Contact With Your Child Has Stopped: What to Do Before the Family Court Treats It as the New Normal

June 4, 2026/0 Comments/in 5. Court Skills for Litigants in Person/by jessica susan hill

Contact has stopped, your messages are going unanswered, and you may be watching a previously close relationship with your child become more difficult to repair with every passing week. You may have received family court papers, discovered that an existing child arrangements order is not being followed, or be unsure whether you need to apply to court urgently. The most important step is not to reach immediately for labels such as “parental alienation”, but to document what has happened, understand the possible reasons for the breakdown and present the court with a calm, evidence-based and child-focused plan.

Contact Has Stopped: What to Do Before a Child’s Relationship With a Parent Becomes Harder to Repair

One missed weekend may become two. Telephone calls may become shorter, less frequent or stop altogether. A child who was previously happy to spend time with a parent may begin saying that they do not want to go, while the adults disagree sharply about why. By the time family court papers arrive, the parent-child relationship may already feel as though it is slipping away.

When child contact breaks down, time matters. A long interruption may affect familiarity, trust, routine and the practical options available to the court. However, the family court must not assume that stopped contact proves “parental alienation”, deliberate obstruction or manipulation. The court must understand the child’s experiences, investigate any allegations of harm and examine the evidence before deciding what should happen next.

This article explains what parents and litigants in person can do when contact has stopped, how the court approaches allegations of alienating behaviour, when enforcement may be appropriate and how to present a clear, evidence-based and child-focused case.

The central point

A breakdown in contact can become harder to resolve over time, but the passage of time does not prove why the breakdown occurred. The court must distinguish between domestic abuse, harmful parenting, justified rejection, harmful conflict, practical difficulties and any proven alienating behaviours.

When Child Contact Begins to Break Down

Contact does not always stop through one dramatic event. In some cases, the change is gradual:

weekend arrangements become shorter or less frequent;
telephone or video calls are missed;
handover arrangements become increasingly difficult;
the child begins to express reluctance or anxiety;
one parent says that the child does not want to attend;
alternative dates are not offered after missed contact;
communication between the adults becomes hostile or stops entirely;
an interim arrangement continues for longer than anyone expected.

A parent who is losing time with their child may feel frightened, angry or desperate. A parent who believes that contact is unsafe may feel pressured, disbelieved or accused of deliberately damaging the relationship. The child may feel caught between adult narratives that they do not fully understand.

The court’s task is not to decide which parent feels more wronged. It is to understand what has happened, identify any risk of harm and determine what arrangements are in the child’s best interests.

Stopped Contact Is Not Proof of “Parental Alienation”

The expression “parental alienation” is frequently used by parents, campaign groups and online communities. It may be the phrase a parent searches for when a child has unexpectedly rejected them or when contact has stopped without an explanation they understand.

However, the modern family justice approach is not to treat parental alienation as a diagnosis or syndrome. The Family Justice Council has stated that so-called “parental alienation syndrome” has no evidential basis. The focus must instead be on the specific behaviour alleged, whether that behaviour is proved and what impact it has had on the individual child.

Cafcass also recognises that there may be many reasons why a child does not want to spend time with a parent. Those reasons may include domestic abuse, fear, harmful parenting, harmful conflict, the child’s own experiences, practical changes, pressure from an adult or a combination of factors.

Current official guidance

What Are Alienating Behaviours?

Alienating behaviours are not established merely because a child is reluctant, resistant or refusing to spend time with a parent.

The Family Justice Council guidance identifies three elements that must be established before a court can properly conclude that alienating behaviours have occurred:

The child is reluctant, resistant or refusing to engage in a relationship with a parent.
The child’s response is not caused by the conduct of the parent seeking the relationship.
The other parent has engaged in behaviour that has caused the child’s reluctance, resistance or refusal.

This means that the court must consider whether the child has a justified reason for their position. It must also consider whether the alleged behaviour is supported by evidence and whether that behaviour caused or contributed to the breakdown in the relationship.

Do not begin with the conclusion

A parent who repeatedly states that the other parent is an “alienator” may appear to have reached a conclusion before the evidence has been tested. A stronger approach is to identify the specific behaviour, the dates, the evidence and the effect on the child.

Why Might a Child Refuse or Resist Contact?

A child may be reluctant, resistant or refusing to spend time with a parent for many different reasons. The explanation may be simple, complex or mixed.

The court may need to consider whether the child’s position is connected to:

domestic abuse, including controlling or coercive behaviour;
fear, distress or a harmful experience;
the parenting behaviour of the parent seeking contact;
a child’s justified rejection of a parent;
harmful conflict between the adults;
pressure, influence or psychological manipulation;
the child’s age, maturity, wishes and feelings;
a long interruption in the relationship;
practical problems with travel, handovers or routines;
the child feeling responsible for protecting or supporting a parent;
a combination of several different factors.

A child’s words must be listened to carefully. They should not be dismissed merely because one parent alleges alienation. Equally, the court may need to consider the circumstances in which the child’s views have developed and whether the child has been exposed to adult information, pressure or conflict.

Why Time Can Matter When Contact Has Stopped

Section 1 of the Children Act 1989 recognises that delay in determining a question about a child is generally likely to prejudice the child’s welfare.

Where a safe and beneficial parent-child relationship has been interrupted, delay may make that relationship more difficult to restore. The child may become accustomed to a new routine. The parent may become less familiar. Anxiety about seeing the parent may increase. A temporary arrangement may begin to look like an established status quo.

However, time must not be used as a reason to force contact before legitimate safeguarding concerns have been examined. The correct approach is to act promptly while remaining focused on safety, evidence and the child’s individual needs.

What the Law Says

Children Act 1989, section 1

The child’s welfare is the court’s paramount consideration when deciding questions about the child’s upbringing. The court must consider the welfare checklist, including the child’s wishes and feelings, needs, the likely effect of any change in circumstances, any harm suffered or risk of harm and the capability of each parent to meet the child’s needs.

Section 1 also requires the court to have regard to the general principle that delay is likely to prejudice the child’s welfare.

Read section 1 of the Children Act 1989

Parental Involvement

The Children Act 1989 contains a presumption that the involvement of a parent in a child’s life will further the child’s welfare unless the contrary is shown. This does not create a presumption of equal time, and it does not require involvement that would place the child at risk of harm.

Read the parental involvement provisions

Domestic Abuse Act 2021, sections 1 to 3

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 recognises controlling or coercive behaviour as a form of domestic abuse. It also recognises a child as a victim of domestic abuse where the child sees, hears or experiences the effects of the abuse and is related to either party.

Read sections 1 to 3 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021

Practice Direction 12B: Child Arrangements Programme

Practice Direction 12B provides the procedural framework for private law children’s cases, including applications concerning child arrangements and enforcement.

Read Practice Direction 12B

Practice Direction 12J

Where domestic abuse is alleged, admitted or otherwise raises a concern, the court must consider the effect of that abuse on the child and on the ability of each parent to care for the child safely.

Read Practice Direction 12J

Evidence of Contact Breakdown Is Not the Same as Evidence of Its Cause

A litigant in person may be able to show that contact has stopped. The more difficult question is often why it has stopped and what should happen next.

Assumption	Better Evidence-Based Approach
“The other parent is alienating my child.”	Identify the specific behaviour relied upon, the dates, the available evidence and the effect on the child.
“My child’s refusal proves manipulation.”	Consider what the child is saying, whether safeguarding concerns exist and whether alternative explanations may apply.
“Every missed contact is deliberate obstruction.”	Record the reason given, whether an alternative was offered and whether a clear pattern exists.
“The court must restore contact immediately.”	Explain what safe and proportionate interim step may preserve or rebuild the relationship.
“The current status quo proves the arrangement is best.”	Explain how the arrangement arose and whether it continues to meet the child’s welfare needs.

What to Record When Contact Starts to Break Down

A clear, neutral record may help the court understand what has happened. It may also help a parent distinguish between isolated difficulties and a developing pattern.

A useful contact record may include:

the date and time of each planned contact;
the arrangements that had been agreed or ordered;
whether contact took place;
the reason given for any missed or shortened contact;
whether an alternative date or arrangement was offered;
relevant messages or emails about the arrangements;
the child’s words or behaviour, recorded neutrally and without interpretation;
any safeguarding concern raised;
any attempt to resolve the issue calmly;
the effect on the child rather than only the effect on the parent.

Record facts, not conclusions

Instead of writing:

“The other parent manipulated the child into refusing contact.”

Consider writing:

“Contact was due to take place on 14 May 2026 at 10:00am. At 9:15am, I received a message stating that the child did not want to attend. I asked whether an alternative date or a video call could be offered. No alternative was provided.”

What Not to Do When Contact Has Stopped

A parent’s response to stopped contact may later be examined by Cafcass or the court. Even where the parent’s distress is entirely understandable, reactive behaviour can make the situation more difficult.

Do not question, pressure or interrogate the child.
Do not ask the child to provide evidence or repeat adult allegations.
Do not send hostile, threatening or repetitive messages.
Do not describe the other parent as an alienator without a proper evidential basis.
Do not dismiss allegations of harm merely because contact has stopped.
Do not attend unexpectedly or attempt to force contact.
Do not breach an existing court order.
Do not involve the child in court documents or adult correspondence.
Do not wait indefinitely if the relationship is deteriorating and no resolution is being attempted.

A practical communication principle

Write every message as though it may later be read by a judge. Keep it brief, respectful, child-focused and directed towards a practical solution.

When There Is No Child Arrangements Order

If no court order exists and parents cannot agree arrangements, a parent may consider applying for a child arrangements order using Form C100.

A child arrangements order can regulate with whom a child is to live, spend time or otherwise have contact. Before applying, a parent will usually need to attend a Mediation Information and Assessment Meeting unless a valid exemption applies.

An application should not simply state that contact has stopped. It should explain:

the previous arrangements;
when and how contact changed;
the reasons given for the change;
any safeguarding concerns;
the steps taken to resolve the issue;
the arrangements being requested;
why those arrangements promote the child’s welfare.

Applying for a child arrangements order

Form C100: Apply for a Child Arrangements, Prohibited Steps or Specific Issue Order

When an Existing Child Arrangements Order Is Not Being Followed

If a child arrangements order exists and the arrangements are not being followed, a parent may consider applying to the court for enforcement using Form C79.

Enforcement is not automatic. The court will want to understand whether the order has been breached, why the alleged breach occurred and whether there was a reasonable excuse. The court must also consider the child’s welfare and whether the existing order remains workable and appropriate.

Depending on the facts, the court may consider a range of responses, including:

clarifying or varying the child arrangements order;
making directions intended to support compliance;
making an enforcement order where the statutory requirements are met;
considering compensation for financial loss in an appropriate case;
requiring further assessment or information;
considering whether the child arrangements themselves need to change.

Enforcement Legal Framework

Children Act 1989, section 11J

Section 11J provides for enforcement orders relating to a failure to comply with a child arrangements order where the statutory requirements are met.

Read section 11J of the Children Act 1989

Form C79

Form C79 is used to apply for an order related to the enforcement of a child arrangements order or to set aside or change an existing enforcement order.

Download Form C79

HMCTS Enforcement Guidance

HM Courts and Tribunals Service publishes guidance explaining when and how a person may apply to enforce a child arrangements order.

Read the CB5 Guidance on Enforcing a Child Arrangements Order

Practice Direction 12N

Practice Direction 12N applies to certain enforcement proceedings under the Children Act 1989.
Read Practice Direction 12N

Enforcement Is Not the Same as Punishment

A parent may understandably feel angry when an order is not followed. However, the purpose of returning to court should not simply be to punish the other parent. The court’s focus remains the child’s welfare and the practical arrangements that should operate in the future.

A well-prepared enforcement application should explain:

the precise paragraph of the order that has not been followed;
the dates of the alleged breaches;
the evidence supporting each alleged breach;
the explanation given by the other parent;
whether alternative contact was offered;
the impact on the child;
the order or direction being requested;
why the proposed outcome is in the child’s best interests.

Important

An enforcement application may not be the correct response where new safeguarding concerns have arisen, the existing order is no longer workable or the child’s circumstances have materially changed. The court may need to consider variation, further assessment or another form of case management.

Domestic Abuse and Stopped Contact

Allegations of domestic abuse must not be dismissed as an excuse for stopping contact, nor should stopped contact automatically be treated as evidence of domestic abuse.

Where domestic abuse is alleged, the court may need to determine whether a fact-finding hearing is necessary. It must consider the effect of any abuse on the child, the victim parent and the ability of the parties to participate fairly in the proceedings.

A child may refuse contact because they have seen, heard or experienced the effects of domestic abuse. A parent may also use child arrangements, communication or litigation as part of a wider pattern of controlling or coercive behaviour. These possibilities require careful evidence and proper judicial consideration.

Equally, a parent accused of abuse must be given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations. The court must make findings based on evidence rather than assumption.

Safety and delay must be considered together

The court should not allow a child’s relationship with a safe parent to deteriorate unnecessarily. It should also not force contact before legitimate safeguarding concerns have been examined.

Possible Child-Focused Steps When a Relationship Needs to Be Rebuilt

The correct approach will depend on the child’s experiences, the findings made by the court, the level of risk and the child’s individual needs.

Depending on the circumstances, possible steps may include:

indirect contact through letters, cards, messages or video calls;
supported contact;
supervised contact;
a neutral handover arrangement;
a clearly defined communication method between the adults;
a gradual reintroduction plan;
a section 7 report;
a review hearing after a defined period;
a fact-finding hearing where disputed allegations must be determined;
professional support where appropriate and properly directed.

The aim should not be to force a child to accept an adult narrative. The aim should be to identify what is safe, understand what the child needs and create arrangements that promote the child’s welfare.

Cafcass support services

Cafcass: Enabling Family Time

Recent Judicial Guidance: Re Y

In February 2026, the President of the Family Division handed down judgment in Re Y (Experts and Alienating Behaviour: The Modern Approach) [2026] EWFC 38.

The judgment reinforces the Family Justice Council’s guidance and confirms that allegations of alienating behaviour are factual matters for the court. Expert evidence should not be used as a substitute for judicial fact-finding.

This is important because parents may be encouraged to seek an “alienation expert” or to rely on theories about why a child is refusing contact. The modern approach is more disciplined: the court must identify the allegations, determine the facts and then consider what those findings mean for the child’s welfare.

Read the judgment

Re Y (Experts and Alienating Behaviour: The Modern Approach) [2026] EWFC 38

How to Present a Child-Focused Case

Whether you are asking the court to restore contact, enforce an order, vary arrangements or address safeguarding concerns, your case should remain focused on the child.

A well-prepared case may include:

a concise chronology of the contact arrangements and significant events;
a clear contact schedule showing what took place and what did not;
relevant messages, emails or other documents;
a structured response to allegations made against you;
a careful explanation of any safeguarding concerns;
an analysis of any Cafcass safeguarding letter or section 7 report;
a realistic proposal for safe arrangements;
a clear explanation of the impact on the child;
a willingness to reflect on your own conduct and make changes where necessary.

Less Helpful	More Helpful
“The other parent has destroyed my relationship with my child.”	A dated account of the changes in arrangements and the evidence supporting your concerns.
“My child has been brainwashed.”	A neutral explanation of the child’s previous relationship, the change in behaviour and the surrounding circumstances.
“The court must punish the other parent.”	A clear proposal for arrangements that are workable, safe and in the child’s best interests.
A large collection of unindexed screenshots.	A focused selection of relevant documents linked to the issues the court must decide.

Questions the Court May Need to Answer

What arrangements previously existed?
When and why did contact change?
What is the child saying, and how has the child’s position been understood?
Has the child experienced domestic abuse, harmful parenting or fear?
Has either parent exposed the child to adult conflict or information?
Is there evidence of psychological manipulation or other alienating behaviour?
Has an existing child arrangements order been breached?
Was there a reasonable excuse for any non-compliance?
What interim arrangements are safe and realistic?
What outcome best promotes the child’s welfare?

When to Seek Support

Cases involving stopped contact can become complex quickly. They may involve allegations of domestic abuse, controlling or coercive behaviour, harmful conflict, safeguarding concerns, enforcement applications, Cafcass recommendations or requests for a fact-finding hearing.

Early preparation may help a litigant in person identify the correct application, organise evidence, avoid unnecessary allegations and present a clear proposal to the court.

