Information explaining the role of a McKenzie Friend in family court proceedings and the limits of the assistance they may provide.

Posts

Mazur, AI, and the Future of Legal Support | JSH Law

/0 Comments/in , /by

The legal landscape is shifting in two powerful directions at once. On one hand, the High Court decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP has reinforced the boundaries around who can legally conduct litigation. On the other, artificial intelligence is rapidly expanding what litigants in person are capable of achieving without formal representation. These developments are not in conflict—they are converging. Together, they are reshaping the future of legal support into something more structured, more transparent, and ultimately more empowering for those navigating the system themselves.

Mazur, AI, and the Future of Legal Support | JSH Law
Key Takeaways
  • Mazur reinforces that conduct of litigation must remain with authorised or exempt individuals.
  • AI does not replace the litigant — it enhances their ability to run their case.
  • The future of legal support lies in structured, transparent, tech-enabled models.
  • Litigants in person can become more capable, not more dependent.
  • The combination of AI and proper legal structure will redefine access to justice.

Mazur, AI, and the Future of Legal Support

The legal system is entering a period of change that is both structural and technological.

On one side, the High Court decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) has reinforced the boundaries of who can legally conduct litigation. On the other, the rapid development of artificial intelligence is transforming how legal work is prepared, structured, and delivered.

At first glance, these developments may appear to be in tension.

One restricts who can carry out certain legal functions. The other expands who can access tools that were once limited to professionals.

In reality, they are moving in the same direction.

Towards a legal system where structure, transparency, and capability matter more than ever.

—

The Reinforcement of Legal Boundaries

The significance of Mazur lies not in creating new law, but in clarifying how existing law is to be applied.

The decision reinforces a simple but important principle:

The conduct of litigation is a reserved activity. It cannot be delegated simply through supervision or informal arrangements.

This draws a clear boundary around who can formally run a case.

For litigants in person, that boundary is not a barrier—it is a framework.

It confirms that the case is, and remains, theirs.

—

The Rise of AI in Legal Support

At the same time, artificial intelligence is rapidly changing how legal work is done.

Tasks that once required significant time and expertise can now be supported by systems that:

  • Analyse large volumes of documents
  • Structure arguments and chronologies
  • Assist with drafting and refinement
  • Identify gaps and inconsistencies

These tools are not theoretical.

They are already being used across the legal sector, from large firms to individual practitioners.

The question is not whether AI will play a role in legal support.

It is how that role is defined.

—

AI Does Not Conduct Litigation

This is where the alignment between Mazur and AI becomes clear.

AI does not “conduct litigation”.

It does not make decisions, take responsibility, or act on behalf of a party in a legal sense.

What it does is enhance capability.

It enables:

  • Better preparation
  • Clearer structure
  • More efficient organisation

Used properly, AI sits firmly within the category of support.

It strengthens the litigant’s ability to run their own case, rather than replacing them.

—

A Shift From Representation to Enablement

Traditionally, legal services have been built around representation.

A solicitor or barrister takes conduct of the case and acts on behalf of the client.

For many litigants in person, that model is not accessible.

What is emerging instead is a different model.

One based on enablement.

In this model:

  • The litigant remains in control
  • Support is provided to enhance capability
  • Technology is used to improve structure and clarity

This is not a second-tier alternative.

It is a distinct and increasingly important part of the legal ecosystem.

—

The Risk of Getting It Wrong

As with any shift, there are risks.

AI, if misunderstood, can create the same problems as poorly structured human support.

If it is used in a way that removes the litigant from decision-making, or creates a sense that the case is being “run externally”, then the underlying issue remains.

The tool itself is not the risk.

How it is used is what matters.

—

The Opportunity for Litigants in Person

For litigants in person, this moment presents a significant opportunity.

With the right approach, it is now possible to:

  • Prepare cases to a higher standard
  • Organise evidence more effectively
  • Present arguments with greater clarity

Without stepping outside the boundaries of the law.

This is not about replacing legal professionals.

It is about increasing the capability of those who are navigating the system themselves.

—

A More Structured Future

The combined effect of Mazur and AI is likely to lead to a more structured approach to legal support.

We can expect to see:

  • Clearer definitions of roles
  • More transparent support models
  • Greater emphasis on litigant control

At the same time, the tools available to litigants will continue to improve.

This creates a system that is both more disciplined and more accessible.

—

Where This Leaves Legal Professionals

For legal professionals, this shift is not a threat—it is a redefinition.

There will always be a need for authorised representation.

But alongside that, there is a growing space for:

  • Strategic support
  • Case structuring
  • Technology-enabled assistance

Those who understand this shift are likely to play a key role in shaping the future of legal services.

—

Final Thoughts

The legal system is not standing still.

Mazur reinforces the boundaries of who can formally conduct litigation.

