This topic provides an overview of how the family court operates in private law children proceedings. It focuses on procedural structure, decision-making principles, and how different stages of a case fit together.
Content here is designed to support litigants in person by explaining how the court approaches case management, evidence, safeguarding, and welfare-based decisions.
Every victim of domestic abuse deserves to feel supported, informed and heard. This week the UK Government announced a £5 million pilot scheme bringing independent legal advisers into Crown Court domestic abuse cases, alongside enhanced support for victims of rape and serious sexual violence. It is a welcome recognition that navigating the justice system can be overwhelming. But for many parents involved in family court proceedings, a difficult question remains: if independent legal support is essential in criminal courts, why is it still largely absent from the family justice system where life-changing decisions about children are made every day?
Screenshot
Victims Deserve Support — But Why Is Independent Legal Advice Still Missing from Family Court?
Key Point: The Government has announced a £5 million pilot scheme introducing independent legal advisers for victims of domestic abuse in Crown Court proceedings. While the move is welcome, questions remain about why similar support is still unavailable to many litigants navigating the family courts.
Victims of domestic abuse often describe the justice system as confusing, intimidating and difficult to navigate.
This week, the Attorney General’s Office announced new measures intended to improve support for victims involved in criminal proceedings. The reforms include enhanced Crown Prosecution Service engagement with victims of rape and serious sexual violence before trial, dedicated victim liaison officers, and a £5 million pilot programme introducing independent legal advisers for victims of domestic abuse appearing in Crown Court cases.
The announcement reflects a growing recognition that vulnerable individuals should not be expected to navigate complex legal processes entirely alone.
That principle is difficult to argue with.
What Has Been Announced?
According to the Government announcement, victims of rape and serious sexual violence will now be offered meetings with prosecution teams before their case reaches trial.
Victims will also have access to dedicated victim liaison officers throughout the criminal process.
Alongside this, the Solicitor General has secured funding for a pilot scheme bringing independent legal advisers into domestic abuse cases before the Crown Court.
The underlying message is clear: victims should not have to understand complex legal procedures, evidential requirements and court processes without expert support.
A Positive Development
For many victims, criminal proceedings can feel overwhelming.
They may be asked to provide statements, review evidence, attend conferences, understand special measures, respond to disclosure issues and prepare for trial.
Having access to a dedicated adviser who can explain procedures, answer questions and provide practical support is likely to improve both engagement and confidence in the justice process.
These reforms recognise something that many legal professionals have known for years:
People are better able to participate in legal proceedings when they understand what is happening and what is expected of them.
The Family Court Gap
However, the announcement also highlights a stark contrast between criminal and family justice.
In the family courts, thousands of parents continue to represent themselves following reductions in legal aid and increasing difficulty finding affordable legal representation.
Many litigants in person are expected to:
Prepare witness statements
Understand safeguarding procedures
Analyse Section 7 reports
Review disclosure evidence
Comply with court directions
Cross-examine witnesses
Understand complex legal tests and case law
Present their case before a judge
Yet many receive little or no legal assistance.
The irony is difficult to ignore.
If independent legal advice is considered necessary to help vulnerable individuals navigate Crown Court proceedings, it raises legitimate questions about why similar support remains so limited within family proceedings where decisions can fundamentally affect relationships between parents and children.
What Litigants in Person Tell Us
At JSH Law, we regularly hear from parents who feel overwhelmed by the process.
Many describe spending evenings trying to understand court orders, procedural rules, safeguarding reports and evidence requirements after searching online for answers.
Others struggle to identify relevant issues within lengthy court bundles or understand how to challenge professional reports they believe are inaccurate.
The problem is not simply legal knowledge.
It is navigating a highly specialised system during one of the most stressful periods of a person’s life.
Access to justice is not simply about access to a courtroom.
It is about understanding the process well enough to participate effectively within it.
Could This Be the Beginning of Wider Reform?
The Government’s pilot scheme may prove successful.
If it does, policymakers may need to consider whether similar models could benefit family court users, particularly victims of domestic abuse, vulnerable parties and litigants in person navigating complex private law proceedings.
Independent legal advice does not replace judicial independence.
Nor does it guarantee outcomes.
But it can help ensure that individuals understand their rights, obligations and options before critical decisions are made.
For many families currently navigating the family justice system alone, that support remains difficult to access.
Final Thoughts
The Government deserves credit for recognising that victims should not face complex legal proceedings without meaningful support.
The question now is whether that same principle should apply more broadly across the justice system.
For thousands of litigants in person involved in family proceedings, the answer may seem obvious.
Need help understanding family court documents, safeguarding reports or upcoming hearings?
JSH Law provides practical litigation support, document review and strategic guidance for litigants in person navigating family court proceedings.
https://jshlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/ChatGPT-Image-Feb-3-2026-03_26_42-AM.png10241536jessica susan hillhttps://jshlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/jsh-law-logo-new-black-300x67.pngjessica susan hill2026-06-05 21:13:372026-06-05 21:26:17If Victims Need Legal Advisers in Crown Court, Why Are Parents Still Facing Family Court Alone?
Artificial intelligence is already entering family law — but before we ask what AI can draft, summarise or predict, we need to ask a more urgent question: can we trust it with family court documents, children’s information and domestic abuse material? The difference between open AI and closed AI is not just a technical debate for developers. In family law legal tech, it is a question of privacy, safeguarding, transparency, accountability and who gets to control the tools that may shape access to justice.
Legal Technology | Family Law | Artificial Intelligence
Open AI or Closed AI? Why the Difference Matters for Family Law Legal Tech
Artificial intelligence is moving rapidly into legal services. But for family law, the question is not simply whether AI can draft, summarise or analyse. The deeper question is what kind of AI should be trusted with sensitive family court material: open, closed, transparent, proprietary, local, cloud-based, regulated, auditable — or some careful combination of all of them?
By Jessica Susan Hill, JSH Law | Family law, access to justice, litigants in person and legal technology commentary
The real issue is trust
In family law, AI is not being asked to summarise ordinary business documents. It may be asked to handle domestic abuse allegations, safeguarding material, children’s wishes and feelings, Cafcass reports, medical evidence, school records, police disclosure, social services records, witness statements, private messages and intensely personal family histories.
That means the debate between open AI and closed AI is not a niche technical debate. It is an access-to-justice, data protection, safeguarding and public confidence issue.
What do we mean by open AI and closed AI?
The language can be confusing. People often use “open AI” to mean several different things:
AI models where the code is open;
AI models where the model weights are available;
AI systems that can be run locally rather than through a private cloud service;
AI tools where the training data and methodology are transparent;
AI tools that can be inspected, tested, adapted or independently audited; or
AI that is simply marketed as “open”, even where important parts remain hidden.
This matters because open-source AI, open-weight AI and transparent AI are not always the same thing.
Plain English definitions
Closed AI usually means a proprietary AI system controlled by a company or provider. Users interact with it through an interface or API, but they cannot fully inspect the model, weights, training data or internal decision-making process.
Open AI usually means an AI system where some elements are more transparent, accessible or modifiable. This may include open-source code, available model weights, local deployment, public documentation, or greater scope for independent testing.
Open-weight AI means the model weights are available, but that does not necessarily mean the full training data, training process, safety testing or source code are open.
For family law legal tech, the question is not ideological. It is practical:
Which model gives the safest, fairest, most accountable support for people dealing with family court?
Why family law is different
Family law is not like ordinary commercial work. It involves children, safeguarding, domestic abuse, emotional distress, personal histories, disputed allegations and confidential court material.
A family law AI tool may be asked to assist with:
chronologies;
position statements;
witness statement structure;
Cafcass report review;
domestic abuse allegation schedules;
child arrangements issues;
bundle organisation;
fact-finding preparation;
summaries of messages, emails and disclosure;
identifying missing evidence;
drafting questions for hearings;
explaining court orders in plain English; and
helping litigants in person understand procedure.
These are high-risk tasks. A mistake may not merely inconvenience someone. It may affect how risk is presented, how a child’s welfare is understood, whether domestic abuse is properly identified, or whether a litigant in person feels falsely reassured.
Family law AI must not become false confidence at scale
A tool that sounds confident but misunderstands safeguarding, procedure, evidence or the limits of its own knowledge can be dangerous. In family law, the appearance of authority is not enough. Accuracy, context and human oversight matter.