JSH Law can assist with:

reviewing court papers and existing child arrangements orders;
preparing a contact chronology;
organising messages, emails and other evidence;
drafting or reviewing position statements;
analysing Cafcass safeguarding letters and section 7 reports;
preparing for enforcement, directions, fact-finding or final hearings;
supporting litigants in person as a McKenzie Friend where appropriate.

Has Contact With Your Child Stopped?

If contact has suddenly ended, an existing child arrangements order is not being followed or you have received family court papers and do not know what to do next, early preparation can help protect your position.

JSH Law provides structured litigation support and McKenzie Friend assistance for litigants in person in private children proceedings.

Book a 15-minute initial consultation to discuss your situation and whether JSH Law may be able to assist.

Final Thoughts

When child contact breaks down, it is tempting to reach immediately for a label. A parent may believe they are being deliberately excluded. Another parent may believe they are protecting the child. The child may be struggling with experiences or pressures that the adults do not fully understand.

Time may make a safe parent-child relationship harder to repair, but time does not prove the cause of the breakdown. The proper approach is to identify the child’s experiences, examine the evidence, investigate any allegations of harm and seek arrangements that are safe, realistic and consistent with the child’s welfare.

A litigant in person cannot control every part of the family justice process. They can, however, remain calm, document events accurately, avoid unsupported allegations and present the court with a clear, child-focused proposal.

About the Author

Jessica Susan Hill is the founder of JSH Law. She provides structured litigation support and McKenzie Friend services to litigants in person, with a particular focus on private children proceedings, domestic abuse and safeguarding concerns, Cafcass reports, evidence organisation and hearing preparation.

JSH Law is committed to helping litigants in person understand family court procedure, prepare persuasive documents and present their cases clearly and child-centrically.

Regulatory & Editorial Notice

This article is provided for general information and public legal education only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as a substitute for advice on the facts of an individual case.

JSH Law is not a firm of solicitors and is not regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. JSH Law does not conduct litigation or carry out reserved legal activities. Any assistance provided is subject to the court’s rules, the scope of the agreed service and, where applicable, the court’s permission.

References to legislation, guidance, judgments and third-party organisations are included for commentary and educational purposes. JSH Law is not responsible for the content of external websites.

“`

Your Family Court Case Is Taking Too Long: How to Stop Delay Damaging Your Child and Your Position

June 4, 2026/0 Comments/in 5. Court Skills for Litigants in Person/by jessica susan hill

You received family court papers because something important needed to be decided, but weeks have turned into months and you still do not know when the case will move forward. Contact may have stopped, interim arrangements may be becoming entrenched, and every delay may feel as though it is quietly changing your child’s life. Family court delay is not just frustrating for parents: the Children Act 1989 recognises that delay is likely to prejudice a child’s welfare. The key is knowing how to raise the problem clearly, comply with every direction and ask the court for a practical, child-focused next step.

Family Court Delays Are Harming Children: What Litigants in Person Can Do When Their Case Is Drifting

You applied to the family court because something important needed to be decided. Perhaps contact has stopped, allegations have been made, a child arrangements order is being breached, or your child’s relationship with a parent is deteriorating while you wait. Then the weeks become months, another hearing is listed, another report is requested, and the case begins to feel less like a route to resolution and more like a test of endurance.

For many litigants in person, delay is one of the most difficult parts of private children proceedings. It can drain finances, increase anxiety, harden parental positions and leave children living with uncertainty. The law recognises this. Under the Children Act 1989, delay in determining a question about a child is generally likely to prejudice that child’s welfare.

However, not every delay is unnecessary. Courts must sometimes take time to complete safeguarding checks, investigate allegations of domestic abuse, obtain a Cafcass report, hear evidence or ensure that a final decision is safe. The real question is whether the time being taken is necessary for the child’s welfare—or whether the case is drifting because the issues have not been properly identified, directions have not been followed or the next decision has not been clearly defined.

The central point

Family court delay is not merely an inconvenience for adults. A child’s life continues while proceedings are ongoing. Relationships may weaken, interim arrangements may become entrenched, anxiety may increase and important decisions about the child’s future may remain unresolved.

Why Family Court Proceedings Can Feel Like a Test of Endurance

Parents usually enter the family court hoping for clarity. They want the court to understand what has happened, assess any risks and make arrangements that protect the child’s welfare.

The reality can feel very different. A parent may experience:

long periods between hearings;
temporary arrangements continuing for months;
repeated requests for statements, reports or updated evidence;
delays in Cafcass or local authority assessments;
adjournments because documents are missing or directions have not been followed;
uncertainty about what the next hearing is intended to decide;
financial pressure from legal fees, travel, time away from work or repeated preparation;
emotional exhaustion and a growing fear that the case is moving further away from resolution.

That experience should not be dismissed. A parent who is anxious, exhausted or overwhelmed may find it harder to prepare clearly, respond proportionately or remain focused on the child. The longer a case continues, the more important it becomes to distinguish between understandable frustration and the practical steps that may help the court move the case forward.

What the Latest Family Court Statistics Show

The latest published Ministry of Justice statistics show that Children Act private law cases disposed of during 2025 took an average of approximately 37 weeks. During October to December 2025, the average time was 35 weeks.

Those figures represent an improvement compared with the previous year, but they still mean that many families spend a substantial part of a child’s year waiting for proceedings to conclude.

Cafcass has also reported a significant level of demand in private law children’s cases. Between April 2025 and March 2026, Cafcass received 42,172 new private law children’s cases.

Current data and official sources

Delay Is a Welfare Issue, Not Just a Procedural Problem

The family court is not simply managing paperwork. It is making decisions about a child’s home, relationships, safety and future.

While proceedings continue:

a child may become accustomed to an interim arrangement;
a relationship with a parent, sibling or wider family member may weaken;
a child may become anxious about what will happen next;
parents may become more entrenched in their positions;
conflict may increase;
school terms, birthdays, holidays and important life events may pass without clarity;
evidence may become more difficult to obtain or interpret over time.

This does not mean that the court should rush to make an unsafe decision. It does mean that every stage of the proceedings should have a clear purpose and that unnecessary delay should be avoided wherever possible.

What the Law Says About Delay

Children Act 1989, section 1(2)

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

Read section 1 of the Children Act 1989

Family Procedure Rules 2010, Part 1

The overriding objective requires the court to deal with cases justly, having regard to any welfare issues involved. This includes dealing with cases expeditiously and fairly, saving expense, dealing with cases proportionately and ensuring that cases are dealt with by an appropriate level of judge.

Read Part 1 of the Family Procedure Rules

Practice Direction 12B: Child Arrangements Programme

The Child Arrangements Programme provides the procedural framework for private law children’s cases and is designed to support a consistent and effective approach to resolving disputes about children.

Read Practice Direction 12B

Practice Direction 12J

Where domestic abuse is alleged, admitted or otherwise raises a concern, the court must consider the effect of that abuse on the child and on the ability of each parent to care for the child safely. Speed must never come at the expense of proper safeguarding.

Read Practice Direction 12J

Necessary Delay and Avoidable Delay Are Not the Same

It is understandable to want a case resolved quickly. However, a fast decision is not necessarily a fair or safe decision. Some cases require careful investigation before the court can determine what arrangements are in the child’s best interests.

Delay May Be Necessary Where	Delay May Be Avoidable Where
Safeguarding checks are outstanding.	A party repeatedly fails to comply with court directions.
The court needs to determine disputed allegations of domestic abuse.	Statements, schedules or evidence are filed late without good reason.
A Cafcass section 7 report or local authority assessment is required.	The real issues have not been narrowed or clearly identified.
The child’s wishes, feelings or circumstances need proper assessment.	The court bundle is incomplete, disorganised or excessive.
Expert evidence is genuinely necessary and has been permitted by the court.	Repeated applications are made without a clear evidential or procedural purpose.
The court needs evidence before deciding whether contact can take place safely.	An outstanding action is not chased or raised promptly.

A credible litigant in person should acknowledge the difference. Simply telling the court that the proceedings are taking too long may not be enough. The court is more likely to be assisted by a concise explanation of:

what remains outstanding;
why it matters;
how the delay is affecting the child;
what practical direction or decision is being requested.

Why Interim Arrangements Matter

An interim order is not a final determination of the case. It may be made before all allegations have been tested, before a section 7 report has been completed or before the court has heard full evidence.

However, interim arrangements can become significant when they continue for a long period. A child may become settled into a routine. A parent-child relationship may strengthen, weaken or change. A temporary absence of contact may become harder to repair. A pattern that was intended to last for a few weeks may remain in place for many months.

That does not mean that the court should preserve an unsafe arrangement merely because it has existed for some time. It does mean that parents should take interim hearings seriously and should not assume that all important issues can simply be left until the final hearing.

Important

Do not agree to an interim arrangement that you believe is unsafe merely because you feel pressured to appear cooperative. Equally, do not oppose a safe interim arrangement simply because it is not the final outcome you want. Explain your position clearly, identify the evidence and keep the focus on the child’s welfare.

What Litigants in Person Can Do When a Case Is Drifting

A litigant in person cannot control the court diary, judicial availability or professional workloads. However, there are practical steps that may reduce avoidable delay and protect your position.

1. Read Every Order Carefully

Court orders are not merely records of what happened at the hearing. They usually contain the directions that control the next stage of the case.

After each hearing, identify:

what you must do;
what the other party must do;
what Cafcass, the local authority or another professional must do;
the deadline for each action;
the date and purpose of the next hearing;
whether any documents must be filed, served or included in a bundle.

Create a simple directions checklist and update it as each task is completed.

2. Comply With Directions on Time

Late statements, missing evidence and failure to serve documents can cause adjournments and damage credibility. If you cannot meet a deadline, raise the problem promptly rather than waiting until the deadline has passed.

Do not assume that sending a document to the other party is the same as filing it with the court. Filing and service are separate procedural steps.

3. Keep a Case Chronology

A chronology can help you identify whether the case is genuinely drifting and explain the history clearly.

A useful chronology may include:

the date proceedings began;
the date of each hearing;
the purpose and outcome of each hearing;
the dates of court orders;
deadlines imposed by the court;
dates when documents were filed or served;
missed deadlines or outstanding actions;
significant changes in the child’s circumstances;
the effect of delay on the child.

4. Identify the Actual Blockage

Avoid broad statements such as “nothing is happening” or “the court is ignoring me”. Instead, identify the specific issue preventing progress.

For example:

the section 7 report has not been filed;
the other party has not filed a statement;
a fact-finding hearing has not yet been listed;
the court has not determined whether expert evidence is required;
the order does not clearly state the next step;
an interim arrangement is no longer workable;
there has been a material change in the child’s circumstances.

5. Narrow the Issues

Cases become harder to resolve when every disagreement is treated as equally important. The court may be assisted if the parties can identify:

what is agreed;
what remains disputed;
which allegations require findings;
which documents are relevant to those issues;
what decisions the court must make.

Narrowing the issues does not mean abandoning legitimate concerns. It means helping the court focus its time on the matters that genuinely affect the child’s welfare.

6. Organise Evidence Properly

Hundreds of screenshots, lengthy emails and repeated allegations can make a case harder to understand. Evidence should be relevant, proportionate and connected to the issue the court is being asked to decide.

Less Helpful	More Helpful
“The case has been going on forever.”	A dated chronology showing the length of proceedings and the outstanding steps.
“The other parent keeps delaying everything.”	A clear record of specific missed directions, dates and resulting consequences.
A large collection of unindexed messages.	A small number of relevant documents linked to the issues the court must decide.
A position statement focused on unfairness to the parent.	A child-focused explanation of the impact of delay and the next step requested.

7. Raise Missed Deadlines Promptly and Proportionately

If a direction has not been complied with, consider whether the issue can be resolved by a short, professional communication. Keep the tone factual and avoid accusatory or emotional language.

Where appropriate, identify:

the relevant paragraph of the order;
the deadline that has passed;
the document or action that remains outstanding;
the practical impact on the next hearing;
the reasonable step you propose.

Do not copy the court into every disagreement between the parties. The court is not a general correspondence service, and unnecessary emails may obscure genuinely important issues.

8. Explain the Impact on the Child

The court’s focus is the child’s welfare. A parent may feel devastated by delay, but the most persuasive explanation will usually identify how the delay affects the child.

For example:

the child has not seen a parent or sibling for a significant period;
the child remains uncertain about where they will live;
the child is approaching a school transition;
the child’s anxiety or behaviour has changed;
an interim arrangement is disrupting education, healthcare or routine;
the child’s relationship with a parent is becoming harder to repair.

9. Propose a Realistic Next Step

A court is more likely to be assisted by a specific, workable proposal than by a general complaint.

Depending on the case, a parent may ask the court to consider:

a clear deadline for an outstanding report or statement;
a review hearing;
listing a fact-finding hearing where findings are necessary;
clarifying the purpose of the next hearing;
directions for a concise schedule of allegations;
an interim arrangement pending final determination;
a timetable that reflects an important date in the child’s life.

The appropriate request will depend on the facts, the existing order and the stage of the proceedings.

10. Prepare Properly for Every Hearing

Court time is limited. A hearing may be adjourned or fail to achieve its purpose if the parties are not ready, the documents are missing or the issues are unclear.

Before a hearing, make sure you understand:

what type of hearing it is;
what decisions the court can make at that hearing;
what evidence the court has been directed to read;
what orders you are asking for;
what you say should happen next;
how your proposal promotes the child’s welfare.

A useful position statement structure

A concise position statement may explain:

When the proceedings began.
What the court has already decided.
What issue remains outstanding.
What direction or evidence is still required.
How the delay is affecting the child.
What specific order or next step you respectfully ask the court to consider.

The position statement should not attempt to repeat every event in the history of the case. Its purpose is to help the court understand your position for the hearing in front of it.

Example Wording for a Child-Focused Position Statement

“The proceedings have been ongoing since [date]. The principal outstanding issue is [briefly identify issue]. The order dated [date] required [identify action] by [deadline], but this remains outstanding.”

“The delay is affecting the child because [brief child-focused explanation]. I respectfully ask the court to consider [specific direction, listing or interim arrangement], so that the case can progress safely and proportionately.”

“I remain willing to comply with all directions and to consider any safe, child-focused steps that may assist the court in resolving the outstanding issues.”

When Delay May Require Urgent Attention

Not every delayed case is urgent. However, some circumstances may require prompt consideration because the child may be at immediate risk or because an important decision cannot safely wait.

Examples may include:

an immediate safeguarding concern;
a child being removed, retained or relocated without agreement or permission;
contact stopping suddenly where there is no apparent safeguarding reason;
a serious deterioration in a child’s relationship with a parent or sibling;
an imminent school, medical or relocation decision;
repeated breaches of a child arrangements order;
a material change in circumstances that affects the child’s safety or welfare.

Parents should avoid describing every disagreement as urgent. An unsupported urgency application may use court time, increase conflict and undermine credibility. Where urgency is relied upon, explain the facts, the evidence, the risk and the precise order being requested.

Do not contact the judge directly

A litigant in person should not attempt to communicate privately with the judge about the substance of the case. Any communication with the court should be appropriate, procedural, copied to the other party where required, and consistent with the court’s rules and existing directions.

Domestic Abuse Cases Must Not Be Rushed

Delay can be harmful, but so can a decision made without properly addressing domestic abuse.

Where allegations of domestic abuse are relevant to the child arrangements application, the court may need to determine whether a fact-finding hearing is necessary. It may also need to consider the impact of the alleged abuse on the child, the victim parent and the ability of the parties to participate fairly in the proceedings.

A parent should not be pressured into unsafe arrangements simply because the case has been ongoing for a long time. Equally, allegations should be set out clearly and supported by evidence where available so that the court can determine what findings are necessary.

Speed and safety must work together

The aim is not the fastest possible decision at any cost. The aim is a safe, fair and effective decision made without unnecessary delay.

Child Focused Courts: Will the New Model Reduce Delay?

In March 2026, the Government announced that the private law reform model previously known as the Pathfinder pilot would be expanded across England and Wales under the name Child Focused Courts.

The model is intended to improve the experience of children and families by taking a more investigative and child-focused approach. The Government reported that cases in pilot areas had been resolved up to seven and a half months faster and that backlogs had reduced significantly.

The national expansion is an important development. However, the success of any reform will depend on adequate resources, proper safeguarding, effective case management and whether children and families experience genuinely faster and safer outcomes in practice.