AI expands the tools available to those who cannot access traditional representation.

Together, they point towards a future where:

Litigants in person are not left behind — but are better equipped, better supported, and more capable than ever before.

The key is structure.

Get that right, and both law and technology work in your favour.

—

Want to Use AI and Legal Strategy Properly in Your Case?

If you are a litigant in person and want structured, forward-thinking support that combines legal strategy with modern tools, you can book an initial consultation below.

—

Regulatory & Editorial Notice: JSH Law Ltd is not a firm of solicitors and does not provide regulated legal services. This article is for general information and commentary only and does not constitute legal advice. Any references to legal cases or third-party practices are provided for public interest analysis and educational purposes.

McKenzie Friend vs Running Your Case: Where the Legal Line Now Sits After Mazur

/0 Comments/in , /by

There has always been a quiet grey area in the family courts around what a McKenzie Friend actually does in practice. Many litigants in person rely heavily on support, and in some cases that support can become so involved that it begins to look like the case is being run for them. Following the High Court decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP, that grey area has now been brought into sharp focus. The court has made it clear that there is a legal boundary between supporting a case and conducting it—and understanding that boundary is now essential for anyone navigating proceedings without a solicitor.

McKenzie Friend vs Running Your Case: Where the Legal Line Now Sits | JSH Law Legal consultation and court paperwork discussion
Key Takeaways for Litigants in Person
  • A McKenzie Friend provides support — they do not run your case.
  • Only authorised or exempt individuals can conduct litigation.
  • The key legal test is who is in control of the case.
  • Crossing the line can expose your case to challenge.
  • Structured support strengthens your position; loss of control weakens it.

McKenzie Friend vs Running Your Case: Where the Legal Line Now Sits

There has always been a degree of confusion around the role of a McKenzie Friend.

For many litigants in person, the distinction feels blurred. You have support. That support may be experienced, knowledgeable, and heavily involved in your case. In practical terms, it can sometimes feel as though that person is “handling things” for you.

But following the High Court decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), that distinction is no longer something that can be left unclear.

The law draws a firm line between supporting a case and conducting it.

Understanding where that line sits is now essential.

—

The Role of a McKenzie Friend — What It Is Meant to Be

The role of a McKenzie Friend is well established in the courts of England and Wales. It exists to support litigants in person, particularly in complex or emotionally demanding proceedings such as family cases.

At its core, the role is supportive.

A McKenzie Friend may:

  • Assist with preparing documents
  • Help organise evidence
  • Provide guidance on procedure and strategy
  • Take notes during hearings
  • Offer quiet assistance in court

In some circumstances, and only with the court’s permission, they may also be allowed to address the court.

But even then, the underlying position does not change:

The litigant remains in control of their case.

—

What “Running the Case” Actually Means

This is where the distinction becomes critical.

Running a case—legally described as “conducting litigation”—goes beyond support. It involves:

  • Making decisions about how the case progresses
  • Sending correspondence on behalf of the party
  • Managing filings and procedural steps
  • Taking responsibility for how the case is conducted

These are not simply administrative tasks. They are the core functions of legal representation.

Under the Legal Services Act 2007, they are reserved to authorised or exempt individuals.

This is the line that Mazur has brought back into sharp focus.

—

Why This Line Matters Now More Than Ever

For years, there has been a degree of practical flexibility in how cases are supported, particularly where litigants in person are concerned.

That flexibility has, in some areas, led to roles becoming blurred.

The decision in Mazur does not introduce a new rule. What it does is reinforce the existing one—and signal that it will be taken seriously.

The courts are now more alert to:

  • Who is actually making decisions
  • Who is sending communications
  • Who appears to be in control of the case

If the answer is not the litigant, questions may arise.

—

The Practical Difference — Control

The easiest way to understand the distinction is this:

A McKenzie Friend supports your case. They do not control it.

In a properly structured case:

  • You decide what to do
  • You approve every document
  • You send communications in your own name
  • You take responsibility for the case

Support sits behind that process, not in place of it.

Where that structure is clear, there is no difficulty.

Where it is not, that is where risk begins.

—

How the Line Gets Crossed (Often Without Realising)

In practice, the line is rarely crossed deliberately.

It tends to happen gradually.

A litigant feels overwhelmed. Someone steps in to “help more”. That help becomes more hands-on. Decisions start being made. Emails start being sent. The case begins to feel as though it is being handled by someone else.

At that point, the structure has shifted.

What began as support may now look, from the outside, like conduct.

And it is how it appears externally that matters.

—

Why This Can Affect Your Case

If the distinction is not maintained, the issue is not simply theoretical.

It can become a point of challenge.

The other side may argue:

  • That your case has not been properly conducted
  • That procedural steps are open to question
  • That your position should be treated with caution

Even if those arguments do not ultimately succeed, they can create distraction, delay, and pressure.