The case for closed AI in family law legal tech
Closed AI systems are often criticised because users cannot see fully inside them. But they may have important advantages, particularly where the provider has invested heavily in safety, security, reliability, infrastructure, monitoring and user support.
In family law legal tech, closed AI may offer:
stronger infrastructure — enterprise-grade hosting, uptime, resilience and support;
better usability — interfaces that ordinary users can actually understand;
advanced model capability — strong drafting, summarisation and reasoning support;
centralised safety controls — provider-level guardrails, abuse monitoring and updates;
contractual protections — enterprise agreements, data processing terms and service-level commitments;
rapid updates — improvements can be deployed quickly by the provider;
support for integrations — document systems, CRMs, practice management platforms and secure legal workflows; and
lower technical burden — law firms and support organisations do not need to host or maintain their own models.
For many small law firms, charities, McKenzie Friend services, legal support providers and litigants in person, a closed AI tool may be more realistic than building and maintaining a local AI system.
The best argument for closed AI
Closed AI may be more accessible, more polished and easier to deploy safely at scale. For access to justice, usability matters. A theoretically transparent tool that vulnerable users cannot operate is not useful.
But the trade-off is trust. If the model is closed, users may not know exactly how it was trained, what data influenced it, how it handles bias, or why it produced a particular answer.
The case for open AI in family law legal tech
Open AI appeals to many legal technologists because it promises greater transparency, independence and control.
In family law, open or locally deployable AI could offer:
greater auditability — researchers and developers may be able to test behaviour more closely;
local deployment — sensitive material may be processed within a controlled environment rather than sent to an external cloud service;
customisation — models can potentially be adapted for family law procedure, domestic abuse terminology and litigant in person support;
reduced vendor lock-in — organisations are not entirely dependent on one commercial provider;
cost control — open models may reduce long-term cost for public-interest projects;
public-interest innovation — universities, charities, legal clinics and access-to-justice groups can build tools without waiting for commercial providers;
independent testing — bias, hallucination and safeguarding risks can be examined more openly; and
sovereignty and control — courts, public bodies or legal charities may prefer systems they can govern directly.
The best argument for open AI
In family justice, transparency matters. If AI tools are used to support vulnerable people, summarise evidence or shape legal preparation, there is a powerful argument that their design, limits and risk profile should be open to scrutiny.
Open AI may be particularly important for public-interest legal technology. If access-to-justice tools are controlled entirely by private providers, there is a risk that family justice innovation becomes dependent on commercial priorities rather than public need.
The risks on both sides
Neither open AI nor closed AI is automatically safe. Both can be used well. Both can be used badly.
Issue
Closed AI risk
Open AI risk
Transparency
Users may not know how the model works or why it produced an answer.
Openness may be partial. “Open” does not always mean fully explainable.
Privacy
Sensitive family court material may be sent to external systems unless properly controlled.
Local deployment may be safer, but poor configuration can create serious security risks.
Cost
Subscription costs may exclude small providers, charities and litigants in person.
Hosting, maintenance, specialist setup and governance may still be expensive.
Safety
Safety controls are provider-controlled and may not be independently visible.
Open models can be modified, weakened or misused if safeguards are removed.
Bias
Bias may be difficult to audit from outside the system.
Bias may still exist in training data, fine-tuning data or deployment choices.
Accountability
Responsibility may be blurred between user, firm, platform and model provider.
Responsibility may be blurred between model creator, deployer, modifier and end user.
The right question is not “which is good and which is bad?” The right question is:
What safeguards are in place for this specific family law use case?
What this means for litigants in person
Litigants in person are already using AI. Some use it to explain orders, draft emails, summarise evidence, prepare statements or understand court language.
That can be helpful. It can also be risky.
A litigant in person may not know:
whether the tool stores their information;
whether uploaded documents may be used to improve a model;
whether the answer is accurate under family procedure;
whether the tool is inventing law or cases;
whether confidential family court material can be entered safely;
whether the tool understands domestic abuse dynamics;
whether the output is too emotional, too aggressive or procedurally inappropriate; or
whether they should seek urgent legal advice instead.
Practical guidance for litigants in person using AI
Do not upload confidential family court documents into a tool unless you understand the privacy position.
Do not rely on AI as legal advice. Use it for organisation, plain-English explanation and drafting support, not final legal judgment.
Check every rule, case, form and deadline. AI can be wrong.
Remove children’s names and identifying details where possible.
Use AI to structure your thoughts, not to replace your evidence.
Keep your tone court-appropriate. AI may produce language that feels powerful but is too argumentative for family court.
If safeguarding is urgent, do not wait for AI. Contact police, domestic abuse services, a solicitor or the court as appropriate.
For litigants in person, AI should be a support tool, not a decision-maker. It can help create order from chaos, but it cannot understand your child, your risk, your judge or your evidence in the way a properly informed human professional can.
What this means for solicitors, barristers and McKenzie Friend support
Legal professionals and litigation support providers need to think carefully about what kind of AI they use and for what purpose.
For professional users, the key questions include:
Is client consent required before using AI on their material?
Is the data being uploaded to a third-party system?
Is the tool covered by a proper data processing agreement?
Can confidential, privileged or sensitive material be used safely?
Can outputs be checked by a competent human?
Is the model being used for administrative support or legal reasoning?
Is the tool suitable for domestic abuse and safeguarding material?
Is there an audit trail?
Who is responsible if the output is wrong?
Can the organisation explain its AI use to clients and the court?
The professional duty point
AI does not remove professional responsibility. If a human professional uses AI to prepare, summarise or draft material, the human remains responsible for checking accuracy, confidentiality, tone, relevance and procedural appropriateness.
In practice, the safest immediate uses of AI in family law are likely to be:
document organisation;
drafting neutral chronologies;
identifying missing documents;
creating first-draft hearing preparation notes;
turning emotional narratives into structured issue lists;
summarising long message threads, subject to confidentiality controls;
plain-English explanation of procedural terminology; and
internal workflow support.
The higher-risk uses are:
predicting case outcomes;
assessing witness credibility;
ranking parental risk without expert oversight;
generating legal advice without review;
drafting allegations without evidential checking;
summarising children’s wishes and feelings without context;
analysing domestic abuse dynamics without specialist knowledge; and
producing court-ready documents with no human review.
What this means for the family courts
The courts will increasingly encounter AI-generated material. Litigants in person may file AI-assisted statements. Lawyers may use AI to summarise bundles. Judges may use AI in limited administrative or research-support contexts, subject to judicial guidance.
The family court will therefore need a practical approach, not panic and not blind enthusiasm.
The court may need to ask:
Was AI used to prepare this document?
Has the party checked the content personally?
Are there invented cases, inaccurate rules or unsupported allegations?
Has confidential material been handled appropriately?
Is the document still the party’s own evidence?
Has AI made the material clearer, or has it distorted the party’s voice?
Is the use of AI creating unfairness between represented and unrepresented parties?
AI should not erase the litigant’s voice
In family court, personal evidence matters. A polished AI-assisted statement may look impressive, but it must still be accurate, truthful and genuinely based on the party’s own evidence. The court needs clarity, not artificial perfection.
This is where family law legal tech must be designed carefully. The goal should not be to make every litigant sound like a barrister. The goal should be to help people present relevant facts, evidence, chronology and safeguarding concerns in a way the court can understand.
The future: hybrid, accountable and human-led
The future of family law legal tech is unlikely to be purely open or purely closed.
The better model is likely to be hybrid:
closed, secure systems for some high-capability tasks;
open or locally hosted models for sensitive document analysis;
specialist family law workflows designed by people who understand court process;
clear user warnings and limits;
human review before anything is filed or relied upon;
audit trails for professional users;
privacy-by-design architecture;
plain-English support for litigants in person;
specialist safeguarding prompts; and
transparent governance about what the tool can and cannot do.
Family law AI should be judged by practical outcomes:
Does it help people understand the process?
Does it protect confidentiality?
Does it reduce overwhelm?
Does it improve the quality of evidence organisation?
Does it avoid making unsafe assumptions?
Does it support, rather than replace, human judgment?
Does it make access to justice better for people who cannot afford representation?