Recent family justice reform

Common Mistakes When Parents Feel Their Case Is Taking Too Long

1. Sending Repeated Emotional Emails

Repeated emails may not speed up the case and can make it harder for the court or professionals to identify the important issue. Keep communications concise, factual and purposeful.

2. Making Unnecessary Applications

An application should have a clear legal and practical purpose. Repeated applications may increase delay, cost and conflict.

3. Failing to Comply While Complaining About Delay

A parent who has missed their own deadlines may find it harder to persuade the court that the case is being delayed by others. Protect your credibility by complying promptly and keeping evidence of filing and service.

4. Focusing Only on the Parent’s Distress

The court will understand that proceedings are stressful, but the legal focus is the child. Explain how delay affects the child’s welfare, stability, relationships and needs.

5. Overloading the Court With Evidence

More evidence is not always better evidence. A focused chronology, relevant documents and a clear explanation of the issues are usually more useful than a large volume of repetitive material.

6. Treating Every Adjournment as Proof of Bias

Adjournments can be deeply frustrating, but they do not necessarily show that the court is biased or unwilling to decide the case. Consider the reason for the adjournment and what can be done to ensure the next hearing is effective.

7. Allowing Frustration to Damage Credibility

Anger, accusations and hostile language may distract from a strong case. Calm, structured and child-focused preparation is more persuasive.

How JSH Law Can Help When Your Case Is Drifting

A litigant in person may know that something is wrong but struggle to identify the procedural step needed to move the case forward. JSH Law can assist with structured preparation, including:

reviewing court orders and identifying outstanding directions;
preparing a clear procedural chronology;
organising evidence and identifying the strongest documents;
drafting or reviewing a position statement;
analysing a Cafcass safeguarding letter or section 7 report;
helping identify the issues the court must decide;
preparing for an interim, directions, fact-finding or final hearing;
supporting a litigant in person as a McKenzie Friend where appropriate.

Has Your Family Court Case Stalled?

If you have received court papers, are waiting months between hearings or do not know what you need to do next, early preparation can help protect your position.

JSH Law provides structured litigation support and McKenzie Friend assistance for litigants in person in private children proceedings.

Book a 15-minute initial consultation to discuss your situation and whether JSH Law may be able to assist.

Final Thoughts

Family court proceedings should not become a test of which parent can endure the most delay, stress or expense. The Children Act recognises that delay may prejudice a child’s welfare, and every stage of a case should move towards a safe and effective decision.

At the same time, parents should be realistic. Some cases require careful investigation, particularly where domestic abuse, safeguarding concerns or disputed allegations are involved. The answer is not speed at any cost. It is disciplined case management, proper evidence, compliance with directions and a relentless focus on the child’s timetable rather than the adults’ conflict.

A litigant in person cannot control every part of the family justice system. They can, however, prepare carefully, identify the real blockage, explain the welfare impact of delay and ask the court for a clear, proportionate next step.

About the Author

Jessica Susan Hill is the founder of JSH Law. She provides structured litigation support and McKenzie Friend services to litigants in person, with a particular focus on private children proceedings, domestic abuse and safeguarding concerns, Cafcass reports, evidence organisation and hearing preparation.

JSH Law is committed to helping litigants in person understand family court procedure, prepare persuasive documents and present their cases clearly and child-centrically.

Regulatory & Editorial Notice

This article is provided for general information and public legal education only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as a substitute for advice on the facts of an individual case.

JSH Law is not a firm of solicitors and is not regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. JSH Law does not conduct litigation or carry out reserved legal activities. Any assistance provided is subject to the court’s rules, the scope of the agreed service and, where applicable, the court’s permission.

References to legislation, guidance, statistics, judgments and third-party organisations are included for commentary and educational purposes. JSH Law is not responsible for the content of external websites.

“`

Your Child Refuses Contact and Family Court Papers Have Arrived: What You Must Do Before Alleging “Parental Alienation”

June 4, 2026/0 Comments/in 5. Court Skills for Litigants in Person/by jessica susan hill

The court papers have arrived, your child is refusing to see you, and you may feel as though the relationship is slipping away while you are still trying to find a solicitor. It is understandable to search for answers and to wonder whether the other parent has influenced your child against you. However, the family court will not decide the case on labels such as “parental alienation”, “brainwashing” or “alienated parent”. It will look closely at the child’s experiences, the allegations made by each parent, the available evidence and the steps you take now to present a calm, credible and child-focused case.

When a Child Refuses Contact: What Family Courts Look For Beyond “Parental Alienation”

When a child says that they do not want to see a parent, the situation can be heartbreaking, frightening and extremely difficult to understand. A parent may believe that the child has been influenced against them. The other parent may say that the child is expressing genuine fear, distress or a firmly held wish. The child may be caught in the middle of allegations, adult conflict and court proceedings that they never asked to be part of.

Family courts in England and Wales are increasingly clear that these cases must not be decided by labels, slogans or assumptions. The court must examine the evidence, understand the child’s individual experiences and determine what arrangements are safe and consistent with the child’s welfare.

The central point

A child’s reluctance, resistance or refusal to spend time with a parent does not, by itself, prove that the child has been manipulated. It also does not automatically prove that the parent seeking contact has caused the difficulty. The court must consider all realistic explanations and make findings based on evidence.

Is “Parental Alienation” Still Used in the Family Court?

Parents, campaign groups and some professionals continue to use the expression “parental alienation”. It is also a phrase that many parents search for online when a child has unexpectedly rejected them or when contact has broken down.

However, the current family justice approach is not to treat parental alienation as a medical or psychological diagnosis. The Family Justice Council has stated that so-called “parental alienation syndrome” has no evidential basis. The proper focus is on the specific behaviour alleged, whether that behaviour has been proved, and what impact it has had on the individual child.

Cafcass has similarly stated that it does not use or refer to the term “parental alienation” where it is framed as a condition or syndrome. Instead, Cafcass Family Court Advisers are expected to explore the range of reasons why a child may not want to spend time with a parent and to assess the impact of adult behaviour on the child.

Current official guidance

What Are Alienating Behaviours?

The phrase alienating behaviours refers to conduct by a parent or other adult that psychologically manipulates a child and contributes to the child becoming reluctant, resistant or unwilling to have a relationship with another parent.

The Family Justice Council guidance identifies three elements that must be established before a court can properly conclude that alienating behaviours have occurred:

The child is reluctant, resistant or refusing to engage in a relationship with a parent.
The child’s response is not caused by the conduct of the parent seeking the relationship.
The other parent has engaged in behaviour that has caused the child’s reluctance, resistance or refusal.

This is an important safeguard. A parent cannot simply state that they have been alienated and expect the court to accept the allegation. The court must consider whether the child has a legitimate reason for their position and whether the alleged behaviour is actually supported by evidence.

A warning about labels

Terms such as “alienated child”, “targeted parent”, “brainwashing” and “parental alienation syndrome” can obscure the real issues in a case. They may also make it appear that a conclusion has already been reached before the evidence has been tested.

A litigant in person will usually be more persuasive if they describe the specific behaviour, the dates, the available evidence and the effect on the child.

Why Might a Child Refuse to See a Parent?

There is no single explanation that applies to every child. A child may resist or refuse time with a parent for several different reasons, and more than one reason may be operating at the same time.

The court may need to consider whether the child’s position is connected to:

domestic abuse, including controlling or coercive behaviour;
fear, distress or a previous harmful experience;
the parenting behaviour of the parent seeking contact;
a child’s justified rejection of a parent;
harmful conflict between the adults;
the child feeling responsible for protecting one parent;
pressure, influence or psychological manipulation by a parent;
the child’s age, maturity, wishes and feelings;
practical changes, such as a long interruption in contact or unfamiliarity;
a combination of several different factors.

The court should not assume that a child who refuses contact has been manipulated. Equally, the court should not assume that every expression of reluctance is entirely independent of adult influence. The task is to understand the child’s circumstances carefully and fairly.

The Difference Between Domestic Abuse, Harmful Conflict and Alienating Behaviours

These concepts are not interchangeable. It is important to distinguish them because the court’s response may be very different depending on the findings made.

Issue	What it may involve	Why the distinction matters
Domestic abuse	Abusive behaviour between people aged 16 or over who are personally connected. This may include physical or sexual abuse, violent or threatening behaviour, controlling or coercive behaviour, economic abuse, or psychological and emotional abuse.	The court must consider safety, risk of harm and the requirements of Practice Direction 12J.
Harmful conflict	Ongoing conflict between adults that is detrimental to the child’s welfare but is distinct from domestic abuse.	It may require work to reduce conflict and improve communication, but it should not be used to minimise or mislabel domestic abuse.
Alienating behaviours	Psychological manipulation that causes or contributes to a child’s reluctance, resistance or refusal to have a relationship with a parent.	The court must make findings about the alleged behaviour and its impact. The label alone is not evidence.
Justified rejection	A child’s reluctance or refusal that is an understandable response to the conduct of the parent seeking contact.	A child should not be pressured into contact without proper consideration of the reasons for their position and the potential risk of harm.

What Does the Law Say?

Legal Framework: Child Arrangements, Domestic Abuse and Welfare

Children Act 1989, section 1

The child’s welfare is the court’s paramount consideration when deciding questions about the child’s upbringing. The court must consider the welfare checklist, including the child’s wishes and feelings in light of their age and understanding, their needs, the likely effect of any change in circumstances, any harm suffered or risk of harm, and the capability of each parent to meet the child’s needs.

Read section 1 of the Children Act 1989

Children Act 1989, section 1(2A)

The court is required to presume, unless the contrary is shown, that the involvement of a parent in the child’s life will further the child’s welfare. This does not create a presumption of equal time, and it does not require involvement where that would place the child at risk of harm.

Read the parental involvement provisions

Domestic Abuse Act 2021, sections 1 to 3

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 recognises controlling or coercive behaviour as a form of domestic abuse. It also recognises a child as a victim of domestic abuse where the child sees, hears or experiences the effects of the abuse and is related to either the victim or the person responsible for the abuse.

Read sections 1 to 3 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021

Serious Crime Act 2015, section 76

Section 76 creates the criminal offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship. The criminal offence has its own legal requirements and should not be alleged casually or without a proper evidential basis.

Read section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015

Practice Direction 12J

Practice Direction 12J applies in child arrangements proceedings where domestic abuse is alleged, admitted or otherwise raises a concern. It requires the court to consider the impact of domestic abuse on the child and on the ability of each parent to care for the child safely.

Read Practice Direction 12J

Controlling or Coercive Behaviour and a Child’s Relationship with a Parent

Controlling or coercive behaviour may be relevant where one parent uses the child, child arrangements or family court proceedings as part of a wider pattern of abuse. It may also be relevant where a child has seen, heard or experienced the effects of abuse and is therefore fearful, protective of a parent or unwilling to spend time with the alleged perpetrator.

However, not every difficult co-parenting relationship amounts to domestic abuse. Not every disagreement about contact is coercive control. Not every allegation of alienating behaviour is a disguised allegation of domestic abuse, and not every allegation of domestic abuse is evidence of alienating behaviour.

The court must identify the factual allegations, determine whether findings are required and then decide what those findings mean for the child’s welfare.

For litigants in person

If you believe that controlling or coercive behaviour is relevant to your case, avoid relying only on the label. Set out the pattern of behaviour clearly:

What happened?
When did it happen?
Who witnessed it?
What documents, messages or other evidence support the allegation?
How did the behaviour affect you?
How did the behaviour affect the child?
What order or protective measure are you asking the court to consider?

What Evidence May Help the Court?

Family court cases are not decided by the number of times a parent repeats an allegation. They are decided by evidence, findings and an assessment of the child’s welfare.

Less Helpful	More Helpful
“The other parent has alienated my child.”	A dated account of the specific behaviour relied upon, supported by relevant evidence where available.
“My child has been brainwashed.”	Evidence showing changes in the child’s behaviour, the circumstances surrounding those changes and why alternative explanations may or may not apply.
“The allegations against me are all lies.”	A structured response to each allegation, identifying admissions, denials, context and supporting documents.
Repeated criticism of the other parent.	A child-focused explanation of the problem, the effect on the child and the safe, realistic outcome sought.
A large volume of unorganised screenshots.	A concise chronology, indexed evidence and a clear explanation of why each document matters.

Questions the Court May Need to Answer

What is the child saying, and how has the child’s position been obtained and understood?
What was the nature of the child’s previous relationship with the parent?
Has the child experienced or been affected by domestic abuse?
Has the parent seeking contact behaved in a way that explains the child’s response?
Is the child’s position consistent over time and across different settings?
Is there evidence that the child has been exposed to adult information or pressure?
Has either parent failed to support a safe relationship with the other parent?
Is a fact-finding hearing required before welfare decisions can be made?
What arrangements, if any, can be made safely and in the child’s best interests?

The Child’s Wishes and Feelings

A child’s wishes and feelings are an important part of the welfare checklist, but they are not the only factor. The weight given to them will depend on the child’s age, understanding, circumstances and the way in which those wishes and feelings have been formed.

The court must avoid two opposite errors:

ignoring a child’s expressed fears or objections because an adult alleges alienation; and
assuming that the child’s expressed position must determine the outcome without considering the surrounding evidence.

Children should be listened to carefully. They should not be interrogated, recruited into adult disputes or made to feel responsible for deciding the outcome of court proceedings.

A practical point for parents

Avoid asking a child to choose between parents, repeat allegations, read court documents, provide evidence or reassure you about the case. Even well-intentioned conversations can place a child under emotional pressure and may later be examined by Cafcass or the court.

Recent Judicial Guidance: Re Y

In February 2026, the President of the Family Division handed down judgment in Re Y (Experts and Alienating Behaviour: The Modern Approach) [2026] EWFC 38.

The judgment reinforces the need for courts to follow the Family Justice Council guidance and to exercise care before permitting expert evidence in cases involving alleged alienating behaviours. The court, not an expert, is responsible for deciding the factual allegations. Expert evidence should not be used as a substitute for judicial fact-finding.

The judgment is particularly important for litigants in person who may be encouraged to rely on an unregulated “alienation expert” or to believe that an expert can diagnose the reason why a child is refusing contact. That is not the modern approach.

Read the judgment

Re Y (Experts and Alienating Behaviour: The Modern Approach) [2026] EWFC 38

Common Mistakes in Cases Where a Child Refuses Contact

1. Treating the label as the evidence

Saying “parental alienation” does not establish what happened. The court needs to understand the specific acts alleged and the effect on the child.

2. Ignoring allegations of domestic abuse

A parent who dismisses all allegations as alienation may appear unwilling to engage with the child’s experiences or with legitimate safeguarding concerns.

3. Assuming refusal must be justified

A child’s refusal should be taken seriously, but the court may still need to consider whether the child has been exposed to pressure, adult narratives or harmful influence.

4. Pressuring the child to resume contact

Demands, emotional appeals, repeated messages or attempts to make the child feel guilty may damage the relationship further and may be viewed as contrary to the child’s welfare.

5. Using adult-focused language

The court is not deciding which parent has been treated more unfairly. It is deciding what outcome best protects and promotes the child’s welfare.

6. Submitting excessive, unstructured evidence

A large volume of messages, recordings and screenshots may obscure the strongest evidence. A focused chronology and properly organised documents are usually more effective.

How to Present a Child-Focused Case

Whether you are the parent seeking to restore contact or the parent raising concerns about contact, your case should remain focused on the child.

A well-prepared case may include:

a concise chronology of significant events;
a schedule of allegations where directed by the court;
a clear response to allegations made against you;
relevant messages, emails, school records or professional records;
a careful analysis of any Cafcass safeguarding letter or section 7 report;
specific examples of the impact on the child;
a realistic proposal for safe, child-focused arrangements;
consideration of whether indirect, supported or supervised contact may be appropriate;
a willingness to reflect on your own conduct and make changes where necessary.

The question to keep asking

Instead of asking, “How do I prove that the other parent is wrong?”, ask, “What does the court need to understand about my child’s experiences, safety, needs and welfare?”

Can a Damaged Parent-Child Relationship Be Repaired?

In some cases, a relationship can be rebuilt. The appropriate approach will depend on the child’s experiences, the findings made by the court, the level of risk and the child’s individual needs.