In litigation, that matters.

—

The Strongest Position You Can Be In

The strongest position is one where the structure of your case is clear, transparent, and beyond challenge.

That means:

  • You are visibly in control
  • Your decisions are your own
  • Your documents reflect your position
  • Your case is supported, but not run by someone else

This does not weaken your case.

It strengthens it.

—

A Better Way to Think About Support

The most effective support model is not one where someone takes over.

It is one where you are equipped.

Where:

  • Your case is structured properly
  • Your evidence is organised clearly
  • Your arguments are prepared carefully
  • You understand what you are doing and why

That is what good support looks like.

It is not about removing your role.

It is about strengthening it.

—

Final Thoughts

The distinction between a McKenzie Friend and someone running a case has always existed.

What Mazur has done is make it impossible to ignore.

Support is allowed. Conduct is restricted. Control must remain with the litigant.

Once that is understood and properly structured, the position becomes clear—and your case becomes stronger for it.

—

Need Structured Support Without Risk?

If you want support that strengthens your case while keeping you fully in control and compliant, you can book an initial consultation below.

—

Regulatory & Editorial Notice: JSH Law Ltd is not a firm of solicitors and does not provide regulated legal services. This article is for general information and commentary only and does not constitute legal advice. Any references to legal cases or third-party practices are provided for public interest analysis and educational purposes.

Mazur Explained: The Case That Changes Who Can Run Your Court Case | JSH Law

/0 Comments/in , /by

The High Court has just drawn a firm line around who is actually allowed to run a court case—and it’s a line many people have been crossing without realising. In Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), the court made it clear that only authorised or exempt individuals can conduct litigation, and that supervision is not enough. For litigants in person, this is not just a technical legal point—it goes directly to how your case is handled, how it is perceived by the court, and whether your position is open to challenge.

Mazur Explained: The Case That Changes Who Can Run Your Court Case | JSH Law High Court legal proceedings and litigation documents
Key Takeaways for Litigants in Person
  • Only authorised or exempt individuals can legally conduct litigation.
  • Even well-meaning support can cross the line if someone starts running your case.
  • You must remain in control of your case at all times.
  • Getting this wrong can expose your case to challenge or criticism.
  • Structured, compliant support can strengthen your position significantly.

Mazur Explained: The Case That Changes Who Can Run Your Court Case

There has been a significant shift in how the courts are approaching who is actually allowed to run a case.

The High Court decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) has clarified something that, until now, many people in the legal world had quietly blurred:

Only certain people are legally allowed to conduct litigation — and supervision is not enough.

For litigants in person, this matters more than you might realise.

—

What Happened in Mazur?

The case arose from a situation where work on a legal matter had been carried out by someone who was not an authorised solicitor or exempt person, but who was working within a legal environment.

The argument was that because this individual was supervised, their actions were acceptable.

The High Court disagreed.

The judgment made it clear that:

  • “Conduct of litigation” is a reserved legal activity under the Legal Services Act 2007
  • Only authorised or exempt individuals can carry it out
  • Supervision by a solicitor does not make an unauthorised person compliant

This was not a new rule — but it is now being applied much more strictly.

—

What Does “Conduct of Litigation” Actually Mean?

This is the critical question.

It does not just mean standing up in court. It includes:

  • Making decisions about how the case is run
  • Sending correspondence on behalf of a party
  • Filing documents
  • Taking responsibility for procedural steps

In simple terms:

If someone else is effectively running your case — they may be conducting litigation.

—

Why This Matters for Litigants in Person

Many litigants in person rely on support. That support can be incredibly valuable — and in many cases, essential.

But there is now a much sharper line between:

  • Support (which is allowed), and
  • Conduct (which is restricted)

If that line is crossed, it can lead to:

  • Challenges from the other side
  • Increased scrutiny from the court
  • Questions about how the case has been handled

This is not about creating fear — it is about understanding how to stay on solid ground.

—

The Difference Between Support and Running the Case

A properly structured support model looks like this:

  • You make the decisions
  • You send the emails
  • You sign and file the documents
  • You speak for yourself in court

Support can include:

  • Drafting documents for you
  • Helping you prepare your case
  • Advising you on strategy
  • Assisting you in court as a McKenzie Friend

The key distinction is control.

You must remain in control of your case at all times.

—

What This Means in Practice

If you are receiving support, you should always be able to say:

  • “I reviewed and approved this document”
  • “I chose to send this”
  • “These are my instructions”

That clarity protects you.

It also strengthens your credibility in court.

—

A Shift in the Legal Landscape

This decision reflects a wider shift.

The courts are becoming more alert to:

  • Who is actually running a case
  • Whether the proper boundaries are being respected
  • How unregulated support is being used

At the same time, the reality remains:

Access to justice increasingly depends on litigants in person having the right support.