The standard should be higher in family law
In family law, AI tools must be designed for vulnerability, trauma, safeguarding, privacy and procedural fairness. A generic AI assistant is not automatically suitable for family court work.
Practical summary
Open AI and closed AI are not simple opposites. There are degrees of openness, transparency and control.
Closed AI may offer power, polish and safety infrastructure. But it can be harder to inspect or audit.
Open AI may offer transparency, control and local deployment. But it can still be risky if poorly governed.
Family law is high-risk. Children, safeguarding, domestic abuse and confidential court material require stricter standards.
Litigants in person need clear warnings. AI can help organise material, but it is not a solicitor, barrister or judge.
Professionals remain responsible. AI output must be checked carefully before being used.
The future is likely to be hybrid. The best systems will combine capability, privacy, accountability and human oversight.
Need help organising your family court case?
JSH Law supports litigants in person with practical family court preparation, including document organisation, chronologies, position statements, safeguarding issue mapping, Cafcass report review and hearing preparation.
AI can help people organise information, but it should not replace careful human review, procedural understanding or safeguarding awareness.
Final thought: family law legal tech must be built for trust
Open AI and closed AI both have a role to play. But in family law, the priority cannot simply be speed, automation or novelty.
The priority must be trust.
Trust that private family material is protected.
Trust that survivors of abuse are not misunderstood by generic systems.
Trust that children’s welfare is not reduced to a data-processing exercise.
Trust that litigants in person are being supported, not misled.
Trust that human professionals remain accountable.
The future of family law legal tech should not be open versus closed as a slogan. It should be safe, transparent, accountable and human-led by design.
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, technology commentary and access-to-justice discussion only. It is not legal advice, technology procurement advice, data protection advice or professional regulatory advice.
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.
Anyone using AI in connection with legal work, family court documents, children proceedings, domestic abuse material, confidential information or personal data should consider confidentiality, privilege, data protection, court rules, professional duties and the need for human review. Where formal legal advice, data protection advice, regulated legal services or specialist technology governance is required, readers should seek assistance from an appropriately qualified professional.
References to third-party guidance, AI systems and legal technology developments are included for public-interest discussion and may change as law, regulation and technology develop.
“`
https://jshlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/ChatGPT-Image-Feb-3-2026-03_26_42-AM.png10241536jessica susan hillhttps://jshlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/jsh-law-logo-new-black-300x67.pngjessica susan hill2026-06-03 18:55:322026-06-03 18:55:34Can We Trust AI With Family Court Documents? Open AI, Closed AI and the Legal Tech Divide
For too long, survivors of domestic abuse have been forced into an impossible choice: stay in danger, or leave behind the home, school run, work, healthcare, neighbours, family support and community that help keep life stable. The Government’s proposed Social Housing Bill asks a long-overdue question: why should the victim be the one expected to leave? If implemented properly, this reform could mark an important shift — from uprooting survivors to holding perpetrators accountable.
Domestic Abuse | Social Housing | Access to Justice
Why Should the Victim Have to Leave? The Social Housing Bill, Domestic Abuse and the Right to Stay Safe at Home
For too long, survivors of domestic abuse have been forced into an impossible choice: stay in danger or leave the home, community, school, work, healthcare and support network that helped them survive. The Government’s proposed Social Housing Bill seeks to change that by giving landlords and courts new powers to remove perpetrators from social housing without requiring the victim to leave first.
By Jessica Susan Hill, JSH Law | Domestic abuse, family court support, access to justice and litigants in person
The question we should have been asking all along
Why has the person experiencing the abuse so often been the one expected to leave?
That question goes to the heart of domestic abuse, housing insecurity and access to justice. If the survivor leaves, they may lose far more than a roof over their head. They may lose proximity to school, work, healthcare, family, friends, neighbours, community support and the ordinary stability that helps a person recover after abuse.
The proposed reforms recognise something important: experiencing domestic abuse should not automatically mean losing your home.
What is the Government proposing?
The Government has announced that its landmark Social Housing Bill will give landlords and courts new powers to evict perpetrators of domestic abuse from social homes, without the victim having to leave first.
According to the Government’s announcement, the proposed protections are designed to deal with a deeply unfair position in the current system. At present, landlords can only evict a perpetrator after the victim has already left the home. In joint tenancies, the victim may have to end the tenancy entirely, potentially leaving themselves homeless.
The proposed Bill also aims to close a loophole where an abuser can serve a Notice to Quit and use the tenancy itself as a weapon to make the victim homeless. Under the proposed reforms, a Notice to Quit served by a perpetrator would not end the social housing joint tenancy while relevant court proceedings are ongoing.
In joint tenancy cases, courts would also be able to transfer the tenancy into the victim’s sole name. Where staying in the property is not appropriate, the court may be able to require the landlord to provide suitable alternative accommodation where available.
The practical shift
The policy direction is clear: the survivor should not automatically be the one displaced. Where safe and appropriate, the perpetrator should be removed and the victim should be able to remain in the home and community they know.
The Government has said that around 15,000 households in England were forced to find a new social home last year because of domestic abuse. That is not a marginal issue. It is a major housing, safety and justice problem.
Why have survivors so often been expected to leave?
In domestic abuse cases, the survivor is often told to “get out”, “go somewhere safe”, “stay with family”, “go to refuge”, “move area” or “start again”.
Sometimes leaving is necessary. Some homes are not safe. Some perpetrators are dangerous. Some situations require urgent relocation, emergency accommodation, refuge space, police involvement, injunctions or safeguarding intervention.
But the problem is that leaving has too often become the default expectation placed on the person experiencing the abuse, rather than the person causing the harm.
That approach can punish the survivor. It can mean:
losing the family home;
children changing school;
loss of childcare arrangements;
loss of local support networks;
increased isolation;
disruption to work or benefits;
problems accessing healthcare;
loss of community ties;
moving into temporary or unsuitable accommodation;
being placed far away from friends and family;
financial instability; and
being forced to rebuild life from crisis, rather than from safety.
The hidden unfairness
When the survivor is expected to leave, the perpetrator may remain in the property while the victim and children carry the practical, emotional and financial consequences of the abuse. That is not survivor-centred justice.
The proposed reforms are therefore important because they challenge a long-standing structural imbalance. They ask whether the system should be quicker, clearer and more willing to remove the person causing harm, rather than uprooting the person trying to escape it.
Housing as a weapon of coercive control
Domestic abuse is not only physical violence. It can include coercive and controlling behaviour, emotional abuse, economic abuse, intimidation, isolation and threats.
Housing can be part of that control.
A perpetrator may use housing to:
threaten homelessness;
refuse to leave the property;
control access to keys, bills or documents;
prevent the survivor from contacting the landlord;
damage the property and blame the survivor;
create rent arrears as a form of economic abuse;
use a joint tenancy to maintain control;
threaten to serve a Notice to Quit;
refuse to cooperate with housing applications;
use the children’s home as leverage; or
force the survivor into an impossible choice between safety and homelessness.
This is why tenancy reform matters. If the tenancy itself can be weaponised, then housing law becomes part of the safeguarding landscape.
Housing is not neutral in domestic abuse cases
A home can be a place of safety, but it can also be a site of control. The law must be able to distinguish between protecting a tenancy and protecting the person who is being abused within it.
Why this matters for children
Domestic abuse does not only affect adults. Children who live in homes where domestic abuse occurs are impacted by the abuse, the fear, the instability and the aftermath.
When a survivor is forced to leave, children may also be forced to leave:
their bedroom;
their school;
their friends;
their routines;
their healthcare providers;
their local family support;
their pets;
their safe adults;
their sense of familiarity; and
their community.
In some cases, relocation is essential. Safety comes first. But where the survivor and children can remain safely in the home, it may reduce disruption and help recovery.
Stability matters after trauma. A child who has already experienced fear, conflict or coercive control may need routine, school continuity and familiar support more than ever.
A child-centred question
If the perpetrator is the source of harm, why should the child and protective parent automatically be the ones uprooted? The answer should depend on safety, evidence and practicality — not outdated assumptions.