Repair should not mean forcing a child to accept an adult narrative or requiring the child to resume contact before it is safe. It may involve patience, careful communication, professional support, reduced conflict and arrangements that allow trust to develop gradually.

A parent seeking to rebuild a relationship should consider whether their own behaviour may need to change. A parent who is caring for a child should consider whether they are supporting the child’s safe relationship with the other parent, where that is consistent with the child’s welfare.

When to Seek Support

Cases involving a child’s refusal to see a parent can become complex very quickly. They may involve allegations of domestic abuse, controlling or coercive behaviour, harmful conflict, safeguarding concerns, Cafcass recommendations, applications for enforcement or requests for a fact-finding hearing.

Early preparation can make a significant difference. A litigant in person may benefit from support with identifying the real issues, organising evidence, preparing a chronology, responding to a section 7 report and presenting a clear, child-focused position to the court.

Need Help Preparing Your Family Court Case?

JSH Law provides structured litigation support and McKenzie Friend assistance for litigants in person in private children proceedings.

Support may include reviewing court documents, organising evidence, preparing chronologies, analysing Cafcass reports, drafting position statements and helping you prepare for a hearing.

Book a 15-minute initial consultation to discuss your situation and whether JSH Law may be able to assist.

About the Author

Jessica Susan Hill is the founder of JSH Law. She provides structured litigation support and McKenzie Friend services to litigants in person, with a particular focus on private children proceedings, domestic abuse and safeguarding concerns, Cafcass reports, evidence organisation and hearing preparation.

JSH Law is committed to helping litigants in person understand family court procedure, prepare persuasive documents and present their cases clearly and child-centrically.

Regulatory & Editorial Notice

This article is provided for general information and public legal education only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as a substitute for advice on the facts of an individual case.

JSH Law is not a firm of solicitors and is not regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. JSH Law does not conduct litigation or carry out reserved legal activities. Any assistance provided is subject to the court’s rules, the scope of the agreed service and, where applicable, the court’s permission.

References to legislation, guidance, judgments and third-party organisations are included for commentary and educational purposes. JSH Law is not responsible for the content of external websites.

“`

When Things Get Harder First: Faith and Family Court Lessons from Exodus 1–6

March 29, 2026/0 Comments/in 5. Court Skills for Litigants in Person, Personal Development for LiPs/by jessica susan hill

What do you do when you try to do the right thing—and everything gets harder?

That is exactly what happens in Exodus 1–6. Moses obeys God, speaks truth, and steps forward in faith… and the result is not relief, but increased pressure and resistance. For litigants in person navigating family court, that experience will feel familiar. This week’s reflection explores what it means to keep going when progress is slow, outcomes are uncertain, and it feels like nothing is working—while holding on to the truth that God has not forgotten you.

“I Have Remembered My Covenant” — What Exodus 1–6 Teaches Litigants in Person About Delay, Deliverance and Not Losing Faith in the Process

Sunday Reflection | JSH Law

Every Sunday after church I reflect on the scriptures through the lens of the work I do supporting litigants in person navigating the family court. This week’s lesson, “I Have Remembered My Covenant” (Exodus 1–6), is particularly powerful for anyone experiencing prolonged difficulty, delay, or what feels like unanswered pleas for help.

The Israelites were not just struggling—they were enslaved, oppressed, and living under sustained hardship. And perhaps the most difficult part of their experience was not simply the suffering itself, but the question that suffering raises: Has God forgotten us?

If you are in the middle of family court proceedings, especially as a litigant in person, you may recognise that question. When things drag on, when outcomes are unclear, when the system feels slow or unresponsive, it is natural to wonder whether anyone sees what you are going through—let alone God.

This passage answers that question clearly: God does not forget. But He does not always act on our timeline.

Key Takeaways for Litigants in Person

Delay is not the same as neglect. The Israelites suffered for years before deliverance came.
God sees what others do not. Even when systems feel slow or unfair, you are not unseen.
Feeling inadequate does not disqualify you. Moses felt completely unprepared—but was still chosen.
Doing the right thing may initially make things harder. Moses obeyed—and Pharaoh increased the burden.
Progress is not always immediate or visible. Early steps in a case or situation may feel like setbacks.
Faith and structure must work together. You still need to prepare, organise and act.

When life gets harder after you try to do the right thing

One of the most confronting parts of Exodus 5 is that Moses does exactly what God asks—and things get worse.

Pharaoh does not respond with reason or mercy. Instead, he increases the Israelites’ workload and suffering. The people turn on Moses. They blame him. Moses then turns to God and essentially asks:

“Why is this happening? Why did you send me?”

This moment is deeply relatable.

Many litigants in person experience something similar. You take a step forward—issue an application, raise concerns, speak truth, try to follow the correct process—and instead of things improving, they become more complicated.

You may face:

more resistance from the other party,
delays in listing or decision-making,
additional allegations or escalation,
emotional exhaustion from the process itself.

It can feel as though doing the right thing has made everything harder.

Exodus shows us that this experience is not unusual. It is part of the process.

God has not forgotten you—even when it feels like it

The turning point comes in Exodus 6, where God speaks clearly:

“I have remembered my covenant.”

This statement matters because it addresses the core fear people carry during prolonged difficulty: that they have been overlooked, abandoned, or forgotten.

In legal proceedings, especially family court, this fear can become intense. You may feel like:

your situation is not being fully understood,
your evidence is not being seen quickly enough,
the process is too slow for the urgency of your circumstances.

And yet the principle remains: being unseen by the system is not the same as being unseen by God.

This distinction can stabilise you. Because if your sense of worth and hope depends entirely on how quickly a system responds, you will be emotionally destabilised again and again.

But if you are anchored in something deeper, you can continue functioning—even while waiting.

Moses: called while feeling completely inadequate

Another key theme in Exodus 3–4 is Moses’s response to being called.

He does not step forward confidently. He hesitates. He questions. He resists. He expresses doubt:

“Who am I?”
“What if they don’t believe me?”
“I am not eloquent.”

This is important because many litigants in person feel exactly the same way.

You may feel:

unqualified to represent yourself,
uncertain about legal language and procedure,
intimidated by the court environment,
overwhelmed by what is expected of you.

Moses’s story shows that feeling inadequate does not mean you are incapable. It means you are being stretched.

God does not remove Moses’s responsibility. He equips him for it.

That is the pattern.

Faith does not replace preparation

One of the biggest misconceptions is that faith means waiting passively for things to improve.

Exodus does not support that idea.

Moses is required to:

go to Pharaoh,
speak clearly,
return repeatedly despite resistance,
continue even when outcomes are not immediate.

For litigants in person, this translates directly into practical action.

Faith does not replace:

preparing your evidence,
understanding the process,
organising your documents,
presenting your case clearly.

It supports it.

If you are navigating child arrangements proceedings, the official guidance on applying for orders can be found here:

Apply for a child arrangements order

Understanding the process reduces fear. Preparation reduces chaos.

God works through ordinary people

Another powerful aspect of this lesson is the role of seemingly ordinary individuals—particularly the women in Exodus 1–2 who protect and preserve life.

They are not central figures in a legal or political sense. But they are essential to the outcome.

This matters because many litigants in person underestimate their own role.

You do not need to be legally trained to:

tell the truth clearly,
document events accurately,
protect your child’s welfare,
maintain your integrity.

Small, consistent actions matter.

In many cases, they matter more than dramatic gestures.

When progress feels invisible

One of the hardest aspects of both spiritual life and legal process is that progress is often invisible in the early stages.

Moses does not see immediate change.

The Israelites do not feel immediate relief.

In fact, things initially deteriorate.

This can happen in family court too. Early hearings may not resolve everything. Interim arrangements may feel imperfect. The full picture may take time to emerge.

That does not mean nothing is happening.

It means you are in the early stages of a longer process.

A practical reset for litigants in person

If you are currently in proceedings, here is a grounded way to apply this week’s lesson:

Accept that delay may be part of the process.
Focus on what you can control.
Prepare consistently, not reactively.
Expect resistance—and plan for it.
Do not interpret difficulty as failure.
Stay anchored in purpose, not emotion.

You do not need to solve everything today.

You need to take the next structured step.

15-minute consultation

If you are a litigant in person and need help understanding your case, preparing for hearing, or bringing structure and clarity to your situation, you can book a 15-minute consultation below.

Final reflection

I am proud to be a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and one of the reasons I value these weekly reflections is that scripture does not avoid difficult realities.

Exodus begins not with triumph, but with oppression, confusion and unanswered questions.

And yet the central truth remains:

God has not forgotten His people.

If you are in a difficult season—whether in family court or elsewhere—that truth still applies.

You may not yet see how things will unfold.

You may not yet see resolution.

But you are not unseen. You are not abandoned. And this is not the end of the story.

Forgiveness, Family Court and Healing: Lessons from Joseph (Genesis 42–50)

March 22, 2026/0 Comments/in 5. Court Skills for Litigants in Person, Personal Development for LiPs/by jessica susan hill

Joseph had every reason to seek revenge.
Instead, he chose forgiveness — and saw that even his suffering had purpose.

This week’s reflection looks at what Genesis 42–50 teaches litigants in person about family conflict, healing and finding meaning in difficult seasons.

If you’re navigating family court, this one is for you.

“God Meant It unto Good” — What Genesis 42–50 Teaches Litigants in Person About Forgiveness, Family Fracture and Finding Meaning in Trial

Sunday Reflection | JSH Law

Every Sunday after church I like to reflect on the scriptures and think about how the lesson connects with the work I do supporting litigants in person navigating the family court. This week I am catching up on a lesson I missed blogging about at the time: March 16–22, “God Meant It unto Good”, covering Genesis 42–50. It is one of the most searching and moving parts of the Joseph story, because it brings us to the point where suffering, betrayal, family fracture, reconciliation and divine purpose all meet.

Joseph has every reason, on a purely human level, to harden his heart. His brothers sold him into slavery. He suffered false accusation, imprisonment and years of separation from his father and family. When he finally sees his brothers again, he is in a position of extraordinary power. He could expose them, punish them, humiliate them or cut them off. Instead, Joseph does something far more difficult: he forgives. More than that, he sees that God has been at work even in the suffering. He tells them, “God meant it unto good”.

That is not a shallow slogan. It is not a denial of harm. It is not a minimising of wrongdoing. It is a hard-won spiritual perspective formed after years of trial. For litigants in person in family court, that matters. Many people going through proceedings are living in the aftermath of betrayal, deception, coercion, abandonment, estrangement or prolonged conflict. Joseph’s story does not tell us that these things do not wound. It tells us that they do not have to be the end of the story.

Key Takeaways for Litigants in Person

Forgiveness is not the same thing as pretending harm never happened. Joseph remembered clearly what his brothers had done, but he refused to let revenge govern his response.
Family rupture does not always mean the story is over. Some relationships can be healed, some can only be managed safely, but despair is not the only future.
You do not need to understand every trial while you are inside it. Sometimes meaning only becomes clearer in retrospect.
God can bring purpose out of suffering without being the author of wrongdoing. That distinction matters deeply in family court and in real life.
Litigants in person need both tenderness and discipline. Emotional healing and practical preparation have to sit side by side.
Reconciliation without wisdom is dangerous. Where abuse, coercive control or significant harm are involved, forgiveness does not remove the need for boundaries, safeguards or proper court orders.

Why this lesson matters so much in family court work

One of the most difficult things for litigants in person is that family court rarely deals with neat, one-dimensional problems. It deals with relationships. It deals with love, fear, history, loyalty, disappointment, harm, memory, children, identity and power. And because of that, it often reaches into the deepest emotional and spiritual parts of a person’s life.

When I work with litigants in person, I regularly see people struggling not just with process but with meaning. They are asking questions that are much bigger than forms and hearings:

Why has this happened to my family?
How do I keep going when this feels so unfair?
How do I protect my child without becoming consumed by anger?
What does forgiveness even mean when real harm has been done?
Can anything good come out of a season like this?

Genesis 42–50 does not answer those questions cheaply. But it does give us one of scripture’s most profound case studies in what it looks like to move from injury to insight, and from pain to purpose.

Joseph’s brothers return: the past comes back into the room

By the time we reach Genesis 42, Joseph’s brothers come to Egypt because there is famine in the land. They do not initially recognise Joseph, but Joseph recognises them. That moment is psychologically and spiritually loaded. The people who contributed directly to his suffering are suddenly standing in front of him, vulnerable and in need.

Many litigants in person know something of that feeling. The past comes back into the room. Sometimes it appears in the form of a hearing. Sometimes in a statement full of revisionist history. Sometimes in seeing an ex-partner or estranged relative again after a painful period of silence. Sometimes in being forced by proceedings to revisit a chapter of life you would rather not relive.

Joseph does not instantly move to reunion. He tests, observes and discerns. This matters. Forgiveness in scripture is not always impulsive. It is not blindness. It is not naïveté. Joseph wants to see whether his brothers have changed. He wants truth brought into the light.

That is a useful principle for court users. In cases involving ordinary family fracture, there may be room for rebuilding. In cases involving coercive control, domestic abuse, manipulation or safeguarding concerns, testing reality matters. The court process exists in part because feelings and assertions are not enough; facts, patterns and risk all matter.

Forgiveness is not the same as denial

The church lesson rightly emphasises forgiveness, especially in Genesis 45 and Genesis 50:15–21. Joseph’s words are famous because they are so startling: the brother who was betrayed is the one who ends up speaking comfort to the betrayers.

But forgiveness here is not sentimental. Joseph does not say that what happened was acceptable. He does not say that betrayal did not matter. He does not erase truth in order to create a superficial peace.

That distinction is vital for litigants in person, particularly where domestic abuse or family harm is part of the picture. In the family court of England and Wales, where a child arrangements order is in issue and domestic abuse is alleged or admitted, Practice Direction 12J sets out what the court must consider, including safety, welfare and the risk of harm. Forgiveness does not displace safeguarding. Grace does not cancel proper risk assessment. :contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}

There is a damaging tendency in some circles to push people toward premature reconciliation in the name of peace. Scripture does not require that kind of foolishness. Joseph’s forgiveness is rooted in truth, wisdom and discernment. It emerges after time, testing and the clear exposure of what has happened. That is a healthier model.

What forgiveness can do to a family system

One of the most striking things about Genesis 45 and 50 is that Joseph’s forgiveness does not only affect Joseph. It changes the emotional climate of the entire family. Fear begins to loosen. Shame is met with mercy. Provision replaces scarcity. The possibility of a future opens up where revenge could have closed it down.

That does not mean every family can or should be restored to what it once was. Some relationships need distance, supervision, structure or legal boundaries. Some cannot safely be repaired in the ordinary sense at all. But it does mean that one person’s refusal to retaliate can alter the trajectory of a family system.

For a litigant in person, this may not mean warm reconciliation with the other party. More often it means something quieter and more disciplined:

refusing to escalate every provocation,
staying child-focused,
communicating with restraint,
letting facts speak,
and refusing to build your identity around grievance.

That is not weakness. It is mature strength.

“God meant it unto good” — what this does and does not mean

Genesis 50:20 is one of the most quoted verses in Joseph’s life, and one of the easiest to misuse. Joseph tells his brothers: “Ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good.”

Notice the structure carefully. The evil was real. Their intent was real. Joseph does not spiritualise it away. But he also sees that God was not defeated by their evil. God brought good through and beyond it.

That is a crucial distinction, especially when speaking to people who have been harmed. It would be pastorally and morally wrong to tell someone that abuse, coercion or cruelty was somehow good in itself. It was not. Wrongdoing remains wrongdoing. But God’s sovereignty means He can still bring healing, wisdom, protection, maturity and even future service out of what others intended for harm.

In legal life, this often looks like a person becoming far more discerning, grounded and courageous than they were before. It may look like learning how to advocate properly for a child. It may look like developing the confidence to set boundaries. It may look like discovering that your life is not over because one relationship or one litigation chapter broke apart.

Meaning in suffering is rarely visible in real time. Joseph could not have said “God meant it unto good” from the bottom of the pit with full comprehension. Much of the meaning came into focus only afterwards.

For litigants in person: you do not need to understand everything today

That point matters because family court is a place where people often become desperate to make immediate sense of everything. They want to know why the other party is behaving this way, why the process is so slow, why the court did not immediately see what seems obvious, why delay is happening, why their child is affected, why the truth is not landing quickly enough.