The answer is not less support.

It is better-structured support.

—

Final Thoughts

Mazur does not remove your ability to get help.

What it does is make one thing very clear:

There is a right way to do this — and a wrong way.

If your case is structured properly, support can be a powerful advantage.

If it is not, it can become a vulnerability.

Understanding that distinction is now essential.

—

Need Support With Your Case?

If you are navigating proceedings as a litigant in person and want structured, strategic support that keeps your case clear, compliant and strong, you can book an initial consultation below.

—

Regulatory & Editorial Notice: JSH Law Ltd is not a firm of solicitors and does not provide regulated legal services. This article is for general information and commentary only and does not constitute legal advice. Any references to legal cases or third-party practices are provided for public interest analysis and educational purposes.

Remote Hearings in Family Court (UK): What to Expect and How to Prepare

/0 Comments/in , /by

Remote hearings have become a permanent feature of the Family Court in England and Wales, not merely a temporary fix from the pandemic. Cases are now routinely listed by telephone or video link using secure platforms such as the Cloud Video Platform (CVP) or newer services introduced by HMCTS, and decisions about the mode of hearing are made by the judge based on fairness and access to justice. Remote hearings follow many of the same rules as in-person hearings, but require additional preparation, technology readiness and courtroom etiquette. Understanding how they work and how to prepare is essential for litigants in person.

Remote Hearings in Family Court (UK): What to Expect and How to Prepare

Key Takeaways for Litigants in Person

  • Remote hearings are now a permanent feature of Family Court in England and Wales.
  • They follow the same legal rules as in-person hearings — but require additional technical preparation.
  • You must treat a remote hearing with the same formality and respect as attending court physically.
  • Preparation includes technology checks, privacy safeguards, document readiness and clear communication structure.
  • Poor technical preparation can undermine credibility — evidence readiness still matters.
  • Structure, calm presentation and procedural awareness remain critical in a remote setting.

Introduction: Remote Hearings Are Here to Stay

Remote hearings were accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic — but they are no longer a temporary measure. The Family Court now routinely lists hearings by telephone or video link where appropriate. Judges determine the mode of hearing based on fairness, practicality and the interests of justice.

For litigants in person, remote hearings can feel both convenient and disorientating. You may be attending from your home, yet participating in a formal judicial process. The setting may feel informal — but the legal consequences are not.

This guide explains how remote hearings work in Family Court, what technology is used, what is expected of you, and how to prepare strategically and professionally.

Official Overview: What Remote Hearings Look Like

The following official-style video provides a helpful overview of how remote court hearings operate in practice:

This video gives visual context for how remote hearings function and what to expect when joining by video.

What Platform Is Used?

Most Family Court remote hearings use:

  • Cloud Video Platform (CVP)
  • Microsoft Teams (in some courts)
  • Telephone conferencing systems

The joining link is usually sent by email in advance. It is your responsibility to check it works.

Guidance from HMCTS is available here:

What to Expect When Joining a Telephone or Video Hearing (GOV.UK)

Are Remote Hearings Legally Different?

No.

The same legal framework applies:

  • Family Procedure Rules 2010
  • Practice Directions (including PD12J and PD27A where relevant)
  • The Children Act 1989 welfare principle (in children cases)

The judge’s powers and expectations remain unchanged.

The only difference is the format of attendance.

When Are Remote Hearings Typically Used?

  • Case Management Hearings
  • Directions Hearings
  • FHDRA hearings
  • Short interim applications
  • Procedural reviews

Fact-finding hearings and final hearings may sometimes still take place remotely, but judges consider complexity, evidence type, and fairness.

Advantages of Remote Hearings

  • No travel costs
  • Reduced time off work
  • Increased listing flexibility
  • Potentially less intimidating environment

Risks of Remote Hearings

  • Technical failures
  • Connectivity interruptions
  • Reduced ability to read courtroom dynamics
  • Distractions in home environments
  • Risk of informal tone creeping in

Preparation neutralises these risks.

Technical Preparation Checklist

Before the Hearing:

  • Test your internet connection.
  • Use a laptop where possible (not just a phone).
  • Charge devices fully.
  • Have a backup device ready.
  • Ensure camera and microphone function.
  • Download required apps in advance.
  • Join the hearing 10–15 minutes early.

Environment Preparation:

  • Quiet room.
  • Neutral background.
  • No interruptions.
  • Phones on silent.
  • Children supervised elsewhere.

Remote Hearing Etiquette

Even though you are at home, you are in court.

  • Dress professionally.
  • Address the judge appropriately (Sir/Madam/Your Honour as applicable).
  • Mute when not speaking.
  • Do not interrupt.
  • Do not record the hearing without permission.