The family court connection
Housing instability often appears alongside family court proceedings. A parent experiencing domestic abuse may be dealing with:
a non-molestation order application;
an occupation order application;
child arrangements proceedings;
Cafcass safeguarding enquiries;
allegations of coercive control;
disputes about where children should live;
supervised contact requests;
fact-finding hearings;
police involvement;
local authority involvement;
housing applications; and
urgent welfare concerns.
The family court may be asked to make orders about children while housing is unstable. That can complicate everything. A parent without secure accommodation may be unfairly perceived as less stable, even where the housing instability was caused by abuse.
This is why the housing reforms matter beyond housing law. They may affect how survivors are able to participate in family proceedings, how quickly children regain stability, and whether perpetrators can continue using housing insecurity as leverage.
For litigants in person
If housing is part of the abuse dynamic, say so clearly. Do not treat it as a side issue. Explain how threats about the tenancy, homelessness, rent arrears, access to the home or pressure to leave connect to coercive control, child arrangements and safeguarding.
The detail and implementation will matter
The proposed reforms are encouraging, but the detail will matter enormously.
The key questions include:
How quickly will landlords act when domestic abuse is reported?
What evidence will be required?
Will survivors be believed at an early stage?
How will risk be assessed?
What safeguards will exist against misuse?
How will courts balance tenancy rights, safety and evidence?
Will landlords receive proper domestic abuse training?
What happens where the perpetrator contests the allegations?
How will children’s needs be assessed?
What alternative accommodation will be available where staying is unsafe?
How will local authorities avoid simply moving the victim by another route?
Will survivors have access to legal advice?
The law can create a route. But the route must work in real life.
Survivors should not be trapped in slow, confusing or evidentially impossible processes. If the system requires survivors to prove too much too early, without support, the reform may fail the very people it is designed to protect.
A good law badly implemented will not protect survivors
Landlords, courts, police, domestic abuse services, local authorities and family justice professionals will need joined-up processes. Otherwise survivors may still be passed between systems while the perpetrator remains in control.
Practical steps for survivors and litigants in person
If domestic abuse and housing are connected in your situation, it is important to start recording the housing element clearly.
Practical checklist
Keep a timeline.
Record incidents involving threats to the tenancy, pressure to leave, rent arrears, property damage, lock changes, intimidation at the home or threats about homelessness.
Preserve messages.
Keep texts, WhatsApps, emails, voicemails and letters showing threats, admissions, intimidation or housing-related control.
Contact the landlord or housing provider safely.
Ask whether they have a domestic abuse policy and whether they can refer you to a specialist housing or safeguarding officer.
Ask about tenancy options.
If you are in a joint tenancy, ask what options exist if domestic abuse is involved.
Seek specialist domestic abuse support.
A domestic abuse service may be able to help with safety planning, evidence, housing advocacy and referrals.
Consider protective orders.
Depending on the facts, a non-molestation order or occupation order may be relevant. Get legal advice where possible.
Tell the family court if housing is part of the risk picture.
If the other party is using the home, tenancy or homelessness as control, explain that clearly in your statement.
Keep children’s stability visible.
Explain the impact of housing disruption on school, health, contact arrangements, routines and emotional wellbeing.
Do not leave without advice if you can safely obtain it first.
In an emergency, safety comes first. But where there is time, get advice before ending a tenancy or leaving permanently.
Suggested wording for a housing provider
Subject: Urgent domestic abuse and tenancy safety concern
Dear [Housing Officer / Landlord],
I am contacting you because domestic abuse is affecting my housing situation. I am concerned about my safety and/or the safety and stability of my children.
The other tenant/occupier has [briefly explain: threatened to make me homeless / used the tenancy to control me / refused to leave / threatened a Notice to Quit / caused rent arrears / damaged the property / intimidated me at the home].
Please confirm what domestic abuse policy or safeguarding procedure applies, and whether this can be referred urgently to a specialist housing officer or safeguarding lead.
I would also be grateful if you could confirm what options may be available to protect my tenancy and prevent the perpetrator using the housing situation to further control or displace me.
Please treat this as confidential and take care when contacting me, as unsafe communication may increase risk.
Kind regards, [Name]
What wider reform should look like
The Social Housing Bill is an important step, but it should be part of a wider domestic abuse and housing strategy.
1. Housing providers need specialist domestic abuse training
Frontline housing staff must understand coercive control, economic abuse, trauma, risk escalation and how perpetrators may manipulate tenancy processes.
2. Survivors need access to legal advice
Tenancy rights, occupation orders, homelessness duties, family court proceedings and safeguarding can overlap. Survivors should not have to navigate that alone.
3. Courts need clear evidence routes
If tenancy transfer or eviction depends on court proceedings, the process must be clear, timely and accessible.
4. Private renters must not be left behind
The current announcement focuses on social housing. But domestic abuse affects private renters too. Housing insecurity in the private rented sector remains a major access-to-safety issue.
5. Children’s stability must be central
Housing decisions should consider the child’s school, routines, community, medical care, emotional security and relationship with the protective parent.
6. Perpetrators must not be allowed to weaponise process
Any new process must anticipate delay tactics, retaliatory allegations, threats, intimidation and procedural manipulation.
7. Data must be collected and published
We need to know how often the new powers are used, whether they work, how long they take, whether survivors remain safely housed, and whether outcomes differ across regions and landlords.
Practical summary
The proposed Bill is welcome. It recognises that survivors should not automatically be the ones forced out.
Housing can be part of coercive control. Tenancies, rent, notices, keys and homelessness threats can all be weaponised.
Children’s stability matters. Leaving home may mean losing school, friends, healthcare and support.
The detail will matter. Evidence requirements, landlord training and court processes must work in practice.
Private renters remain a concern. The current proposals focus on social housing.
Survivors should keep records. Housing-related threats and control should be documented carefully.
Family court statements should not ignore housing abuse. If housing is being used as control, explain it clearly.
Need help organising your family court case?
If domestic abuse, housing instability, child arrangements or safeguarding issues are part of your family court case, JSH Law may be able to help you prepare in a structured and practical way.
Support may include chronology preparation, position statements, document organisation, Cafcass report review, safeguarding issue mapping, hearing preparation and McKenzie Friend support where appropriate.
JSH Law does not replace urgent safeguarding support, emergency legal advice or regulated representation. If you are in immediate danger, contact the police or an appropriate domestic abuse support service.
Final thought: safety should not mean homelessness
The principle behind the proposed reform is simple but powerful:
The person experiencing domestic abuse should not automatically be the person forced to leave home.
That does not mean every survivor will be able to remain safely in every property. Some situations will still require relocation. Some risks will be too high. Some homes will not be safe.
But the starting point matters. The system should not make the survivor carry the housing penalty for the perpetrator’s abuse.
Domestic abuse is not only a criminal justice issue. It is a family justice issue, a housing issue, a child welfare issue, a poverty issue and an access-to-justice issue.
If this reform is implemented properly, it could help survivors and children stay connected to the communities, schools, healthcare and support networks that make recovery possible.
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, domestic abuse, safeguarding, family court reform, 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, housing adviser 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, housing advice or regulated representation are required, readers should seek assistance from an appropriately authorised professional.
Domestic abuse can involve immediate risk. If you or a child are in immediate danger, call 999. If it is not safe to speak, follow emergency guidance for silent calls where available. For non-emergency support, contact a specialist domestic abuse service, housing adviser, solicitor or local authority.
References to government announcements, public commentary and third-party organisations are included for public-interest discussion and access-to-justice analysis. Legislative proposals may change as a Bill progresses through Parliament.
“`
https://jshlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/ChatGPT-Image-Feb-3-2026-03_26_42-AM.png10241536jessica susan hillhttps://jshlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/jsh-law-logo-new-black-300x67.pngjessica susan hill2026-06-03 18:36:262026-06-03 18:36:28Why Should the Victim Have to Leave? The Domestic Abuse Housing Reform That Could Change Everything
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.
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.
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.
When legal aid exists on paper but not in practice
The problem many litigants face is not simply whether legal aid exists. It is whether legal aid can actually be accessed.
A person may be told:
“You may be eligible for legal aid.”
“You need to find a legal aid solicitor.”
“Use the government legal aid finder.”
“Get advice urgently.”
But then they start calling firms.
They may hear:
“We are not taking new legal aid clients.”
“We do family legal aid, but not private children matters.”
“We can offer an appointment in six weeks.”