Those questions are understandable. But the demand for total immediate meaning can become its own burden. Joseph’s story offers another possibility: faithfulness before full understanding.

That does not mean passivity. It means doing the next right thing without waiting for the whole story to make sense.

For some litigants in person, the next right thing is practical:

completing the C100 application,
understanding the child arrangements process on GOV.UK,
preparing properly for Cafcass involvement,
or getting support to organise evidence and chronology. :contentReference[oaicite:2]{index=2}

For others, the next right thing is internal:

putting down revenge fantasies,
limiting reactive communication,
stopping the endless re-reading of inflammatory messages,
or admitting that grief, not rage, is the deeper wound.

Joseph and Christ: rescue, provision and reconciliation

The official lesson also points us to the typology between Joseph and Jesus Christ. Joseph is beloved by his father, betrayed for money, rejected by his own, and later becomes the means of preservation and rescue. Christ, in the greater and truer sense, bears suffering brought about by others’ sin and then offers life, forgiveness and reconciliation.

That matters because Joseph is not just a moral example. He is also a signpost. He points beyond himself to the Saviour, who is the true source of healing for both the one who needs forgiveness and the one who must extend it.

For a litigant in person, this can be the difference between trying to perform spiritual heroics alone and actually drawing on grace. Many people know what they “should” do but have no emotional power left to do it. They may know they should not retaliate, but they are exhausted. They may know they should not let bitterness consume them, but they are deeply wounded. The answer is not self-generated moral perfection. It is receiving help from Christ in the middle of the struggle.

Jacob’s blessings, identity and the future

In Genesis 49, Jacob blesses his sons. The church lesson draws attention to the prophetic nature of these blessings, especially regarding Judah and Joseph. Whatever one makes of every detail, the broader point is clear: God is still speaking future, identity and covenant over a family that has been through astonishing dysfunction.

That is encouraging for anyone whose family story feels broken. It means fracture is not the only lens through which God sees a family. He also sees purpose, calling, inheritance and future.

For litigants in person, that may be a needed reminder. A court case can shrink life down to allegations, statements, text messages, missed handovers and hearing dates. Necessary as those things are, they are not the whole truth about who you are or what your family can yet become.

A practical reflection for LiPs this week

If you are in proceedings right now, here are six practical questions to sit with after reading Genesis 42–50:

Where am I tempted to let bitterness lead my strategy?
What would it look like to tell the truth clearly without being consumed by revenge?
What part of this situation may only make sense later, not now?
What practical preparation do I need to do this week?
Where do I need boundaries rather than fantasy reconciliation?
How might God still bring good out of a chapter I would never have chosen?

If you are at the beginning of a private law children case, it is also worth understanding what Cafcass does and what typically happens after an application is issued. Cafcass explains the private law process, including the first hearing and its role in advising the court about arrangements that best promote the child’s safety and wellbeing. Their guide is here. :contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}

15-minute consultation

If you are a litigant in person and need help thinking strategically about your case, organising your evidence, preparing for hearing, or approaching family proceedings with more clarity and calm, you can book a 15-minute consultation below.

Final reflection

I am proud to be a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and one reason I return to these Sunday reflections is that the scriptures are honest about human life. Genesis 42–50 is not tidy. It is full of grief, famine, guilt, fear, memory, tears and mercy. It understands what families can do to one another. But it also understands that God can still work in the middle of that reality.

For me, Joseph’s witness is not that suffering is pleasant or that every wound is quickly resolved. It is that God is not absent in betrayal, and not defeated by it. He can heal what has been shattered, expose what has been hidden, and bring wisdom and provision out of chapters that once looked only destructive.

If you are going through family court as a litigant in person, perhaps this week’s message is simply this: do not let the harm done to you become the architect of who you are becoming. Tell the truth. Protect what needs protecting. Use the process properly. Stay anchored. And leave room for God to bring good out of a story you would never have written this way yourself.

When Life Feels Unfair: Lessons from Joseph for Litigants in Person in Family Court

March 16, 2026/0 Comments/in 5. Court Skills for Litigants in Person, Personal Development for LiPs/by jessica susan hill

Every Sunday after church I like to take a few moments to reflect on the scriptures and consider how the lessons connect with the work I do supporting litigants in person navigating the family court. This week’s Come, Follow Me lesson, “The Lord Was with Joseph” (Genesis 37–41), speaks powerfully to anyone facing adversity that feels deeply unfair. Joseph was betrayed by his own brothers, sold into slavery, falsely accused, and imprisoned despite doing what was right. Yet through every stage of his hardship the scriptures repeat the same quiet truth: the Lord was with him. For many people going through family court proceedings, that message can be profoundly comforting. Difficult seasons do not mean that God has abandoned us. Sometimes they are the very moments where our character, resilience, and faith are being quietly strengthened.

The Lord Was With Joseph: What Genesis 37–41 Teaches Litigants in Person About Endurance, Integrity and Preparation

Sunday Reflection – Genesis 37–41

Each Sunday after church I spend some time reflecting on the scriptures and considering how the lessons apply to the work I do supporting litigants in person navigating the family court. This week’s Come, Follow Me lesson is titled “The Lord Was with Joseph” and focuses on Genesis 37–41. It is one of the most powerful narratives in the Old Testament about adversity, injustice, patience, and the quiet presence of God during long seasons of hardship.

Anyone who has experienced family conflict, betrayal, or legal proceedings will recognise elements of Joseph’s story. He is betrayed by his own brothers, sold into slavery, falsely accused, imprisoned, forgotten, and yet—remarkably—never abandons his faith or his integrity. The scriptures repeat a simple but profound truth throughout his life: “The Lord was with Joseph.”

For litigants in person navigating the family court, this message carries real weight. Court proceedings can feel isolating and overwhelming. People often face allegations, misunderstandings, delays, and emotional strain that seem deeply unfair. Joseph’s life reminds us that hardship does not mean that God has abandoned us. In fact, some of the most transformative moments in our lives occur during the seasons when we feel most tested.

Key Takeaways for Litigants in Person

Integrity matters even when no one is watching. Joseph refused temptation even when it would have been easy to compromise.
Unfair situations do not mean God has abandoned you. Joseph was falsely accused and imprisoned, yet the Lord remained with him.
Preparation during difficult seasons creates future stability. Joseph’s planning saved an entire nation during famine.
Family conflict can eventually be healed. Joseph’s story later becomes one of reconciliation.
Faith and practical preparation must work together. In both spiritual life and family court proceedings, patience and preparation are essential.

Joseph’s Story: Faith During Betrayal

The story begins in Genesis 37. Joseph is a young man who receives dreams from God that suggest he will one day lead his family. Instead of bringing honour, these dreams bring jealousy and resentment from his brothers. Eventually they sell him into slavery.

For many people involved in family court proceedings, this moment resonates deeply. Family breakdowns often involve painful feelings of betrayal, misunderstanding, or abandonment. Relationships that were once trusted can become fractured, and the emotional shock can be profound.

Joseph’s experience reminds us that hardship within families is not a modern phenomenon. Families in scripture were often complex, strained, and imperfect. Yet even in these circumstances, God continued to work through individuals who remained faithful.

The Lord Was With Joseph in Adversity

One of the most striking features of Joseph’s story appears in Genesis 39, where the scriptures repeatedly emphasise:

“And the Lord was with Joseph.”

This phrase appears several times in the chapter. It appears while Joseph is working as a servant in Egypt. It appears again when he is falsely accused and imprisoned.

In other words, the Lord was with Joseph both in success and in suffering.

This is an important spiritual principle. Many people assume that God’s presence means life will become easier. But scripture often teaches something different: God’s presence does not remove adversity; it strengthens us within it.

For litigants in person facing the uncertainty of family court, this perspective can be deeply reassuring. Court processes are rarely quick or simple. There are hearings, reports, statements, delays, and emotional strain. But the presence of hardship does not mean we have been abandoned.

Sometimes it simply means we are walking through a refining season.

Integrity When Temptation Appears

Another powerful moment in Joseph’s story occurs when he faces temptation from Potiphar’s wife (Genesis 39). Joseph refuses to compromise his moral standards, even though doing so would have been easier.

His response is clear and courageous:

“How then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?”

Joseph ultimately pays a heavy price for his integrity. Potiphar’s wife falsely accuses him, and he is imprisoned.

This moment reflects an uncomfortable truth about life: doing the right thing does not always lead to immediate reward. Sometimes integrity leads to short-term hardship.

But integrity also builds long-term trust, character, and spiritual strength.

For litigants in person, integrity is essential. Courts rely heavily on credibility. Judges observe behaviour carefully. Staying calm, honest, and respectful—even under pressure—can make a profound difference.

Joseph’s example reminds us that character matters even when circumstances feel unfair.

God Works Through Long Periods of Waiting

One of the most difficult aspects of Joseph’s story is the length of time he spends in prison. Years pass before his situation changes.

Waiting is difficult for everyone, but it can feel especially frustrating within legal proceedings. Family court cases can move slowly, and outcomes may not be immediately clear.

Joseph’s experience shows that waiting does not mean nothing is happening.

During his imprisonment, Joseph develops wisdom, patience, and spiritual maturity. He continues to trust God and serve others. Eventually he interprets dreams for Pharaoh’s servants, which later leads to his release.

Sometimes the most important work in our lives happens quietly while we are waiting.

Guidance Through Revelation

Joseph possessed a remarkable spiritual gift: he was able to interpret dreams through revelation from God. When Pharaoh later experienced troubling dreams, Joseph explained that the dreams foretold seven years of abundance followed by seven years of famine.

Joseph did not simply interpret the dreams. He also proposed a practical plan to prepare for the coming hardship.

This moment in Genesis 41 highlights a powerful principle:

Faith should lead to wise preparation.

Joseph recommended storing grain during the years of abundance so the nation would survive the famine.

Preparation saved countless lives.

The Importance of Preparation

Preparation is equally important for people navigating legal challenges.

For litigants in person, preparation might include:

Creating a clear chronology of events
Organising evidence and documents
Understanding court procedures
Preparing statements carefully
Maintaining calm and respectful communication

Just as Joseph prepared Egypt for famine, individuals preparing for court hearings must plan ahead. Good preparation reduces stress and allows people to present their case clearly.

Faith does not replace preparation. Instead, the two work together.

Recognising God’s Hand in Difficult Seasons

Looking back at Joseph’s life, we can see how each painful event ultimately prepared him for leadership. The betrayal, slavery, imprisonment, and waiting all formed part of a larger story.

At the time, Joseph could not see how these experiences would unfold.

But God could.

For anyone facing difficult circumstances today—whether family conflict, legal stress, or personal trials—Joseph’s story offers hope. Hard seasons do not define the final chapter of our lives.

Sometimes they prepare us for something greater.

When Life Feels Unfair

One of the most relatable aspects of Joseph’s story is the sense of injustice he experiences. He is punished for something he did not do. He is forgotten by people he helped.

Many litigants in person experience similar emotions. Legal disputes often involve competing narratives, accusations, and misunderstandings.

In these moments it can be tempting to become discouraged or resentful.

Joseph’s story encourages a different response: patience, faith, and continued integrity.

Even when circumstances seem unfair, God is still working quietly behind the scenes.

Hope for the Future

Joseph’s life eventually transforms dramatically. Pharaoh recognises his wisdom and appoints him as a leader in Egypt. The man who once sat in prison becomes responsible for saving a nation.

This dramatic change did not happen overnight.

It came after years of perseverance.

Joseph’s journey reminds us that today’s difficulties may be preparing us for tomorrow’s opportunities.

For litigants in person, this perspective can help sustain resilience. Court proceedings may feel overwhelming, but they do not define your future.

Lessons for Today

The lesson from this week’s Come, Follow Me study is clear: God does not abandon His people during adversity.

Joseph’s life teaches us that faith, integrity, and preparation matter deeply. When we remain committed to doing what is right, even under pressure, God can guide us through the most difficult seasons.

If you would like to read the full church lesson that inspired this reflection, you can find it here:

Come, Follow Me: Genesis 37–41 – “The Lord Was with Joseph”

Supporting Litigants in Person

If you are currently navigating family court proceedings without legal representation, you are not alone. Many people face these situations with limited support and considerable emotional pressure.

Part of my work through JSH Law is helping litigants in person prepare for court, organise their case materials, and understand the legal process.

Sometimes the most valuable support is simply having someone who understands both the legal system and the human realities behind it.

Book a 15-Minute Consultation

If you would like to discuss your situation, you can book a short introductory consultation below.

Final Reflection

Joseph’s story is ultimately a story of hope. It shows that God’s presence does not disappear when life becomes difficult. In fact, it may be during those moments that His quiet guidance is most present.

The scriptures say repeatedly:

“The Lord was with Joseph.”

That promise remains just as meaningful today.

Regulatory & Editorial Notice: JSH Law Ltd provides legal consultancy and McKenzie Friend support services for litigants in person. This article is intended for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute formal legal advice. References to scripture, faith perspectives, or third-party sources are included as part of personal commentary and reflective writing.

Sunday Reflection – Let God Prevail: What Jacob’s Story Teaches Litigants in Person About Family Court, Fear, Delay and Healing

March 8, 2026/0 Comments/in 5. Court Skills for Litigants in Person, Personal Development for LiPs/by jessica susan hill

Every Sunday after church I like to take a moment to reflect on the scriptures and think about how the lessons apply to the work I do supporting litigants in person navigating the family court. This week’s lesson, “Let God Prevail” (Genesis 24–33), struck me deeply because it is fundamentally a story about conflict, fear, family fracture, and learning—often painfully—how to seek God’s guidance instead of trying to control everything ourselves. Anyone who has been through family court will recognise these themes immediately. Proceedings can leave people feeling frightened, defensive, exhausted, and tempted to fight every battle at once. But the story of Jacob reminds us that real blessings do not come from seizing control or reacting in panic; they come from humility, preparation, endurance, and allowing God to prevail where our own strength runs out. For litigants in person, that lesson is not abstract theology—it can become a practical way to navigate one of the most difficult seasons of life.

Let God Prevail: What Jacob’s Story Teaches Litigants in Person About Family Court, Fear, Delay and Healing

By Jessica Susan Hill | JSH Law

Each Sunday, after church, I want to write something that is personal, spiritually grounded, and genuinely useful for people facing the family court without legal representation. I do a great deal of work with litigants in person, and I also spend a great deal of time studying law, family procedure, safeguarding, evidence, and the lived reality of court users. So this weekly reflection is where those two strands meet: faith and practical court survival.

Today’s lesson at church was “Let God Prevail”, covering Genesis 24–33. It is a lesson about covenant choices, family conflict, fear, delay, wrestling for blessing, and reconciliation. In other words, it is surprisingly relevant to family court.

If you are in proceedings right now—especially if you are exhausted, frightened, financially stretched, or trying to protect your child while also keeping yourself together—this article is for you.

Key Takeaways for Litigants in Person

Do not trade your “birthright” for short-term relief. In family court, that means don’t give up your long-term case position, your child’s welfare, or your peace just to end today’s discomfort.
Fear is real, but it does not have to run the strategy. Jacob was afraid, but he still prepared, prayed, planned, and kept moving.
You may need to wrestle spiritually before you can stand legally. Some of the hardest parts of court happen inside you: panic, shame, self-doubt, and grief.
God can still work in family fracture. Genesis 32–33 shows that damaged relationships are not always beyond repair, though healing does not remove the need for wisdom and boundaries.
Covenants, discipline, and structure matter. Litigants in person do better when they build routines, organise evidence, and stay anchored to principle rather than emotion.
Letting God prevail is not passive. It does not mean doing nothing. It means acting with humility, honesty, courage, and restraint while surrendering what you cannot control.

Why this lesson matters to family court users

The official church lesson explains that Jacob began life trying to secure blessing in the wrong way: by supplanting, seizing, and competing. Later, after years of consequence, fear and family discord, he learned a different lesson. He learned that God’s highest blessings are not stolen, forced, purchased, or manipulated. They come as we let God prevail in our lives.

That is a powerful principle for litigants in person. Family court can tempt people into frantic control. You may feel pressure to over-explain, over-message, over-react, over-defend, and over-function. You may feel that if you do not force the process, force the other party, force the narrative, or force the judge to see everything exactly as you do, everything will collapse.