Recording without permission may amount to contempt.

Document Readiness in a Remote Setting

Remote hearings require heightened document awareness.

  • Have the bundle open on screen or printed.
  • Know page numbers in advance.
  • Use bookmarks in PDFs where possible.
  • Prepare a short position statement.
  • Prepare a list of key page references.

In remote hearings, clarity replaces physical presence.

Communication Strategy

When speaking remotely:

  • Speak slowly.
  • Pause before responding.
  • Use page references clearly (“Bundle page 124, paragraph 6”).
  • Avoid talking over others.
  • Keep submissions structured.

Remote platforms amplify confusion. Structure prevents it.

Safeguarding and Privacy

Remote hearings remain confidential.

  • No one else should be in the room unless permitted.
  • No recording or streaming.
  • Ensure no background conversations.

Family proceedings are private.

If Technology Fails

  • Rejoin immediately.
  • Email the court promptly.
  • Have a backup phone number ready.

Judges understand occasional technical issues — but preparation reduces disruption.

Remote Hearings and Credibility

Judges assess credibility even remotely.

  • Eye contact with the camera.
  • Composed tone.
  • Professional setting.
  • Structured responses.

Remote does not mean relaxed standards.

Working With a McKenzie Friend in a Remote Hearing

If supported:

  • Clarify how you will communicate privately (e.g., WhatsApp messages during hearing).
  • Agree speaking boundaries.
  • Ensure the court knows they are present.

Remote coordination requires planning.

After the Hearing

  • Write down key points immediately.
  • Review the order carefully once received.
  • Calendar deadlines.
  • Prepare next steps promptly.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

  • Joining late.
  • Unstable internet.
  • Interrupting.
  • Appearing casual.
  • Being unprepared with documents.
  • Emotional over-speaking.

Remote hearings reward disciplined preparation.

Is a Remote Hearing Fair?

The court must ensure fairness. If you believe remote format prejudices your ability to present your case (e.g., complex evidence or vulnerability concerns), you may raise this with the court in advance.

The judge decides.

Why Remote Hearing Competence Matters

Remote hearings compress time. Judges expect focused submissions.

Disorganisation becomes more visible in digital format.

Technical fluency is now part of courtroom competence.

How JSH Law Supports Remote Hearing Preparation

  • Pre-hearing checklist review.
  • Technology readiness planning.
  • Structured speaking notes.
  • Bundle navigation strategy.
  • Safeguarding awareness integration.

Preparation reduces anxiety.

Book a 15-Minute Consultation

Useful Links

Regulatory & Editorial Notice

This article is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Each case depends on its own facts and procedural context.

JSH Law provides litigation support services to litigants in person. JSH Law is not a firm of solicitors and does not undertake reserved legal activities.

Freelance family court support offered remotely on an hourly basis for solicitors, barristers, law firms and litigants in person.

Freelance Family Court Support | Remote | Hourly

/0 Comments/in , /by

Over the past few months, a number of solicitors, barristers, and litigants in person have approached me informally for practical family court support — particularly where cases are complex, safeguarding-heavy, or procedurally messy.

I am now making this explicit.

I offer freelance, remote family-court support on an hourly basis, working in a McKenzie / paralegal / litigation-support capacity, including:

• Procedural guidance in private law children matters
• Case chronology building and issue-mapping
• Review and structuring of evidence and bundles
• Support around Cafcass, Section 7 reports, and safeguarding concerns
• Drafting assistance (statements, schedules, position notes, chronologies)
• Strategic preparation for hearings and appeals
• Support for litigants in person navigating court processes
• Overflow or ad-hoc support for solicitors and counsel

This is not advocacy and not legal advice where prohibited — it is experienced, hands-on court navigation and case support, delivered calmly, precisely, and with a strong procedural focus.

I work:
• Remotely
• Flexibly
• Confidentially
• On an hourly rate

I am currently building my website and publishing daily practical guidance and case-based commentary here:
👉 https://jshlaw.co.uk/

If you are:
• A solicitor or barrister needing reliable freelance support
• A law firm managing capacity pressure
• A litigant in person facing a complex family-court process

You are welcome to DM me directly for a brief, no-pressure conversation.

Clarity matters in family court. I help people get there.

Book a 15-Minute Consultation

If you are unsure whether your evidence supports your case effectively, book a short consultation to review your position.

