody arrangements;
• expert availability;
• priority;
• technology requirements; and
• whether other cases are likely to resolve.

Technology may be able to identify conflicts and optimise capacity more effectively than manual systems alone.

But the new National Listing Framework simultaneously demonstrates why listing cannot become a purely mathematical optimisation problem.

There is a difference between:

“Which arrangement uses the most courtroom hours?”

and:

“Which arrangement produces the fairest outcome when we account for the human consequences of delay?”

The first is an optimisation problem.

The second requires judgment.

What can a litigant in person do when delay is affecting a Family Court case?

You cannot manufacture priority simply by describing a case as urgent.

Nor does the new criminal listing framework create an entitlement in family proceedings.

But if delay is having a material effect, explain that effect properly.

Whether the court can or should grant a particular request will depend on the case, the applicable rules, available resources and judicial discretion.

Apply the JSH Law Six-Question Check to delay

Read the full JSH Law Six-Question Check.

What should family justice learn from this?

Family justice does not need to import a criminal Practice Direction.

It already has powerful legal principles addressing delay.

But the new criminal framework provides a useful way of thinking about what those principles mean in practice.

Delay should not be treated only as:

• a performance statistic;
• a listing problem;
• a courtroom-capacity problem; or
• another number in a backlog report.

Delay happens to people.

And in Family Court proceedings, it happens to children whose lives continue while the legal process waits.

That is why faster justice cannot simply mean shorter hearings, fewer hearings or more cases disposed of.

Sometimes those things are genuine improvements.

Sometimes they are not.

The meaningful measure is not simply how quickly a case moves through the system. It is whether the process remains fair, safe and capable of reaching the right decision while it does so.

The new criminal framework calls this the human impact of delay.

Family justice has understood the legal principle for decades.

The challenge is making sure the lived reality of delay is visible every time a court timetable is set, a hearing is moved or a child waits for an answer.

Has delay left your Family Court case difficult to organise?

JSH Law provides defined-scope support for litigants in person in private children proceedings.

Support can include:

• case and procedural chronologies;
• evidence audits;
• updated witness statements;
• position statements;
• Cafcass and Child Impact Report responses;
• safeguarding evidence organisation;
• urgent court documents;
• court-bundle preparation support; and
• hearing preparation and McKenzie Friend support where appropriate.

Book a consultation

Related JSH Law guides

• Child Impact Reports and Child Focused Courts
• How to Appeal a Family Court Decision in 2026
• Domestic Abuse in the Family Court: What the IDAS Family Court Report 2026 Reveals
• The JSH Law Six-Question Check

Primary and official sources

• Courts and Tribunals Judiciary — National Listing Framework: A New Approach to Criminal Listing
• Courts and Tribunals Judiciary — Guidance supporting the Practice Direction on Listing
• Lady Chief Justice — Guidance on Live Links in Criminal Courts
• Children Act 1989, section 1
• Family Procedure Rules Part 1 — Overriding Objective
• Ministry of Justice — Family Court Statistics Quarterly: April to June 2026