“We cannot act before your hearing.”
“We no longer hold a contract for that category.”
“We only cover certain types of family work.”
“We cannot help unless you have the required domestic abuse evidence.”
“We are too far away.”
“We cannot take the case because of capacity.”
That is the gap between legal aid in theory and legal aid in practice.
The reality for litigants in person
Legal aid does not help a parent if they cannot find anyone to take the case before the hearing. A right that cannot be accessed quickly enough is not a meaningful safeguard.
This is why legal aid deserts matter. A legal aid desert is not just a place with fewer lawyers. It is a place where legal rights become harder to use, where family court becomes harder to navigate, and where vulnerable people are pushed into self-representation by default.
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
Contact more than one provider.
Do not assume the first “no” means there is no help available anywhere.
Ask the right question.
Ask: “Do you currently have capacity to take a new family legal aid matter before my hearing date?”
Keep a call and email log.
Record the firm, date, time, person spoken to, outcome, and whether they said they had no capacity.
Check what evidence is needed.
If the case involves domestic abuse, ask what evidence is required for legal aid assessment.
Tell providers your hearing date immediately.
Urgency matters. Put the next hearing date in the first line of your email.
Send key documents in an organised way.
Include the application, most recent order, Cafcass documents, safeguarding letter, statements and hearing notice where available.
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.
Do not miss deadlines.
Waiting for a solicitor does not automatically pause court directions.
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.
Where legal technology and structured support may help
Legal technology cannot replace legal aid solicitors. It should not pretend to. A parent facing care proceedings, domestic abuse allegations or complex safeguarding issues may need regulated legal advice and representation.
But technology and structured support can help reduce chaos around the edges of the system.
Good legal technology could help litigants in person:
identify whether legal aid may be worth exploring;
find providers by area and category;
keep a record of firms contacted;
organise court documents;
build a timeline;
prepare questions for a legal aid solicitor;
understand the difference between urgent and non-urgent issues;
track court deadlines;
prepare a structured hearing note; and
avoid turning up with disorganised evidence.
That does not solve the legal aid crisis. But it may reduce some of the damage caused by delay, overwhelm and lack of preparation.
There is a space here for careful, ethical innovation: not replacing lawyers, not giving false reassurance, and not pretending that an app can solve poverty, abuse or court delay. But legal technology can help people get organised, ask better questions, preserve documents and use scarce legal advice time more effectively.
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
Check legal aid early. Do not wait until the week before court.
Use the official adviser finder. Search by area and category of law.
Contact several providers. One refusal does not mean no one can help.
Ask about current capacity. The key question is whether they can act before your hearing.
Keep a contact log. This may help if you need to explain your position to the court.
Get your documents organised. Providers cannot assess urgency properly without the key papers.
Do not miss court deadlines while waiting. Unless the court changes a direction, it still applies.
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.
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.
“`
https://jshlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/ChatGPT-Image-Feb-3-2026-03_26_42-AM.png10241536jessica susan hillhttps://jshlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/jsh-law-logo-new-black-300x67.pngjessica susan hill2026-06-03 17:47:582026-06-03 18:29:08Can You Actually Get Legal Aid? The Family Court Access Crisis Behind the LAA’s New Provider Push
A practical JSH Law guide for litigants in person on judicial accountability, complaints about judges, JCIO routes, transcripts, family court transparency and how AI could help scrutinise patterns of poor judicial conduct.
Family Court Accountability | Litigants in Person | Judicial Conduct
Who Judges the Judges? Judicial Accountability, Litigants in Person and the Family Court’s Transparency Problem
Most judges work under immense pressure and many treat litigants in person with patience, fairness and humanity. But where a judge bullies, humiliates, intimidates, stereotypes, dismisses or abuses the authority of the court, that is not simply a “bad day”. It is an access to justice issue. It is a public confidence issue. And in the family court, where parties are often gagged by privacy rules, fear and trauma, it is an issue that urgently needs proper scrutiny.
By Jessica Susan Hill, JSH Law | For litigants in person, McKenzie Friend support, family court preparation and access to justice commentary
The core point
Judicial independence is essential. Nobody should want judges frightened into popularity contests or pressured by social media campaigns. But judicial independence is not the same thing as judicial impunity. A fair justice system must protect judges from improper pressure while also protecting court users from improper judicial conduct.
For litigants in person, particularly in private family law proceedings, the problem is acute. A represented party may have a solicitor or barrister to object, take a note, request clarification, advise on appeal, or identify misconduct. A litigant in person may leave court not even knowing whether what happened was normal, lawful, appealable, reportable, or simply wrong.
Why the Proudmans / Judge Lancaster example matters
A recent post by Proudmans, the specialist law firm founded by Dr Charlotte Proudman, highlights a wider public concern about judicial accountability. The post states that ten women reported Employment Tribunal Judge Philip Lancaster to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office over alleged inappropriate behaviour and misconduct, and that their complaints were initially dismissed before the JCIO agreed to reconsider them following a sustained campaign and legal challenge.
The reported allegations include intimidation, bullying, inappropriate conduct, shouting, hostile comments, excessive interruption and alleged misogynistic treatment. One complainant, Alison McDermott, has publicly described being left traumatised and ill after her hearing. The Proudmans post also raises a particularly important procedural concern: some complainants were reportedly criticised for not providing precise timestamps, despite being unable to access transcripts or recordings of their hearings.
That matters. If a complaints system demands forensic precision from traumatised or unrepresented court users, while those same court users cannot easily access the recording, transcript, or full evidential material needed to particularise the complaint, the system is structurally tilted against accountability.
Why this example resonates beyond the Employment Tribunal
The Lancaster complaints arose in the tribunal system, not the family court. But the accountability issue is directly relevant to family justice. In family proceedings, parties are often vulnerable, traumatised, financially stretched, self-representing, and subject to strict rules about confidentiality and publication. If judicial behaviour is poor, many litigants do not know how to evidence it, where to report it, or whether reporting it could make their case worse.
The point is not that every complaint against a judge is valid. It plainly is not. Judges make difficult decisions, often under pressure, and disappointed parties may wrongly interpret robust case management as bias. But where multiple complaints arise about similar behaviour by the same judge, those complaints should not be treated as isolated fragments if the alleged pattern is itself the warning sign.
Good judges, bad judging and the danger of unchecked courtroom power
It is important to be fair. Many family judges are excellent. Many are careful, humane and deeply alive to the realities of domestic abuse, safeguarding, trauma, poverty, neurodivergence, disability and the difficulties faced by litigants in person. Good judges can make the difference between a party feeling crushed by the system and a party feeling heard, even when the decision goes against them.
But the opposite is also true. Some court users experience judges as dismissive, impatient, sarcastic, hostile, humiliating or openly contemptuous. Some litigants in person describe being spoken over, patronised, mocked, cut off, or made to feel that the court has already decided they are difficult before they have even opened their bundle.
That matters because the courtroom is not an ordinary workplace. The judge controls the room. The judge controls the timing. The judge controls who speaks. The judge controls the direction of the case. The judge decides what evidence is heard, what weight is given to it, and what order is made. In family proceedings, those orders can affect where a child lives, how often a parent sees their child, whether protective measures are put in place, and whether allegations of abuse are properly tested.
Power can be used well. Power can also be abused. A system that refuses to confront that reality is not protecting judicial independence; it is protecting institutional defensiveness.
Judicial independence does not mean “a law unto themselves”
Judges must be independent from improper political, media or personal pressure. But they must also conduct hearings fairly, courteously and impartially. Judicial authority exists to serve justice. It does not exist to shield bullying, bias, contempt, discrimination or humiliation.
The Guide to Judicial Conduct exists because judges are not above standards. The JCIO exists because judicial office carries public responsibilities. The problem is not the absence of a formal system. The problem is whether that system is accessible, credible, transparent and capable of identifying patterns before more people are harmed.
Complaint, appeal or both? Litigants in person need this distinction
One of the most confusing issues for litigants in person is the difference between:
complaining about a judge’s personal conduct;
appealing a judge’s decision;
asking a judge to recuse themselves because of apparent bias;
complaining about court administration; and
requesting a transcript or recording to prove what happened.
These are different routes. They have different tests, different forms, different deadlines and different outcomes.