Internal Links

Hoping these are useful for my reader:

  1. Family Court Procedure (Guidance Hub)
    https://jshlaw.co.uk/category/family-court-procedure-uk/
  2. Litigants in Person – Family Court Guidance
    https://jshlaw.co.uk/category/start-here/litigants-in-person-family-court-guidance/
  3. Cafcass & Reports (Section 7, safeguarding, analysis)
    https://jshlaw.co.uk/category/cafcass-reports-cluster/

External Links

These are also quite useful so i thought i’d post them here for you:

  1. Cafcass – understanding reports and safeguarding roles
    https://www.cafcass.gov.uk/
  2. Family Procedure Rules – procedural framework governing family proceedings
    https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/family
  3. HM Courts & Tribunals Service – court processes and listings
    https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-courts-and-tribunals-service

Regulatory & Editorial Notice

Regulatory & Editorial Notice

JSH Law provides procedural support, litigation support, and McKenzie Friend assistance.
Nothing on this website constitutes legal advice, legal representation, or advocacy where prohibited by law.

Content is provided for general informational and educational purposes only and should not be relied upon as a substitute for independent legal advice from a qualified solicitor or barrister regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) or the Bar Standards Board (BSB).

Where references are made to third-party organisations, public bodies, legislation, guidance, or reported cases, these are included for context and public-interest commentary only. JSH Law is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or responsible for the content or actions of any external organisation.

Each case turns on its own facts. If you require legal advice, you should seek assistance from a suitably qualified legal professional.

A mother and father in a family court setting, supported by a McKenzie Friend, with a judge in the background during a private law children case.JSH LAW LTD

McKenzie Friend Support in Private Law Children Cases

/0 Comments/in , /by

What parents are not told — and how procedural support can change the course of a case

When parents enter private law proceedings alone

Private law children cases are among the most emotionally charged proceedings in the family court. Parents come to court not as abstract legal actors, but as mothers and fathers fighting to remain present in their children’s lives.

Since the reduction of legal aid, increasing numbers of parents navigate these proceedings without representation. They do so while facing allegations, safeguarding concerns, and complex procedural expectations — often against a represented party.

In this context, McKenzie Friend support has become both more visible and more misunderstood.

This article explains what McKenzie Friend support properly is, how it operates in private law children cases, where it adds real value, and why it can be a crucial stabilising force for litigants in person.

What is a private law children case?

Private law children cases concern disputes between individuals — usually parents — about arrangements for a child. They commonly involve applications relating to:

  • child arrangements (where a child lives and spends time)
  • parental responsibility
  • specific issues (education, medical treatment, travel)
  • prohibited steps orders
  • enforcement or variation of existing orders

Unlike public law cases, the state is not seeking intervention. However, safeguarding agencies such as Cafcass and local authorities may become involved if concerns are raised.

For litigants in person, this distinction is often poorly understood — yet procedurally critical.

Why private law cases are particularly difficult for litigants in person

Parents in private law proceedings face a unique combination of pressures:

  • high emotional stakes
  • ongoing relationships with the other party
  • allegations that may be disputed but deeply damaging
  • unfamiliar procedural frameworks
  • limited opportunity to correct early errors

Unlike criminal or civil litigation, family court hearings are less structured in appearance — but no less demanding in substance. Judges still expect clarity, relevance, proportionality, and procedural compliance.

Parents often enter court believing that “telling their story” is enough. It rarely is.

What a McKenzie Friend is — and is not

A McKenzie Friend is not a solicitor, barrister, or advocate as of right. Their role is non-reserved and supportive.

Properly understood, a McKenzie Friend may assist a litigant in person by:

  • providing moral support
  • helping with paperwork and organisation
  • taking notes during hearings
  • quietly prompting issues or questions
  • assisting with understanding court procedure

They do not have an automatic right to speak on a client’s behalf, conduct litigation, or give legal advice. Any further involvement is subject to the court’s permission.

This distinction matters — both ethically and practically.

Why McKenzie Friend support is often misunderstood

There remains a perception that McKenzie Friends are either unnecessary or disruptive. This perception usually arises from poor experiences, not from the concept itself.

When support is unstructured, adversarial, or oversteps boundaries, it can hinder rather than help. However, where support is disciplined, procedural, and court-respectful, it often improves hearings for everyone involved.

Judges are not opposed to assistance. They are opposed to disorder.

The real value of McKenzie Friend support in private law cases

The most effective support is quiet, focused, and strategic.

1. Helping parents stay on point

Many litigants lose focus under pressure. A McKenzie Friend can help ensure that key issues are not forgotten or drowned out by emotion.

2. Supporting document preparation

Private law cases live or die on written material. Poorly structured statements can undermine otherwise strong positions.

3. Evidence organisation

Chronologies, bundles, and supporting documents must be intelligible to the court. Disorganisation often leads to evidence being overlooked.

4. Managing courtroom pressure

Simply having a calm presence beside them allows many parents to remain composed and articulate.

5. Identifying procedural irregularities

Litigants in person frequently fail to spot procedural unfairness at the time it occurs. Support helps ensure such matters are noted and addressed appropriately.