But much of the work I do with litigants in person is helping them move from panic to structure. From emotional flooding to evidential discipline. From chaos to clarity. From “I need to win every moment” to “I need to stay credible, child-focused, and properly prepared.”

That, in its own way, is part of letting God prevail.

Genesis 24: right foundations still matter

The lesson begins with Genesis 24 and the marriage of Isaac and Rebekah. The emphasis in the church material is covenant marriage and the qualities Rebekah shows: kindness, willingness, generosity, steadiness, and a readiness to act.

For someone in the middle of family court, this can feel painful. Many people reading this are not living in the beauty of covenant marriage; they are living in the wreckage of its breakdown, or perhaps in the aftermath of a relationship that never resembled covenant at all.

But this chapter still matters, because it reminds us that foundations matter. Character matters. Choosing people wisely matters. Kindness is not weakness. Reliability is not boring. Shared values are not optional extras.

In family proceedings, you often see the consequences of unstable foundations: relationships built on intensity rather than integrity, promises without consistency, charm without accountability, and families trying to function under the pressure of unresolved conflict.

One hard truth is this: family court cannot create a healthy family culture where none exists. It can make orders. It can put safeguards in place. It can determine arrangements. But it cannot manufacture trust, maturity, or goodwill.

So when I reflect on Genesis 24 from the perspective of the work I do, I think this: choose character early where you can; where you could not choose it, and you are now dealing with the consequences, build your case and your life around it now. Reality first. Then strategy.

Genesis 25: do not sell your birthright for a bowl of pottage

This is one of the clearest lessons for litigants in person. Esau gives up something lasting for something immediate. He trades the birthright for relief in the moment.

Court users do this all the time, often without realising it.

A litigant in person may trade their long-term credibility for the short-term satisfaction of sending one explosive message. They may trade a carefully built safeguarding case for the temporary relief of giving up because the process is too exhausting. They may agree to unsafe or unworkable arrangements just to make the hearing stop, the pressure stop, the accusations stop, or the legal costs stop.

I understand why. Proceedings are draining. Delay is draining. Repeated conflict is draining. Being disbelieved is draining. Telling someone not to “sell the birthright” is easy in theory and very hard in practice when they have not slept, their child is distressed, and they are carrying the case alone.

But the lesson stands. Short-term relief can be expensive.

In practical terms, for litigants in person, your “birthright” may include:

your child’s long-term welfare and emotional stability,
your own credibility before the court,
clear evidence of coercive or unsafe dynamics,
your peace and self-respect,
and the chance to build a sustainable arrangement rather than a pressured compromise.

Your “pottage” may be:

the temptation to react impulsively,
the urge to accept a bad deal just to get out of the room,
the desire to say “fine, have it your way” because you are overwhelmed,
or the false comfort of disengaging from the evidence because it is too emotionally costly to organise it properly.

The warning here is not moralistic. It is practical. Protect what matters most. Not what feels loudest today.

Genesis 28: Bethel, the ladder, and the need for structure

Jacob’s dream at Bethel comes when he is in a vulnerable place: away from home, uncertain, living with consequence, and not yet in peace. Then comes the dream of the ladder, the house of God, and the realisation that the Lord is in that place.

I think this matters profoundly for litigants in person because so much of family court feels un-sacred. It feels bureaucratic, adversarial, rushed, under-resourced, and emotionally harsh. There are forms, bundles, hearing dates, allegations, statements, missed disclosure, and repeated retellings of painful events. It is easy to feel that God is nowhere near it.

And yet many people meet God in the wilderness, not after it. Not once the order is perfect. Not once the co-parenting is healed. Not once the trauma is fully resolved. In the middle of it.

For me, Jacob’s ladder also speaks to structure. Court survival is step by step. Covenant life is step by step. Healing is step by step. You do not leap from chaos to peace in one move. You climb.

That may look like:

updating your chronology,
sorting your exhibits,
reading the relevant practice direction,
preparing for a Cafcass call calmly rather than fearfully,
building a hearing note,
and keeping one daily spiritual habit even when your life feels upside down.

I often find that litigants in person feel better not when the case is solved, but when the next step is clear. That is true spiritually too. God often gives enough light for the next step, not the whole staircase.

Genesis 29–30: the Lord remembers people in affliction

The church lesson draws attention to the language of mercy in relation to Leah and Rachel, and to the idea that the Lord sees affliction and remembers people in trial. That matters because one of the most painful aspects of family proceedings is feeling unseen.

Litigants in person often tell me some version of the same thing: “No one is listening.” “I feel invisible.” “The system only sees documents, not what this has done to me.” “I am having to function as if everything is normal when nothing is normal.”

That experience is real. Courts are not therapy rooms. Judges are not there to validate every pain point. Procedure can feel cold. Even necessary neutrality can feel, to a traumatised person, like indifference.

But being unseen by the system in a complete emotional sense is not the same as being unseen by God. The distinction matters. If a person grounds all hope in getting perfect emotional recognition from court, they will usually be crushed. The court’s job is narrower than that.

This is where faith can stabilise a litigant in person. Not by denying the inadequacy of systems, but by refusing to let those inadequacies define your worth. You can be afflicted and still remembered. Misunderstood and still held. Delayed and still guided.

That makes it easier to keep going with the practical work. Because if you know your value does not rise and fall with the other party’s accusations or with the emotional tone of a hearing, you are harder to destabilise.

Genesis 32: Jacob wrestles before he is renamed

This is the heart of the lesson. Jacob is about to meet Esau. He is afraid. He prepares carefully. He prays. Then he wrestles. And in the wrestle comes the blessing and the new name: Israel.

There is so much here for litigants in person.

First: fear is not proof of failure. Jacob is not fearless. He is “greatly afraid and distressed.” Many court users are ashamed of their fear. They think if they were stronger, more faithful, more intelligent, or more organised, they would not be so overwhelmed. That is not true. Fear in a high-stakes family case is normal. The issue is not whether fear appears. The issue is whether fear governs.

Second: Jacob does not only pray; he also prepares. This is a critical point. Faith is not passivity. If you have a hearing, prepare. If you have evidence, organise it. If there are safeguarding concerns, articulate them properly. If there is a pattern, map it. If there are messages, date them. Prayer is not a replacement for preparation. It is what keeps preparation from becoming panic.

Third: some blessings are wrestled for. I do not mean manipulated into existence. I mean obtained through persistence, humility, repentance, endurance, and refusing to collapse. Some people want a neat spiritual life and a neat legal process. That is rarely the reality. Sometimes you limp into the next stage, but you still come through changed.

I think many litigants in person are in a kind of wrestle. Not only with the other party or with the process, but with themselves: with old guilt, with fear of not being believed, with confusion about what is loving versus what is enabling, with the urge to rescue everyone, with the pain of watching a child suffer, and with the haunting question of whether this battle is changing them into someone harder than they want to be.

This passage gives me hope because the wrestle is not wasted. Jacob comes out marked, but blessed.

Genesis 33: the possibility of healing without fantasy

When Esau meets Jacob, the scene is not what Jacob feared. There is movement toward reconciliation. There is weeping. There is mercy.

For family court users, this is important, but it must be handled honestly. Not every relationship will reconcile. Not every estranged parent will change. Not every high-conflict dynamic can be softened by goodwill. Not every case ends in emotional resolution.

So the lesson is not “everything will be fine if you just pray harder.” That would be careless and untrue.

The better lesson is this: the future is not always identical to the fear. God can work in family fracture. Hearts can soften. Some situations do become more peaceful than expected. Some conversations go better than feared. Some children are better protected because one parent stayed calm enough, long enough, to build a credible case and not destroy their own position.

Also, reconciliation and boundaries can coexist. Jacob and Esau’s encounter is warm, but Jacob still proceeds wisely. In modern terms, that matters. Forgiveness does not require naivety. Healing does not require denial. Civility does not require the erasure of risk.

That is especially important in cases involving coercive control, domestic abuse, emotional abuse, or entrenched manipulation. “Healing my family” may sometimes mean restored relationship. At other times it may mean safer boundaries, reduced conflict, parallel parenting, or simply no longer letting dysfunction define the emotional climate of your home.

What “let God prevail” means in real life for a litigant in person

Letting God prevail does not mean becoming passive, vague, or over-spiritual in a courtroom setting. It does not mean failing to prepare because “God will sort it.” It does not mean tolerating abuse. It does not mean agreeing to unsafe arrangements in the name of keeping peace.

In this context, I think it means:

letting truth prevail over image management,
letting principle prevail over impulse,
letting child welfare prevail over ego battles,
letting structure prevail over chaos,
letting humility prevail over self-righteousness,
and letting God carry what you cannot control while you faithfully handle what is yours to do.

In my own work and studies, I keep coming back to the same practical conclusion: litigants in person need both compassion and rigour. Not one without the other. Compassion without structure leaves people overwhelmed. Structure without compassion leaves people brittle. Faith, at its best, strengthens both.

A practical weekly reset for LiPs

If you are in family proceedings, here is a simple reset you can use this week:

Name the real issue. What is the actual problem you need the court to understand?
Protect the “birthright.” What matters most long-term, and what short-term temptations are threatening it?
Take the next step on the ladder. Not the whole case. Just the next proper task.
Prepare and pray. Do both.
Stop wrestling with what is not yours to control. Focus on evidence, clarity, deadlines, and your child’s welfare.
Let your communication become calmer. Calm is not weakness; it is often strategic strength.

15-minute consultation

If you are a litigant in person and need help thinking clearly about your case, organising your evidence, preparing for hearing, understanding the family court process, or approaching things more strategically, you can book a 15-minute consultation below.

Final reflection

I am proud to be a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. My faith does not take me away from the realities of family court; it helps me walk through them with more honesty, more endurance, and more hope.

Genesis 24–33 is not a tidy story. It is full of flawed people, family strain, fear, wrong motives, sacred encounters, and hard-won change. That is one reason I trust it. It understands real life.

If you are a litigant in person reading this today, perhaps the central message is this: you do not need to seize everything, force everything, or solve everything at once. You do need to stay faithful in the next right step. You do need to protect what matters most. You do need to prepare honestly and calmly. And you do need to let God prevail where panic is trying to take over.

Sometimes the blessing comes in the outcome. Sometimes it comes in the change in you. Sometimes it is both.

The “Vibe Lawyer” Moment: AI, Litigants in Person, and the Coming Shockwave for the Family Courts

March 2, 2026/0 Comments/in 6. Tools Templates Research & Cases, AI & Justice Reform, AI & Legal Process/by jessica susan hill

Litigants in person are being called “vibe lawyers” for using AI to draft complaints and court documents. But behind the headlines lies a harder truth: people are turning to artificial intelligence because they cannot afford representation in an increasingly complex and overstretched justice system. Judges are right to be concerned about fake citations and procedural errors. Yet dismissing AI use outright misses the deeper issue — access to justice has been under strain for years, and technology is now filling the gap.

The “Vibe Lawyer” Moment: AI, Litigants in Person, and the Coming Shockwave for the Family Courts

By Jessica Susan Hill | JSH Law

Key Takeaways (Read This First)

AI is already changing litigation behaviour — the judiciary is explicitly preparing for a surge in AI-generated claims across civil, family and tribunals.
The risk isn’t “AI” — it’s unverified AI: fabricated authorities and confidently wrong submissions waste court time and damage credibility.
LiPs are not “wreaking havoc” for fun. Many are doing what they must to participate in a system they cannot afford to navigate with representation.
The solution is guardrails, not barriers: verification standards, procedural literacy, and responsible workflows that help the court as well as the litigant.
Family proceedings are high-stakes. Used properly, AI can improve clarity and evidence organisation; used badly, it can derail safeguarding analysis and case management.

1. Why this matters now

“Vibe lawyers” is a catchy label, but it risks obscuring a far more serious reality: litigants in person are using AI tools to draft complaints, defences, witness statements and skeleton arguments at scale — and the courts are already feeling the impact. The phenomenon is now so visible that Sir Geoffrey Vos (Master of the Rolls, Head of Civil Justice) has explicitly warned that the judiciary must prepare for an “AI revolution” that may vastly increase the number of civil, family and tribunal claims the justice system must manage. His speech is worth reading in full. :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}

Let’s be direct: the justice system in England and Wales is already stretched. Many court users already experience the process as opaque, intimidating and unaffordable. That is not a personal failing of litigants — it is a structural reality. AI is entering a pressure-cooker and magnifying what was already there: information asymmetry, procedural complexity, delay and the gulf between a represented party and an unrepresented one.

So, yes — judges and practitioners are right to be concerned about inaccurate AI-generated material clogging lists and adding burden to judges who are already firefighting. But it is also true that, in the medium term, AI could become one of the most significant access-to-justice tools we have ever seen. Both truths can exist at once.

2. The judiciary is not guessing — it is responding to lived reality

We are past the point of theoretical debate. The judiciary has been issuing speeches and guidance precisely because AI use is now operationally relevant. Beyond speeches, the Judicial Office has published updated guidance addressing risks including confidentiality, bias and “hallucinations” — where AI produces plausible but incorrect information. The October 2025 judicial guidance explicitly flags the danger of fictitious citations and misleading legal content. :contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}

Sir Geoffrey Vos has also repeatedly articulated a simple “core rules” approach: understand what the tool is doing, do not upload private/confidential data into public tools, and check the output before using it for any purpose. He set that out again in October 2025. :contentReference[oaicite:2]{index=2}

This is not anti-technology. It is the judiciary doing what it should do: protecting the integrity of the process while acknowledging that new tools are changing behaviour.

3. The real problem: “confidently wrong” submissions

Generative AI tools can draft impressive text quickly. But they do not “know” the law. They predict language. That difference matters profoundly in litigation. A well-written paragraph that contains an invented case, a misquoted statute or an inaccurate procedural route is not merely unhelpful — it can actively undermine a party’s credibility and force the court to spend additional time cleaning up the mess.

The legal profession has already seen what happens when verification fails. In June 2025, the Divisional Court (Dame Victoria Sharp P and Johnson J) dealt with the now widely-reported “fake authorities” problem in Ayinde v London Borough of Haringey and Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank, where false citations and inaccurate quotations were placed before the court, with suspected or admitted use of AI tools without proper checks. The judgment is publicly available and makes required reading for anyone tempted to treat AI output as “good enough”. :contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}

Importantly, that judgment is aimed at lawyers — because professionals are held to professional standards. But the underlying point applies to everyone: accuracy is non-negotiable in court work. You can be passionate, traumatised, exhausted, and still required to file documents that are factually and legally sound.

4. Why litigants in person are using AI (and why the “money pit” narrative is wrong)

Many litigants in person feel they are treated as an administrative inconvenience — or worse, as a “cost centre” rather than a rights-holder. I understand why that perception forms. The system can be brutal: forms, deadlines, practice directions, directions hearings, orders you must interpret and comply with under stress. In private law children proceedings, you may be trying to protect a child, manage safeguarding concerns, and preserve your own mental stability while preparing documents that lawyers train for years to produce.

For a growing number of people, AI has become the first accessible “translator” of legal language. It can explain terminology, propose a structure for a statement, generate headings for a skeleton argument, and help a person who feels overwhelmed take a first step. That is why it feels like a shake-up. It is not because LiPs are trying to harm the system. It is because they are trying to participate in it.

And here is the hard truth: if access to representation continues to shrink in practice — whether by cost, availability, or scope — more people will use AI. That is not something a press headline can reverse. It is a reality the system must incorporate.

5. Family court is the pressure point

Family proceedings are where AI misuse can become most dangerous, because the stakes are often immediate and human: the child’s living arrangements, contact, safeguarding, allegations of domestic abuse, coercive control, substance misuse, mental health, relocation, schooling — the list is endless.

Private law children cases are ultimately governed by the welfare principle in the Children Act 1989, section 1. The court’s job is not to reward the best writer. It is to determine what best meets the child’s welfare needs. But poor drafting can still distort the court’s understanding of what matters. :contentReference[oaicite:4]{index=4}

And family procedure is its own ecosystem. The Family Procedure Rules and associated Practice Directions are not optional reading; they are the architecture of how your case moves through the system. PD12J (domestic abuse and harm) is particularly critical where abuse is alleged, because it shapes fact-finding decisions, safeguarding analysis and protective measures. :contentReference[oaicite:5]{index=5}

Where AI is used badly in family court, I commonly see the same patterns (and judges see them too):

Misstating legal tests (e.g., confusing civil and criminal standards, or quoting the wrong threshold framework).
Over-inclusion: 30-page narratives where only a small percentage is evidentially relevant.
Inflammatory language that escalates conflict rather than centring the child.
Procedural fantasy: “applications” and “orders” that do not exist or are not procedurally available.
Fake authority: citations that sound real but are not verifiable.