Problem
Usually the correct route
Important point
The judge made an order you believe is wrong
Appeal / application to vary / set aside, depending on the order and circumstances
The JCIO will not overturn a court order.
The judge refused evidence, limited questioning or controlled the timetable
Usually appeal, unless the conduct itself also raises misconduct
Case management is generally not a conduct complaint unless it crosses into misconduct.
The judge shouted, mocked, humiliated, used offensive language, appeared discriminatory, or behaved in a personally inappropriate way
Judicial conduct complaint to the JCIO
Record the exact words, time, hearing date, witnesses and effect on fairness.
The judge appeared biased or had a conflict of interest
Raise recusal/apparent bias issue in proceedings and consider appeal if necessary
Bias may be both an appeal issue and, in some circumstances, a conduct issue.
The court lost documents, failed to send an order, listed the case incorrectly, or mishandled administration
HMCTS complaint
HMCTS cannot discipline judges.
The JCIO mishandled your complaint
Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman
The Ombudsman reviews complaint handling, not the original court decision.
Do not use a conduct complaint as a substitute appeal
If the real problem is that the judge made the wrong order, the remedy is normally an appeal, not a JCIO complaint. A conduct complaint will not change child arrangements, set aside findings, reopen evidence or suspend an order. Litigants in person need to be strategic: if the order is wrong, protect your appeal position. If the behaviour was improper, preserve the evidence and consider a conduct complaint.
What litigants in person can do if a judge behaves improperly
When a litigant in person is treated badly in court, the emotional instinct may be to argue back, freeze, leave, cry, or try to explain everything at once. That is understandable. But the practical task is to preserve the record, stay calm enough to protect your position, and separate the conduct issue from the legal issue.
1. Stay polite, but make a clear record
If safe and appropriate, a litigant in person can calmly say:
Suggested wording:
“Sir / Madam, I am finding it difficult to follow because I feel I am being interrupted. May I please finish my point?”
“I am a litigant in person. I understand the court must manage the hearing, but I would be grateful if I could be allowed to make my submission on this issue.”
“May the order please record that I asked to address the court on this issue and was not permitted to do so?”
“If the court is refusing that request, may I please have the reason recorded?”
This is not about being confrontational. It is about making the issue visible. If something is not recorded, it becomes much harder to prove later.
2. Take a detailed note immediately after the hearing
As soon as possible after the hearing, write down:
the date, time and court;
the judge’s name;
the type of hearing;
who was present;
what was said, as close to the exact words as possible;
whether the judge shouted, interrupted, laughed, mocked, threatened, stereotyped or used offensive language;
whether the conduct affected your ability to present your case;
whether your opponent, their representative, Cafcass, a legal adviser or court staff witnessed it;
which part of the hearing it happened in; and
what order was made afterwards.
3. Request the order and consider whether it accurately reflects what happened
In family proceedings, the sealed order matters. If the order does not reflect an important procedural event, consider whether you need to write promptly to the court asking for clarification or correction. Keep the letter factual. Do not vent. Do not insult the judge. Set out the issue plainly.
4. Consider requesting a transcript
Family hearings are generally recorded unless the court directs otherwise. Under Family Procedure Rule 27.9, hearings are tape recorded or digitally recorded unless the court directs otherwise, and parties may usually require a transcript on payment of the authorised charges. The official route for requesting a transcript is Form EX107.
Do not secretly record the hearing
Parties should not use unofficial recording equipment in court without permission. Family Procedure Rule 27.9 expressly restricts unofficial recording, and unauthorised recording can amount to contempt of court. If you need the record, use the proper transcript route or ask the court for permission where appropriate.
5. Get early help if the conduct affected the fairness of the hearing
If the judge’s conduct affected your ability to participate, present evidence, challenge allegations, respond to safeguarding concerns, or make submissions, do not wait. Time limits for appeals and complaints can be short. Take advice or structured procedural support quickly.
Where and how to report judicial conduct concerns
The correct route depends on the nature of the problem.
Route
Use it for
Link
JCIO
Misconduct by salaried or fee-paid court judges, tribunal judges, coroners and some judicial office holders
Wrong decision, unfair process, procedural irregularity or unsafe findings
Check the appeal route and deadline urgently. Family appeal deadlines can be short.
What a strong judicial conduct complaint should include
A strong complaint is specific, evidenced and focused on conduct. It should not simply say “the judge was biased” or “the judge was rude”. It should explain what happened.
Judicial conduct complaint checklist
Judge’s full name and court.
Case number, hearing date and hearing type.
Whether the hearing was in person, remote or hybrid.
Who was present.
What the judge said or did, using exact words where possible.
Approximate timing within the hearing.
Whether the conduct was repeated.
Whether anyone else witnessed it.
Whether a transcript has been requested.
Why the conduct was misconduct, not merely disagreement with the outcome.
Whether the conduct affected your ability to participate fairly.
Any relevant documents, orders, emails, notes or transcript extracts.
Examples of conduct that may justify a complaint
shouting, bullying or humiliating a party;
sexist, racist, ableist, homophobic or otherwise discriminatory language;
mocking a litigant in person’s lack of legal knowledge;
refusing to allow a party to speak in a way that appears personally hostile rather than case-management based;
repeatedly interrupting one party but not the other in a way that suggests hostility or bias;
making inappropriate personal comments;
appearing to prejudge a party because they are a litigant in person, survivor of abuse, father, mother, disabled person, neurodivergent person or migrant;
failing to declare a conflict of interest;
using judicial status for personal advantage;
sleeping during a hearing; or
behaviour that creates a hostile or intimidating court environment.
The JCIO guidance makes clear that it deals with misconduct by judicial office holders, not appeals against decisions. That limitation is important. But it must not become a shield for behaviour that is dressed up as “case management” when, in substance, it is bullying, humiliation, hostility or discriminatory conduct.
The family court transparency problem: gagged, frightened and often unheard
Judicial accountability is especially difficult in the family court because family proceedings are generally private. The reasons are obvious: children must be protected, identities often need to be anonymised, and intimate details of family life should not be exposed unnecessarily.
But privacy has a cost. It can make the family court feel like a closed room where poor professional conduct is hidden from public view. Litigants in person often describe feeling gagged, not because there is no route at all, but because the rules are complex, the consequences of getting it wrong can be serious, and the emotional pressure is enormous.
That is progress. But it is not enough. Transparency that depends on journalists and legal bloggers attending a tiny fraction of hearings will not capture the day-to-day experience of litigants in person across the country. Many problematic interactions will never be observed by the press. Many poor hearings will never produce a published judgment. Many litigants will never complain because they fear retaliation, delay, cost or being labelled difficult.
The access to justice issue
If a represented party is mistreated, their advocate may intervene. If a litigant in person is mistreated, they may not know what to say, what to record, what to request, or where to complain. That imbalance is itself an access to justice problem.
Family justice cannot depend on silence. Privacy for children should not become privacy for poor conduct. The system needs a better way to protect anonymity while allowing patterns of judicial behaviour to be identified, reviewed and addressed.
Could AI help scrutinise judicial behaviour?
Artificial intelligence should not replace judges. It should not decide children’s futures. It should not become an unaccountable black-box evaluator of human decision-making. But AI could have a legitimate role in judicial accountability if designed carefully, transparently and with proper safeguards.
The family court already records hearings. Transcripts can be produced. Orders can be reviewed. Complaints can be logged. The missing piece is pattern recognition. One isolated complaint may be dismissed. Ten similar complaints may reveal something very different. AI, used responsibly, could help identify those patterns earlier.
Possible responsible uses of AI
Pattern detection: identifying repeated complaints about the same judge, same type of conduct, or same protected characteristic.
Transcript analysis: measuring interruption patterns, speaking time, hostile language, repeated dismissive phrases or asymmetric treatment between parties.
Litigant in person impact analysis: identifying whether unrepresented parties are interrupted more frequently or given less time to speak.
Safeguarding sensitivity review: identifying whether domestic abuse, coercive control, disability, neurodivergence or trauma issues are being minimised or mishandled.
Complaints triage: helping complaints bodies spot systemic concerns rather than treating every complaint as an isolated event.
Training feedback: providing anonymised feedback to judicial training bodies about recurring courtroom behaviour issues.