Allegations and safeguarding: where support is most critical

Private law cases often involve allegations of domestic abuse, coercive control, or safeguarding risk. These allegations may be contested, historic, exaggerated, or misunderstood.

For litigants in person, responding effectively is extremely difficult. Emotional rebuttals can entrench concerns rather than dispel them.

Support in this context focuses on:

  • understanding the purpose of safeguarding frameworks
  • responding proportionately and evidentially
  • avoiding language that escalates risk perceptions
  • ensuring procedural fairness is preserved

This is not about minimising concerns. It is about ensuring they are handled correctly.

The importance of early support

By the time many parents seek assistance, damage has already been done:

  • unfocused initial statements
  • missed opportunities to challenge directions
  • narratives established without rebuttal
  • inappropriate concessions made under pressure

Early support does not guarantee outcomes, but it often prevents avoidable harm. It allows parents to enter proceedings with a clearer understanding of what lies ahead and how to engage productively.

Respecting the court’s discretion

A fundamental principle of effective McKenzie Friend support is respect for the court.

Permission is requested, not assumed. Boundaries are observed. The judge’s authority is acknowledged at all times.

Where further assistance is sought — such as addressing the court — this is done transparently and appropriately. There is no entitlement. There is only discretion.

This approach builds credibility rather than resistance.

When McKenzie Friend support may not be appropriate

Support is not suitable in every case. Situations where it may be limited include:

  • where the litigant seeks legal advice beyond scope
  • where conduct becomes adversarial or obstructive
  • where the court determines assistance would not be helpful

Ethical support includes knowing when to step back.

How I support parents in private law children cases

My work with litigants in person is grounded in procedure, preparation, and proportionality.

I support parents by:

  • helping them understand what the court is asking for
  • assisting with the structure and clarity of written material
  • supporting evidence organisation and case chronology
  • preparing parents for hearings so they feel steady and informed
  • attending court as a McKenzie Friend where appropriate and permitted

I do not promise outcomes. I do not inflame disputes. I do not replace legal representation.

I support parents to engage with the process in a way that protects their credibility and their children’s interests.

A message to parents navigating private law proceedings

If you are representing yourself in a private law children case, struggling does not mean you are failing. It means you are dealing with one of the most demanding processes in the legal system without training or support.

Seeking assistance is not an admission of weakness. It is a practical decision.

If you recognise the challenges described in this article, it may be time to ask whether structured support could help you navigate the process more effectively.

Contact Me

If you are a parent involved in a private law children case and representing yourself, support may help you approach the process with greater clarity and confidence.

I offer calm, procedural McKenzie Friend support for litigants in person, subject to the court’s discretion.

You are welcome to get in touch to discuss whether support would be appropriate in your circumstances.

    Regulatory & Editorial Notice
    This article is published for general information purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. McKenzie Friend services are non-reserved and subject to the discretion of the court. Every family case turns on its own facts and procedural context. Where legal advice is required, readers should seek assistance from a suitably qualified legal professional.

    A McKenzie Friend supporting a litigant in person during a family court hearing by reviewing documents together.jsh law ltd

    Support for Litigants in Person in the Family Court – What the system expects — and where parents are most often let down.

    /0 Comments/in , /by

    Why so many parents now represent themselves

    Across England and Wales, an increasing number of parents find themselves navigating the family courts without legal representation. For many, this is not a choice but a necessity. Legal aid is limited. Private representation is prohibitively expensive. And yet the stakes could not be higher: children, relationships, reputations, homes, and long-term stability all hang in the balance.

    Litigants in person are routinely told that the family court is “designed to be accessible.” In practice, however, the system remains deeply procedural, expectation-heavy, and unforgiving of error. Parents are expected to understand forms, directions, evidential standards, and courtroom etiquette — often while under extreme emotional strain.

    Support for litigants in person is therefore not a luxury. It is an essential safeguard against avoidable harm.

    This article explains where parents most often struggle, what the court is actually looking for, and how structured, ethical support can make a material difference to outcomes.

    The reality of being a litigant in person

    A litigant in person is expected to do everything a represented party would do, but without training, without guidance, and without a professional buffer between themselves and the process.

    In practical terms, this means parents must:

    • understand which application is appropriate (C100, C79, C2, etc.)
    • comply precisely with court directions and deadlines
    • prepare written statements that are relevant, proportionate, and compliant
    • organise evidence into coherent bundles
    • address the court calmly and appropriately
    • respond to allegations without inflaming matters
    • identify procedural unfairness without appearing obstructive

    None of this is intuitive. Most people arrive at court distressed, exhausted, and unfamiliar with adversarial processes. The result is predictable: good parents make damaging mistakes, not because their case lacks merit, but because they do not know how to present it.

    Common difficulties litigants in person face

    Through repeated exposure to real cases, certain patterns appear again and again.