Those problems do not just “waste time”. They can change outcomes. They can harden judicial perceptions. They can reduce a litigant’s credibility. And in safeguarding contexts, credibility matters.

6. But here is the opportunity: structured AI use can help the court

Now for the other side of the ledger, which the “vibe lawyer” framing often ignores.

Used properly, AI can reduce noise and increase clarity. It can help an overwhelmed litigant present their case in a way that judges can actually work with. It can support:

Chronology building (dates, events, orders, and key turning points).
Document organisation (indexes, exhibit lists, consistent naming).
Issue framing (what is the dispute actually about?).
Drafting clarity (headings, structure, neutral tone).
Summarising communications (WhatsApp/SMS/email) into court-usable bundles.

Those are not cosmetic benefits. They are directly aligned with what the court needs: efficient case management, focused evidence, and parties who can articulate relevant issues.

In other words: the best version of AI in litigation is not “AI replaces lawyers.” It is “AI helps people present usable material so the court can do its job.” That is the access-to-justice promise.

7. The non-negotiable: verification

The line between empowerment and chaos is verification.

Professional regulators have been clear that AI cannot be trusted to judge its own accuracy. The SRA has warned about hallucinations and the risk of plausible but incorrect outputs, including non-existent cases. :contentReference[oaicite:6]{index=6}

For court users, this translates into a simple operating standard:

If you cite it, you must be able to prove it exists (case name, neutral citation, and a reliable source).
If you quote a statute, check it on legislation.gov.uk (not in an AI chat box).
If you refer to rules or practice directions, check the official source (FPR/CPR/PD pages).
If it sounds “too perfect”, slow down — AI is very good at confidence, not always good at truth.

After the June 2025 “fake authorities” judgment, the direction of travel is obvious: courts will increasingly treat fabricated or careless citations as serious misconduct where professionals are involved, and as a significant credibility issue where litigants are involved. :contentReference[oaicite:7]{index=7}

8. A real-world cautionary tale: Mata v Avianca

Even outside the UK, courts have reacted strongly when lawyers filed AI-generated fake authorities. The widely-cited US case Mata v Avianca resulted in sanctions after fabricated case citations were submitted. It is not “UK law”, but it is a stark illustration of what happens when verification collapses. :contentReference[oaicite:8]{index=8}

Why mention it here? Because the underlying professional lesson travels: courts do not have time for invented law, and they should not have to spend scarce judicial time correcting avoidable errors.

9. What this means for litigants in person

What This Means for LiPs (Practical Guidance)

1) Use AI to organise, not to “source” law. AI is excellent for structure, headings, summaries, chronologies and drafting tone. It is unreliable as a sole source of legal authority.

2) Keep it child-focused (family cases). Remove insult, speculation and “character assassination”. Judges need facts, evidence, and impact on the child.

3) Treat every AI output as a draft. You are responsible for what you file. Read it. Edit it. Make sure it matches your evidence.

4) Verify every citation. If you cannot open the case or locate it on a reputable database, do not rely on it.

5) Don’t upload confidential material into public AI tools. Safeguarding details and private communications should be handled carefully. Follow the Judicial Office warnings on confidentiality. :contentReference[oaicite:9]{index=9}

6) Aim for shorter, clearer documents. Judges do not reward length. They reward relevance. A focused 6–10 pages often lands better than a sprawling 30.

7) If you’re stuck, get human oversight. A short consultation to sanity-check structure, compliance with directions, and relevance can prevent months of damage.

10. What this means for the justice system: guardrails, not barriers

If the system responds to AI by “closing ranks” and shaming litigants, it will fail. People will still use AI — but they will do so in worse, more chaotic ways. A better approach is to develop common standards that increase quality and reduce burden.

In practice, that means three things.

A) Judicial clarity

Courts and judiciary leadership can help by setting clear expectations about what is acceptable in written submissions — particularly around citation verification and disclosure of AI use where relevant. The Judicial Office guidance is already laying the foundation here. :contentReference[oaicite:10]{index=10}

B) Procedural literacy for court users

Most problems I see are not “bad people”. They are overwhelmed people. The system needs short, accessible, official pathways explaining (for example) what a directions hearing is, how to comply with an order, how to prepare a bundle, and how to draft a witness statement that is relevant rather than reactive.

C) Responsible support models

This is where the best “shake up” lies: hybrid support that uses AI to accelerate organisation and drafting, with human oversight to ensure compliance, accuracy, relevance and tone. That model benefits everyone: the litigant, the other party, and the court.

11. A note on professional standards (and why it still matters to LiPs)

When professionals file inaccurate material, the consequences can be severe, including regulatory referral. That was made explicit in the June 2025 judgment dealing with false citations. :contentReference[oaicite:11]{index=11}

LiPs are not held to the same professional code — but the practical consequences can still be harsh: credibility erosion, judicial impatience, adverse costs risks in some contexts, and (most importantly) a judge simply not trusting what they are reading. In family court, loss of credibility can be profoundly damaging.

This is why “AI literacy” is not an academic luxury. It is a procedural survival skill.

12. Conclusion: the future is responsible AI, not no AI

AI is in the courtroom ecosystem now. The judiciary is preparing for it. Regulators are warning about it. The profession is adapting to it. The question is not whether litigants in person will use AI — they already are.

The question is whether we will build a culture of responsible use.

Used recklessly, AI produces noise: invented authorities, misunderstood legal tests, and sprawling submissions that burden the court. Used properly, it can produce clarity: structured chronologies, coherent statements, and focused issues that help the court get to the real substance of the case.

If we care about access to justice, we cannot treat litigants in person as an administrative irritation. We should treat them as court users with rights and responsibilities — and we should equip them with tools and guardrails that allow them to participate meaningfully.

That is the “AI revolution” that matters: not chaos, but capability.

Useful Official Resources

Sir Geoffrey Vos (Master of the Rolls) speech: Justice for all, justice for the accused :contentReference[oaicite:12]{index=12}
Judicial Office: Artificial Intelligence (AI) – Judicial Guidance (Oct 2025) :contentReference[oaicite:13]{index=13}
Divisional Court judgment (false citations / AI misuse): Ayinde v Haringey & Al-Haroun v QNB (6 June 2025) :contentReference[oaicite:14]{index=14}
Law Society: Generative AI – the essentials :contentReference[oaicite:15]{index=15}
SRA (Risk Outlook): Use of artificial intelligence in the legal market :contentReference[oaicite:16]{index=16}
Family Procedure Rules: Official FPR site
Children Act 1989: legislation.gov.uk

If you want structured, responsible help using AI to prepare court documents (without risking accuracy or credibility), you can book a short consultation below:

Regulatory & Editorial Notice (JSH Law): This article is published for general information and public-interest commentary only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Where this article refers to third-party sources (including court judgments, guidance, regulator publications, media reporting, or external organisations), those references are provided for context and convenience; JSH Law does not control or endorse third-party content and cannot guarantee its accuracy, completeness, or continued availability. Court users should always consult the original primary sources (including the Family Procedure Rules, Practice Directions, and judgments) and obtain appropriate professional advice for their specific circumstances.

“Is Any Thing Too Hard for the Lord?” — A Come, Follow Me Reflection for Litigants in Person in the Family Court

March 2, 2026/0 Comments/in 5. Court Skills for Litigants in Person, Personal Development for LiPs/by jessica susan hill

“Is Any Thing Too Hard for the Lord?” — A Come, Follow Me Reflection for Litigants in Person in the Family Court

By Jessica Susan Hill, Legal Consultant & McKenzie Friend (JSH Law Ltd)

Every Sunday, after I’ve been to church, I want to write something that’s both personal and practical: a long-form reflection that draws on my Come, Follow Me lesson in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and turns it into grounded encouragement for litigants in person navigating the family court. If you are in proceedings right now—especially where there is high conflict, safeguarding concern, or domestic abuse dynamics—this is for you.

Today’s lesson is Genesis 18–23, titled “Is Any Thing Too Hard for the Lord?” (official Come, Follow Me lesson page). It’s a sequence of stories about promise, delay, rescue, consequence, testing, and (interestingly, for a legal mind) the first formal land purchase recorded for Abraham’s family.

Key takeaways for Litigants in Person (LiPs)

Do not let “delay” trick you into despair. In Genesis, waiting is not absence—it is formation. Court delay can be brutal; build a system to survive it.
Be an advocate like Abraham. Calm, structured, principled advocacy wins credibility. Don’t rant. Don’t spiral. Build your case like a professional.
Get out—and stay out—of “Sodom” dynamics. If you’re leaving coercive control or chronic conflict, don’t look back emotionally. Protect your nervous system and your evidence.
God provides “means” in motion. If you take the next right step, you’ll often find the next tool, the next contact, the next document, the next insight (see 1 Nephi 17:3).
Your weakness is not disqualification. It can become the exact channel for strength (Ether 12:27)—including learning court process, building a bundle, and holding boundaries.
Anchor to purpose. You’re not doing this for drama. You’re doing this for safety, stability, and your child’s welfare. Keep that mission statement (Moses 1:39).

Why I’m writing this (and why faith belongs in a court-user toolkit)

Let me be plain: family court can feel like wilderness. It can be confusing, exhausting, and sometimes psychologically destabilising—particularly if you are facing a controlling, manipulative, or hostile other party, or if you’re trying to communicate safeguarding concerns clearly without being dismissed as “emotional” or “difficult.”

In the UK, a significant number of parents and parties appear without representation. Some do so by choice; many do so because they cannot access or afford legal advice. The system expects you to comply with process, deadlines, and evidence standards whether or not you have a lawyer. That is the reality.

Faith—properly understood—doesn’t replace competence. It fuels it. It gives meaning to disciplined action. It helps you hold your nerve, keep your integrity, and make decisions that protect your child long-term rather than “winning” the next argument.

The Church lesson this week is not “soft.” Genesis 18–23 contains joy, horror, fear, grief, and law-like transactions. It speaks directly to anyone trying to remain spiritually grounded while navigating a world that can be unjust, corrupt, or unsafe.

Genesis 18–23: a quick narrative map (and why it matters to LiPs)

The Come, Follow Me reading covers:

Genesis 18 — Sarah is promised a child; Abraham intercedes for Sodom.
Genesis 19 — Sodom falls; Lot’s family flees; Lot’s wife looks back.
Genesis 20 — Abraham’s fear-driven misstep; God intervenes to protect the covenant promise.
Genesis 21 — Isaac is born; conflict and separation happen; a treaty is made.
Genesis 22 — Abraham is tested with Isaac (the “Akedah”).
Genesis 23 — Sarah dies; Abraham negotiates and purchases land formally.

If you’re a litigant in person, you can read that and think: “What has this got to do with my case?” Plenty. This is a blueprint for how humans behave under pressure—and what it looks like to keep moving forward without being destroyed by the environment.

For additional Latter-day Saint commentary on this week’s reading, you may find this helpful: Church News: “What have Church leaders said about Genesis 18–23?”.

1) “Is any thing too hard for the Lord?” — when your case feels impossible

In Genesis 18, Sarah laughs at the idea of pregnancy in old age. It’s not a cartoonish laugh; it’s the laughter of someone whose lived experience tells her that the promise is implausible. And then comes the question: “Is any thing too hard for the Lord?”

In the New Testament, the angel says to Mary: “For with God nothing shall be impossible.” (Luke 1:37). In my own faith tradition, the Book of Mormon offers a parallel logic: God provides means to accomplish what He commands (1 Nephi 17:3).

For a litigant in person, “impossible” often means:

“I can’t afford representation.”
“I can’t do the paperwork.”
“I can’t face him/her in court.”
“No one will believe me.”
“The system is too slow; my child needs safety now.”

Here is the practical reframe: you may not be able to control the other party, the listing delays, or the court’s resourcing. But you can build a credible, organised, evidence-led case file and present it in a way that the court can act on. That is not “wishful thinking.” That is disciplined stewardship.

If you are applying for a child arrangements order (or related orders under section 8 Children Act 1989), the official application route and forms are here: Form C100 (GOV.UK) and the broader GOV.UK overview here: Making child arrangements if you divorce or separate.

What I want you to take from Genesis 18 is not “pretend it’s fine.” It’s this: God’s question challenges the assumption that your present limitation sets the ceiling for your future. It doesn’t.

2) Abraham’s intercession: what principled advocacy looks like

Abraham doesn’t scream at God about Sodom. He reasons. He appeals to justice. He negotiates down—50, 45, 40, 30, 20, 10—with humility but also firmness. He models something litigants in person desperately need: structured advocacy.

In family court, “structured advocacy” means:

Clarity: what orders are you seeking and why?
Relevance: what facts directly support the order you want?
Proportionality: are you asking for the minimum necessary to protect the child?
Evidence discipline: can you prove what you’re saying with dated documents, screenshots, logs, reports, or admissions?
Tone control: your credibility rises when you remain calm and factual.

This is not about being “nice.” It is about being effective.

One of the most important judicial frameworks in domestic abuse-related private law children proceedings is Practice Direction 12J (PD12J). PD12J sets out what the court must do where domestic abuse is alleged or admitted, including ensuring that any child arrangements order protects the safety and wellbeing of the child and the parent and does not expose them to further risk. For a plain-English explainer, this UK Parliament briefing is also useful: House of Commons Library: Child arrangements and domestic abuse.

Abraham’s “intercession” reminds me of something I tell clients constantly: you don’t win by being louder; you win by being clearer.

3) Sodom, corruption, and the psychology of “looking back”

Genesis 19 is uncomfortable reading. It is meant to be. It depicts a society with collapsed moral boundaries and a predatory, violent culture. Lot’s family is told to leave urgently. Lot’s wife looks back and becomes “a pillar of salt.”

In the context of modern family court cases, I often see a parallel dynamic—not because “the court is Sodom,” but because many litigants in person are trying to exit:

coercive control,
chronic conflict patterns,
high-conflict co-parenting dynamics,
or a wider environment of manipulation, intimidation, and narrative warfare.

The “look back” in real life is often psychological. It can look like:

re-reading abusive messages for hours and spiralling,
seeking closure from a person who thrives on withholding it,
breaking no-contact boundaries “just this once,”
arguing in circles to force an apology that will never come,
or clinging to the idea that “if I explain it differently, they’ll finally understand.”

If you are leaving a toxic environment, the first stage is physical safety; the second is emotional detachment. Court proceedings can accidentally keep you emotionally tethered because you must keep engaging. That is why you need a system.

A practical “don’t look back” protocol for LiPs

Communication boundaries: keep everything in writing and keep it child-focused. No essays. No emotional bait.
Evidence hygiene: screenshot, date-stamp, store, and then stop re-reading.
Nervous system protection: limit exposure windows. You don’t need to re-traumatise yourself to “prepare.”
External support: speak to a grounded friend, therapist, advocate, or support service—someone who brings you back to reality.

If you’re in private law proceedings, Cafcass explains the process and what to expect here: Cafcass: what happens in private law proceedings, and their overview of involvement (including safeguarding letters) is here: Cafcass: overview of our involvement.

4) Delay is not denial: Sarah, Abraham, and the long middle

One of the cruelest features of family court is time. Delay can feel like injustice, especially where there are safeguarding concerns, where children are distressed, or where one party uses process as a weapon.

Abraham and Sarah’s story is, in part, about the long middle: the space between promise and fulfilment. If you are a litigant in person, you may be living in a long middle right now:

between separation and stability,
between disclosure and findings,
between the first hearing and a final hearing,
between reporting harm and seeing meaningful safeguards.

Here is the hard truth: waiting will not become easier just because you “accept” it. Waiting becomes survivable when you build structure. A faith-based approach is not passive; it is disciplined.

A “wilderness routine” for court users

One admin block per week: evidence filing, chronology updates, statement drafting, or document requests.
One wellbeing anchor per day: prayer, scripture, exercise, journaling, a walk—something that brings you back to centre.
One support touchpoint: someone who reminds you who you are when the other party tries to rewrite you.
One “next right step” list: court is overwhelming when you treat it as one giant problem. Break it down.