AI scrutiny must be independent, explainable and anonymised
AI should not become another opaque institution marking its own homework. Any AI-assisted judicial accountability system would need independent oversight, human review, transparent methodology, bias testing, anonymisation, data protection controls, and clear appeal mechanisms for judges and court users alike.
The objective is not to create a hostile environment for judges. It is to build a fairer evidence base. Good judges should welcome proper scrutiny because scrutiny protects public confidence. Poor conduct should not be hidden behind the fact that most litigants cannot afford a transcript, do not understand the complaints route, and are terrified of speaking out.
What reform should look like
If judicial accountability is to be meaningful, reform needs to go beyond telling court users to fill in a complaint form.
1. Complaints should be assessed collectively where patterns are alleged
Where multiple people complain about similar behaviour by the same judge, the complaints body should consider whether there is a pattern. Treating each complaint as an isolated event can obscure precisely the thing the system needs to see.
2. Litigants should have better access to transcripts where conduct is challenged
If a complaint is rejected because a litigant cannot provide sufficient detail, but that litigant cannot access the material needed to provide that detail, the process becomes circular and unfair. There should be a clearer, faster and more affordable transcript route where alleged judicial misconduct is in issue.
3. The boundary between “case management” and “misconduct” must be applied realistically
Judges must manage cases. They must stop irrelevant questioning, control time, prevent abuse of process and keep hearings focused. But “case management” should not become a magic label that excludes bullying, intimidation, hostility or discriminatory treatment from scrutiny.
4. Litigants in person need plain-English guidance at court
Courts should provide practical guidance explaining the difference between appeal, conduct complaint, HMCTS complaint, transcript request and recusal. Litigants should not have to discover these routes through trauma, internet searches and trial-and-error.
5. Family court transparency must be strengthened without exposing children
The expansion of reporting provisions is welcome, but more is needed. Anonymity for children must remain central. But anonymity should not be used as a reason to prevent proper scrutiny of institutional behaviour, judicial culture or repeated procedural unfairness.
6. Judicial training should include trauma, domestic abuse, coercive control and litigants in person
A judge who does not understand trauma can mistake distress for evasiveness. A judge who does not understand coercive control can mistake fear for hostility. A judge who does not understand litigants in person can mistake confusion for non-compliance. The courtroom atmosphere is not cosmetic. It is part of procedural fairness.
7. The complaints system must command confidence
A watchdog that is perceived as defensive, inaccessible or reluctant to investigate patterns will not command public confidence. Judicial accountability requires a complaints process that is independent in substance, not just in structure.
Practical summary for litigants in person
Do not assume every bad outcome is misconduct. Sometimes the route is appeal.
Do not assume every judicial behaviour issue is “just how court is”. Bullying and humiliation are not acceptable.
Write a detailed note immediately after the hearing. Include exact words and who witnessed them.
Request the sealed order. Check whether it accurately records key procedural issues.
Consider a transcript. Use Form EX107 where appropriate.
Keep complaints factual. Avoid insults, emotion-heavy generalisations or unfounded allegations.
Separate the routes. Appeal the decision if necessary; complain about conduct if misconduct is the issue.
Act quickly. Complaint and appeal deadlines can be short.
Get support. A litigant in person should not have to navigate this alone.
Need help preparing for family court?
JSH Law supports litigants in person with family court preparation, statements, chronologies, hearing notes, bundle organisation, safeguarding issues, Cafcass concerns and practical procedural support.
If you are worried about how you were treated in court, or you need help separating an appeal issue from a conduct complaint, you can book an initial consultation below.
Final thought: accountability protects justice
The justice system depends on public confidence. That confidence is not built by pretending poor judicial behaviour never happens. It is built by confronting it honestly, investigating it properly, and ensuring that litigants in person are not left powerless in rooms where everyone else understands the rules.
Good judges deserve respect. Vulnerable court users deserve dignity. Children deserve decisions made in a fair process. And the public deserves a justice system where judicial power is exercised with humanity, restraint and accountability.
Judicial independence matters. So does judicial responsibility. The two are not enemies. They are both essential to the rule of law.
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 and the role of legal technology in improving outcomes for court users.
JSH Law is focused on helping litigants in person feel more prepared, more organised and less alone when navigating the family justice system.
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 advocacy, conduct of litigation, rights of audience, appeal advice or formal legal representation are required, readers should seek assistance from an appropriately authorised legal professional.
References to third-party posts, public commentary, judicial complaints or reported cases are included for public-interest discussion. Allegations remain allegations unless and until formally determined by the appropriate body or court. Readers should not publish identifying information from family proceedings without checking the applicable reporting restrictions, transparency order, court order and legal position.
“`
https://jshlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/ChatGPT-Image-Feb-3-2026-03_26_42-AM.png10241536jessica susan hillhttps://jshlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/jsh-law-logo-new-black-300x67.pngjessica susan hill2026-06-03 12:31:392026-06-03 14:58:07Who Judges the Judges? Judicial Accountability, Litigants in Person and the Family Court Transparency Problem
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.
https://jshlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/ChatGPT-Image-Feb-3-2026-03_26_42-AM.png10241536jessica susan hillhttps://jshlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/jsh-law-logo-new-black-300x67.pngjessica susan hill2026-06-02 22:45:532026-06-02 23:10:24Family Courts “Not Good Enough” for Women and Children? Why This Matters for Every Parent in England and Wales
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 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:
Page / paragraph reference
What Cafcass says
Why you say it is wrong or incomplete
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
Introduction — who you are and what hearing this is.
Current position — what arrangements are currently in place.
Key issues — the issues the court needs to decide.
Safeguarding — any relevant risk concerns, briefly and clearly.
Cafcass / reports — what you agree with and what you dispute.
Welfare analysis — why your proposal meets the child’s welfare needs.
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.
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.
“`
https://jshlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/ChatGPT-Image-Feb-3-2026-03_26_42-AM.png10241536jessica susan hillhttps://jshlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/jsh-law-logo-new-black-300x67.pngjessica susan hill2026-06-02 20:03:372026-06-02 20:38:17Latest UK Family Court News for Litigants in Person: What Parents Need to Know Now
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.
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.
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.
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:
Date or approximate period: When did it happen?
Behaviour: What exactly happened?
Evidence: What document, message, screenshot, witness or record supports it?
Impact on you: How did it affect your safety, freedom, finances, health or decision-making?
Impact on the child: What did the child see, hear, experience or suffer?
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.
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.
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.
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.
https://jshlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/ChatGPT-Image-Feb-3-2026-03_26_42-AM.png10241536jessica susan hillhttps://jshlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/jsh-law-logo-new-black-300x67.pngjessica susan hill2026-05-26 11:02:212026-05-26 11:04:08The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 Is Under Review: What Litigants in Person Need to Know
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.
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.
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;
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.
https://jshlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/ChatGPT-Image-Feb-3-2026-03_26_42-AM.png10241536jessica susan hillhttps://jshlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/jsh-law-logo-new-black-300x67.pngjessica susan hill2026-05-26 09:42:382026-05-26 09:42:39Pathfinder Is Failing Children: What Litigants in Person Are Really Seeing Inside the Family Courts
For many victims of domestic abuse, the hardest part of seeking legal protection is not the law itself — it is the process. Fear, trauma, court forms, safeguarding concerns and trying to explain coercive and controlling behaviour in legal language can feel overwhelming, particularly without legal representation. In recent years, digital tools like CourtNav have started to reshape how litigants in person access protective injunctions through the family court system. Designed to help users prepare non-molestation and occupation order applications more clearly and more safely, CourtNav represents one of the clearest examples of legal technology being used to improve access to justice for vulnerable court users.
CourtNav and the Rise of Digital Injunction Applications: What Litigants in Person Need to Know
Part 3 of the JSH Law Legal Tech & AI for Litigants in Person Series
By Jessica Susan Hill | JSH Law
For many victims of domestic abuse, one of the hardest parts of seeking legal protection is not the law itself.
It is the process.
Fear.
Confusion.
Court forms.
Trauma.
Reliving abuse in writing.
Trying to explain coercive and controlling behaviour in a way the legal system can understand.
And often doing all of that without legal representation.
That is the reality many litigants in person face when trying to apply for a non-molestation order or occupation order through the family court.