    1. Over-disclosure and narrative dumping

    Parents often believe that telling the court everything will help. In fact, lengthy emotional narratives can obscure the issues the court needs to determine and undermine credibility.

    2. Misunderstanding relevance

    Not all unfairness is legally relevant. Many litigants struggle to distinguish between injustice they have experienced and matters the court can properly adjudicate.

    3. Procedural missteps

    Missing deadlines, filing the wrong documents, or responding informally to serious allegations can all have lasting consequences.

    4. Difficulty responding to allegations

    False or exaggerated allegations require careful, disciplined handling. Emotional rebuttals often worsen matters.

    5. Intimidation in court

    Many litigants freeze when addressing a judge, forget key points, or are derailed by interruptions.

    None of these issues reflect parenting ability. They reflect a lack of procedural support.

    What the family court is actually looking for

    Contrary to popular belief, judges are not looking for the most emotional account or the most detailed history. They are looking for clarity.

    Specifically, the court is concerned with:

    • what decisions it must make
    • what evidence is relevant to those decisions
    • whether procedure has been followed
    • whether safeguarding concerns are properly addressed
    • whether parties can support workable arrangements for children

    When litigants understand this, their cases become more focused, calmer, and more persuasive.

    Support at this level is about helping parents translate lived experience into court-appropriate material — not rewriting history or inflating claims.

    The danger of “figuring it out as you go”

    Many litigants in person assume they can correct mistakes later. In reality, early errors often set the tone for the entire case.

    Examples include:

    • poorly drafted initial applications
    • unfocused first statements
    • failure to challenge procedural irregularities early
    • allowing inaccurate narratives to take hold unopposed

    Once a case direction has been set, reversing course becomes difficult. This is why early, structured support matters — even for parents who intend to remain self-represented.

    What support for litigants in person properly looks like

    Ethical support does not involve giving legal advice where it cannot be given, nor does it involve speaking for the client as of right. Instead, it focuses on:

    • explaining process and expectations
    • helping parents prepare documents that are clear and compliant
    • identifying procedural issues that may need to be raised
    • assisting with evidence organisation and chronology
    • supporting preparation for hearings and submissions
    • providing calm, grounded presence in court where permitted

    This kind of support empowers parents to present their own cases effectively, rather than feeling overwhelmed or silenced.

    The role of a McKenzie Friend and procedural support

    A McKenzie Friend can assist a litigant in person by providing practical, emotional, and procedural support. This may include:

    • helping to structure written material
    • taking notes during hearings
    • quietly prompting key points
    • assisting with case organisation
    • helping parents remain focused and composed

    Where permitted by the court, further support may be requested, but nothing is assumed. Respect for the court and its discretion is fundamental.

    Why unsupported litigants are at a disadvantage

    Although judges strive to ensure fairness, the system itself remains complex. A represented party benefits from:

    • procedural fluency
    • experience of evidential thresholds
    • familiarity with court culture
    • emotional distance from the dispute

    A litigant in person has none of these by default. Support helps narrow that gap — not by creating an unfair advantage, but by reducing avoidable disadvantage.

    When support can make the greatest difference

    Support is particularly valuable at key stages, including:

    • before issuing an application
    • when responding to serious allegations
    • prior to fact-finding hearings
    • when preparing for enforcement or variation
    • where procedural irregularities arise
    • when a parent feels unable to speak effectively in court

    Waiting until matters escalate is rarely beneficial. Early clarity prevents later damage.

    How I support litigants in person

    My work focuses on supporting parents who are navigating the family courts without representation and who want to engage properly, calmly, and effectively with the process.

    I assist with:

    • understanding what the court is asking for
    • preparing focused, proportionate documents
    • organising evidence in a way the court can engage with
    • identifying procedural issues that may require attention
    • preparing for hearings so parents feel steady and informed

    I do not promise outcomes. I do not inflame disputes. I do not replace legal representation. I support parents to present their own cases with clarity, dignity, and procedural fairness.

    A final word to parents reading this

    If you are a litigant in person, struggling does not mean you are failing. It means you are operating within a system that was not designed with unrepresented parents in mind.

    Seeking support is not a weakness. It is a practical step towards protecting yourself and your children from avoidable harm.

    If you recognise yourself in this article, it may be the right time to ask for help.

    Contact Me

    If you are representing yourself in the family court and feel overwhelmed, uncertain, or unheard, you do not have to navigate this alone.

    I offer calm, structured support for litigants in person at all stages of family proceedings.

    You are welcome to get in touch to discuss whether support would be appropriate in your situation.

      Regulatory & Editorial Notice
      This article is published for general information purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Every family case turns on its own facts and procedural context. Support services described are non-reserved and subject to the court’s discretion. Where legal advice is required, readers should seek assistance from a suitably qualified legal professional.