If you are struggling to manage forms and process, two practical support resources worth knowing: Support Through Court (a charity helping people who face civil and family courts alone), and AdviceNow’s step-by-step guides: AdviceNow: child arrangements.

5) “Weak things become strong” — applying Ether 12:27 to court survival

The Book of Mormon verse that has carried many people through impossible seasons is Ether 12:27: weakness is given so that we may be humble, and if we come unto Christ, weak things can become strong.

In practice, for litigants in person, “weakness” may be:

lack of legal knowledge,
fear of cross-examination or confrontation,
trauma symptoms and overwhelm,
financial insecurity,
or the feeling of being “outmatched.”

The transformation often comes through very ordinary means:

learning the court vocabulary,
building a chronology,
identifying the key issues,
preparing a concise position statement,
and showing up consistently with integrity.

That is how weakness becomes strength: not by magic, but by grace meeting effort.

6) “Provide means” — 1 Nephi 17:3 and the logic of practical faith

1 Nephi 17:3 teaches a pattern I have seen repeatedly in real life: when God commands, He also provides “means” to accomplish it—often discovered after you begin.

For a litigant in person, the “means” may look like:

a template for a chronology,
a support service that helps you complete forms,
clarity from reading the official process guidance,
finding the right legal framework (e.g., PD12J) to structure safeguarding concerns,
or simply learning how to present your evidence in a coherent, restrained way.

Sometimes the “means” is financial too. If the application fee is a barrier, look at Help with Fees: Get help with court and tribunal fees and the EX160 guidance: Apply for help with fees (EX160).

Faith, in a court context, is not “hoping it all works out.” Faith is: taking the next right step even while you are scared.

7) Abraham’s “test” (Genesis 22): surrender, not self-destruction

Genesis 22 is one of the most confronting passages in scripture. It depicts Abraham’s willingness to obey God in relation to Isaac, the promised son. I won’t attempt to flatten this into a simplistic moral.

But there is a relevant principle for litigants in person: there is a difference between surrender and self-destruction.

In family court, people often destroy themselves trying to:

control the other party,
force vindication from a system that moves slowly,
or “win” every minor point.

Surrender is not giving up your child or tolerating harm. Surrender is releasing what you cannot control so that you can focus on what you can: your evidence, your conduct, your child’s needs, your boundaries, and your long-term stability.

This is where Moses 1:39 helps as a mission statement: God’s work and glory is “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life” of His children. Translated into court-user language: the purpose is not to “defeat” the other party; it is to protect welfare, build stability, and keep your soul intact.

8) Genesis 23 and the power of paperwork: the first “land deal”

Genesis 23 can look like an anticlimax after the drama of earlier chapters. Sarah dies; Abraham grieves; then he negotiates and purchases the cave of Machpelah as a burial place. But notice the detail: this is formal, witnessed, priced, and legally secured.

That matters.

If you are a litigant in person, you are living in a world where: what is documented is what is real. You can have truth in your heart and still fail if you cannot evidence it. The court does not decide cases on vibes. It decides on evidence, credibility, welfare analysis, and statutory/legal frameworks.

What Genesis 23 teaches the LiP (in plain English)

Grief and administration can co-exist: you may be in pain and still need to do the forms.
Do it properly: accuracy, dates, copies, and receipts matter.
Secure what you can: focus on orders and safeguards that are enforceable and measurable.
Think long-term: Abraham was anchoring a future, not just reacting to a moment.

For practical process guidance on applications involving children, GOV.UK also provides a booklet-style explainer here: Making an application: children and the family courts.

A Litigant-in-Person “faith + strategy” checklist for the coming week

If you are reading this after a difficult Sunday—tired, anxious, and carrying the weight of a case—here is a practical checklist you can use this week. (Faith is not a substitute for action. Faith fuels action.)

Define your core aim in one sentence: “I am seeking arrangements that protect X and meet Y need.” Keep it welfare-focused.
Update your chronology: 10–20 lines, dates only, facts only. No commentary.
Create an “evidence index”: label documents clearly, keep them in date order, avoid duplication.
Read PD12J if domestic abuse is relevant: know the framework the court is meant to apply.
Prepare for the first hearing: review Cafcass guidance so you know what to expect.
Reduce reactive communication: shorter, calmer messages. Child-focused. No bait-taking.
Anchor daily: one spiritual practice, one physical practice, one administrative step.

If you need form-filling and procedural support, consider: Support Through Court: how they help and AdviceNow’s practical guides (start here): AdviceNow: apply for a child arrangements order without a lawyer.

Work with me: 15-minute consultation

If you want a calm, strategic second pair of eyes on your case—especially around evidence structure, court-ready positioning, safeguarding framing, or preparing for hearings—you can book a 15-minute consultation below.

Alternatively, you can book via the contact page: https://jshlaw.co.uk/contact/

Final reflection: hope that doesn’t ignore reality

I am proud to be a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I don’t say that as a marketing device; I say it because my faith teaches me to treat people as eternal beings, and to take suffering seriously—not sentimentally.

Genesis 18–23 is not a fairy tale. It is a record of real human complexity: delay, fear, rescue, consequence, testing, grief, and legal reality. And the thread through it all is this: God is able to do what you cannot.

For the litigant in person: you may feel like you are walking through a wilderness you didn’t choose. But you can still become disciplined, credible, and strong. You can still tell the truth with restraint. You can still build a case file that the court can understand. You can still protect your child’s welfare and your own integrity.

“Is any thing too hard for the Lord?” does not mean everything will be easy. It means you are not limited to what you can currently see—and you are not alone in the work.

Exterior of York Magistrates’ Court used to illustrate a blog on school attendance orders and home education prosecution.

When Home Education Becomes a Criminal Prosecution

January 26, 2026/0 Comments/in 6. Tools Templates Research & Cases, Case Studies (Anonymised)/by jessica susan hill

What Litigants in Person Need to Know About School Attendance Orders, Social Care Overreach, and Magistrates’ Court Proceedings

Across England and Wales, a growing number of parents are discovering — often too late — that a dispute about elective home education (EHE) can escalate into criminal prosecution.

Not because their child is unsafe.
Not because education is unsuitable.
But because process has gone wrong, power has been misused, or parents have been pressured into compliance without understanding their rights.

This article is written for Litigants in Person navigating the intersection of:

home education,
Children’s Social Care involvement,
School Attendance Orders (SAOs),
and Magistrates’ Court prosecutions under the Education Act 1996.

It is based on a real case (anonymised), and on patterns I see repeatedly in practice.

If you are facing — or fear you may face — similar action, this guide is for you.

1. The Scenario (Anonymised but Real)

A parent lawfully elects to home educate their child under section 7 of the Education Act 1996.

The child has anxiety. School is harming their wellbeing.
The parent has previously home educated successfully.

Children’s Social Care are already involved — not because of educational neglect, but because of domestic abuse by the other parent.

During a meeting, the parent raises home education as a safeguarding-led decision.

From that moment:

Professionals express opposition.
Education officers are involved prematurely.
The parent is told (incorrectly) that home education is not allowed due to child protection involvement.
A proposed Bill — not law — is repeatedly relied upon.
A positive EHE visit is later contradicted by a negative decision with no clear reasons.
A School Attendance Order is issued.
Threats of prosecution follow.
Eventually, a Single Justice Procedure Notice arrives.

The parent is now facing criminal charges.

This is not rare. And it is not inevitable.

2. The Legal Foundation: Your Right to Home Educate

Section 7, Education Act 1996

Parents must ensure their child receives an education that is:

efficient, and
suitable,
to the child’s age, ability, aptitude, and any special educational needs.

Crucially:

Education does not have to be provided at school.

There is no statutory requirement for:

a curriculum,
Ofsted-style inspection,
or adherence to school norms.

Local Authorities do not approve home education. They may only intervene if they have reason to believe education is unsuitable.

3. What a School Attendance Order (SAO) Actually Is

An SAO (sections 437–443 Education Act 1996) is not automatic.

Before issuing one, the Local Authority must:

Have reasonable grounds to believe education is unsuitable.
Serve a notice requiring information.
Consider the parent’s response fairly and lawfully.
Only then issue an SAO naming a school.

An SAO is a last resort, not a default enforcement tool.

If the LA:

relies on irrelevant considerations,
ignores positive evidence,
fails to give reasons,
or predetermines the outcome,

the SAO itself may be unlawful.

4. The Common Trap: “Just Fill in the Forms”

When an SAO is not complied with, councils often move straight to prosecution under section 443.

Parents receive a Single Justice Procedure Notice (SJPN) telling them:

they’ve been charged,
they have 21 days to plead,
and they can get a “discount” if they plead guilty.

This is where many parents make a fatal mistake.

A guilty plea:

can be decided on the papers,
leads to conviction, fines, and costs,
and removes the opportunity to challenge the process.

A not guilty plea does not mean you are refusing responsibility.
It means you are requiring the council to prove its case.

5. What the Magistrates’ Court Can — and Cannot — Decide

The Magistrates’ Court does not decide:

whether social workers behaved appropriately,
whether policy was fair,
or whether you are a “good parent”.

It decides:

whether a lawful SAO existed,
whether you failed to comply,
and whether any defence applies.

This is why procedure matters more than emotion.

6. Defences and Challenge Points Litigants in Person Should Look For

Without giving legal advice, there are recurring issues that often undermine SAO prosecutions:

1. Unlawful reliance on non-law

Proposed legislation (such as past Schools Bills) has no legal force.

If decisions are based on policy that does not exist in law, that is challengeable.

2. Predetermination

If:

opposition to EHE appears before assessment,
outcomes are decided before evidence is considered,
or professionals influence one another behind closed doors,

this may breach public law fairness.

3. Failure to give reasons

Parents are entitled to understand:

why education was deemed unsuitable,
and how the decision was reached.

Vague references to “home conditions” or “concerns” are insufficient.

4. Improper influence between departments

Children’s Social Care and Education are separate statutory functions.

Cross-contamination — particularly where safeguarding is used to pressure education compliance — must be scrutinised.

5. Welfare harm caused by enforcement

Evidence that:

the child’s anxiety worsened,
emotional distress increased,
or wellbeing declined due to forced school attendance,

is relevant to reasonableness and proportionality.

7. Policy and Guidance Local Authorities Must Follow

Key documents include:

Elective Home Education Guidance for Local Authorities (DfE)
Working Together to Safeguard Children
Public law principles of fairness, proportionality, and rational decision-making

Failure to follow guidance is not automatically unlawful — but it matters when combined with unfair process.

8. Why Social Care Involvement Does Not Remove EHE Rights

There is no law stating that:

a Child Protection Plan,
Child in Need plan,
or PLO process

automatically prevents home education.

Any restriction must be:

lawful,
evidence-based,
and proportionate.

Blanket policies are not lawful substitutes for individual assessment.

9. The Importance of Paper Control

One of the most damaging patterns I see is parents:

over-explaining,
sending emotional responses,
filling in every box,
and inadvertently making admissions.

In Magistrates’ Court proceedings:

less is often more,
timing matters,
and disclosure should be forced, not volunteered.

10. You Are Not “Difficult” for Challenging This

Parents are frequently told — explicitly or implicitly — that resisting enforcement means they are:

uncooperative,
obstructive,
or failing to put the child first.

In reality, lawful challenge is part of the system.

Courts exist precisely because decisions can be wrong.

11. Practical Advice for Litigants in Person

If you are facing an SAO or prosecution:

Do not plead guilty without understanding the consequences.
Do not assume the council’s paperwork is correct.
Ask for copies of the SAO, evidence of service, and decision records.
Keep communications factual and restrained.
Separate safeguarding issues from education law.
Get support early.

12. Final Thoughts

This area of law is emotionally charged because it sits at the intersection of:

parenting,
education,
safeguarding,
and criminal enforcement.

But emotion should not be confused with legality.

Many parents comply not because the law requires it, but because the process overwhelms them.

It does not have to be that way.

Litigant in Person Dealing with a SAO?

If you are a Litigant in Person dealing with:

a School Attendance Order,
threatened or active prosecution,
Children’s Social Care involvement affecting education decisions,
or pressure to comply without clear reasons,

you do not have to navigate this alone.

I provide McKenzie Friend support to help parents:

understand what is actually happening,
prepare paperwork properly,
challenge unfair process,
and remain focused and grounded in court.

Every case is different.
Your situation deserves to be looked at carefully, calmly, and lawfully.

📩 Get in touch via jshlaw.co.uk to discuss your situation and understand your options.

🔗 Internal Links

McKenzie Friend & Family Court Support
https://www.jshlaw.co.uk/mckenzie-friend-support/
Use when you explain how parents can get procedural support and help preparing court paperwork.
Litigants in Person – Family Court Guidance
https://www.jshlaw.co.uk/category/litigants-in-person-family-court-guidance/
Link when discussing how unrepresented parents are often overwhelmed by process.
Family Court Accountability
https://www.jshlaw.co.uk/category/family-court-accountability/
Link when addressing institutional overreach, unfair process, and misuse of power.

🌐 External Links

Education Act 1996 – Section 7 (Legislation)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/56/section/7
Primary statutory basis for the right to home educate.
Education Act 1996 – Sections 437–443 (School Attendance Orders)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/56/part/VI/chapter/II
Statutory framework for SAOs and enforcement.
DfE – Elective Home Education Guidance for Local Authorities
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/elective-home-education
Key policy guidance councils are expected to follow.

Regulatory & Editorial Notice

This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case turns on its own facts. If you are involved in live proceedings, you should seek appropriate support before taking action.

Tag Archive for: McKenzie Friend support

Posts

The central point

When Child Contact Begins to Break Down

Stopped Contact Is Not Proof of “Parental Alienation”

Current official guidance

What Are Alienating Behaviours?

Do not begin with the conclusion

Why Might a Child Refuse or Resist Contact?

Why Time Can Matter When Contact Has Stopped

What the Law Says

Children Act 1989, section 1

Parental Involvement

Domestic Abuse Act 2021, sections 1 to 3

Practice Direction 12B: Child Arrangements Programme

Practice Direction 12J

Evidence of Contact Breakdown Is Not the Same as Evidence of Its Cause

What to Record When Contact Starts to Break Down

Record facts, not conclusions

What Not to Do When Contact Has Stopped

A practical communication principle

When There Is No Child Arrangements Order

Applying for a child arrangements order

When an Existing Child Arrangements Order Is Not Being Followed

Enforcement Legal Framework

Children Act 1989, section 11J

Form C79

HMCTS Enforcement Guidance

Practice Direction 12N

Enforcement Is Not the Same as Punishment

Important

Domestic Abuse and Stopped Contact

Safety and delay must be considered together

Possible Child-Focused Steps When a Relationship Needs to Be Rebuilt

Cafcass support services

Recent Judicial Guidance: Re Y

Read the judgment

How to Present a Child-Focused Case

Questions the Court May Need to Answer

When to Seek Support

Has Contact With Your Child Stopped?

Final Thoughts

About the Author

Regulatory & Editorial Notice

The central point

Why Family Court Proceedings Can Feel Like a Test of Endurance

What the Latest Family Court Statistics Show

Current data and official sources

Delay Is a Welfare Issue, Not Just a Procedural Problem

What the Law Says About Delay

Children Act 1989, section 1(2)

Family Procedure Rules 2010, Part 1

Practice Direction 12B: Child Arrangements Programme

Practice Direction 12J

Necessary Delay and Avoidable Delay Are Not the Same

Why Interim Arrangements Matter

Important

What Litigants in Person Can Do When a Case Is Drifting

1. Read Every Order Carefully

2. Comply With Directions on Time

3. Keep a Case Chronology

4. Identify the Actual Blockage

5. Narrow the Issues

6. Organise Evidence Properly

7. Raise Missed Deadlines Promptly and Proportionately

8. Explain the Impact on the Child

9. Propose a Realistic Next Step

10. Prepare Properly for Every Hearing

A useful position statement structure

Example Wording for a Child-Focused Position Statement

When Delay May Require Urgent Attention

Do not contact the judge directly

Domestic Abuse Cases Must Not Be Rushed

Speed and safety must work together

Child Focused Courts: Will the New Model Reduce Delay?

Recent family justice reform

Common Mistakes When Parents Feel Their Case Is Taking Too Long

1. Sending Repeated Emotional Emails

2. Making Unnecessary Applications

3. Failing to Comply While Complaining About Delay