In recent years, one digital tool has become increasingly important in this area:
CourtNav is one of the clearest examples of legal technology being used not to replace lawyers, but to help vulnerable people access the justice system more safely and more effectively.
But like all legal technology, it has strengths, limitations and risks that litigants in person need to understand properly.
What Is CourtNav?
CourtNav is an online digital support tool developed by the charity RCJ Advice.
It is designed primarily to help people prepare applications for:
Non-Molestation Orders (FL401 applications);
Occupation Orders;
domestic abuse injunctions;
and related protective orders in the family court.
The system works by guiding users through structured questions about:
their relationship;
the abuse experienced;
children involved;
risk factors;
living arrangements;
police involvement;
and safeguarding concerns.
It then helps generate draft court documents and applications which can later be reviewed and submitted.
Importantly:
CourtNav does not make legal decisions.
It helps structure information into a legally usable format.
Why CourtNav Matters
To understand why CourtNav matters, you first need to understand the reality many domestic abuse victims face.
People applying for injunctions are often:
traumatised;
sleep deprived;
fearful;
isolated;
financially vulnerable;
emotionally overwhelmed;
and trying to navigate an intimidating legal system while still living in crisis.
Traditional court forms can feel impossible in that situation.
Particularly where abuse involves:
coercive control;
psychological abuse;
financial abuse;
stalking;
post-separation abuse;
or long-term emotional manipulation.
Many victims struggle to explain these patterns clearly in legal language.
CourtNav attempts to bridge that gap.
What CourtNav Does Exceptionally Well
1. It Reduces Procedural Overwhelm
One of CourtNav’s biggest strengths is structure.
Instead of presenting users with complex court forms and expecting them to know what matters legally, CourtNav breaks the process into guided stages.
That can significantly reduce panic and confusion.
For many litigants in person, simply having a structured pathway through the application process is enormously valuable.
2. It Helps People Explain Abuse More Clearly
This is particularly important.
Many victims minimise abuse.
Others struggle to explain coercive control because the behaviour developed gradually over years.
CourtNav’s questioning structure often helps users:
identify patterns;
organise incidents chronologically;
focus on relevant information;
and explain risk more coherently.
That can materially improve the clarity of an application.
3. It Improves Accessibility
For people who cannot immediately access legal representation, CourtNav creates a more accessible route into the justice system.
That matters enormously given the ongoing legal aid and access-to-justice crisis.
Without tools like this, many vulnerable people would likely never attempt protective applications at all.
4. It Helps Create More Organised Draft Applications
Many litigants in person submit applications that are:
emotionally chaotic;
chronologically unclear;
highly repetitive;
or missing critical safeguarding details.
CourtNav’s structure often improves overall readability and coherence.
Judges and legal professionals still need to assess the evidence critically — but a clearer application helps everybody understand the issues more quickly.
What CourtNav Cannot Do
This is where realism matters.
CourtNav is useful.
But it is not magic.
And it is not a substitute for legal advice or strategic case preparation.
CourtNav cannot:
verify allegations;
assess witness credibility;
cross-examine evidence;
predict judicial outcomes;
provide emotional support;
fully understand complex safeguarding dynamics;
or advise strategically on wider family proceedings.
It also cannot fully appreciate nuance in the way experienced professionals can.
For example:
counter-allegations;
post-separation litigation abuse;
false allegations;
parental alienation claims;
cross-jurisdictional issues;
and highly complex coercive control dynamics
often require detailed human analysis.
The Hidden Risk Litigants in Person Often Miss
One important issue rarely discussed publicly is this:
Generating an application is not the same thing as proving a case.
Many litigants assume that once the paperwork is completed, the hardest part is over.
In reality, injunction proceedings can later involve:
fact-finding hearings;
cross-examination;
disclosure disputes;
safeguarding investigations;
CAFCASS involvement;
police evidence;
medical records;
and detailed credibility assessments.
That is where many litigants in person begin to struggle.
Because the technology may help them enter the system — but not necessarily navigate the litigation that follows.
Coercive Control and the Difficulty of Explaining “Invisible Abuse”
One of the most difficult aspects of family court litigation is explaining coercive and controlling behaviour.
Many victims arrive at court with:
no visible injuries;
limited evidence;
fragmented memories;
and years of psychologically manipulative behaviour that is difficult to summarise briefly.
This is where structured digital systems can genuinely help.
By prompting users to identify patterns of:
isolation;
monitoring;
financial control;
intimidation;
threats;
harassment;
and fear-based behaviour,
tools like CourtNav can sometimes help people recognise and articulate abuse more clearly than they otherwise might.
That is significant.
The Bigger Legal Tech Question
CourtNav also raises a much wider question:
What happens when legal systems increasingly rely on technology to compensate for reduced access to lawyers?
This is one of the defining access-to-justice issues of modern family law.
Increasingly, the justice system depends upon:
digital forms;
online portals;
remote hearings;
AI-assisted drafting tools;
self-help platforms;
and procedural technology
to help people navigate litigation without representation.
That creates both opportunity and risk.
Technology can improve accessibility.
But it can also create:
digital exclusion;
overreliance on systems;
false confidence;
and a dangerous assumption that guided forms are equivalent to legal understanding.
How CourtNav Fits into the Future of Family Court
CourtNav is likely part of a much larger shift.
Over the next decade we will probably see:
AI-assisted injunction drafting;
automated chronology generation;
risk-identification systems;
integrated safeguarding workflows;
evidence categorisation tools;
and increasingly sophisticated digital court support platforms.
Some of that will improve access to justice.
Some of it will create entirely new legal and ethical concerns.
But the direction of travel is already obvious:
Family court is becoming increasingly technological.
Practical Tips for Litigants Using CourtNav
JSH Law Practical Guidance
Take your time completing the questions.
Focus on facts, incidents and patterns.
Avoid writing emotionally if possible.
Keep dates and chronology clear.
Save supporting evidence separately.
Do not exaggerate allegations.
Do not assume the court automatically knows your history.
Remember that applications may later be scrutinised in detail.
Seek support where possible if you are overwhelmed.
If children are involved, think carefully about safeguarding issues and risk.
JSH Law Practical Verdict
JSH Law Rating: Extremely Valuable Access-to-Justice Tool
Best for:
non-molestation applications;
organising abuse allegations clearly;
reducing procedural overwhelm;
helping litigants begin injunction applications;
improving accessibility.
Limitations:
not legal advice;
not strategic litigation support;
cannot replace safeguarding analysis;
cannot predict outcomes;
cannot fully assess complex abuse dynamics.
Final Thoughts
CourtNav represents something important.
Not because technology solves domestic abuse.
It does not.
But because tools like this acknowledge a reality the justice system can no longer ignore:
Large numbers of vulnerable people are navigating family court without lawyers.
For those people, structure matters.
Clarity matters.
Accessibility matters.
And technology — used carefully and responsibly — may increasingly become one of the few bridges left between vulnerable people and meaningful access to legal protection.
About the Author
Jessica Susan Hill is studying towards SQE1 and SQE2 with BPP Law School and has over 10 years’ experience litigating in person and helping others navigate family court proceedings.
She is the founder of JSH Law and has a particular interest in legal technology, AI, access to justice, safeguarding and practical litigation support for litigants in person.
JSH Law provides practical support including chronology building, evidence organisation, court document preparation assistance and hearing preparation support for litigants in person across England and Wales.
Part of the JSH Law Legal Tech & AI for Litigants in Person Series
Part 1 — The Truth About Using ChatGPT for Family Court as a Litigant in Person
Part 2 — Advicenow Review for Litigants in Person
Part 3 — CourtNav and the Rise of Digital Injunction Applications
Coming next: Claude vs ChatGPT for Family Court Preparation
Regulatory & Editorial Notice: JSH Law Ltd provides litigation support and McKenzie Friend services to litigants in person. JSH Law Ltd is not authorised or regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. This article is provided for general educational and public-interest purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
https://jshlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/ChatGPT-Image-Feb-3-2026-03_26_42-AM.png10241536jessica susan hillhttps://jshlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/jsh-law-logo-new-black-300x67.pngjessica susan hill2026-05-22 09:22:082026-05-22 09:24:30Using CourtNav for Non-Molestation Orders: A Practical Guide for Litigants in Person
